EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER- MEMBER EXCHANGE LMX QUALITY AND EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE IN THE MODERATING CONTEXT OF PERCEIVED ROLE AMBIGUITY

Yıl 2014, , 211 - 233, 01.05.2014

Seçil Bal Taştan

https://doi.org/10.11122/ijmeb.2013.9.19.459

Öz

This study aims to examine the relationship between perceived Leader-Member Exchange LMX quality and job performance with the moderating role of perceived role ambiguity of food&drink service sector employees working in service organizations in Istanbul-Turkey. Within the framework of this study, the suggestions are derived from LMX Theory, Attribution Theory and Performance Behavior Approach while examining the proposed relationships among the research constructs. The findings revealed that LMX quality and its dimensions had positive significant correlations with job performance. Moreover, the research results showed that perceived role ambiguity had a significant moderating role on the relationship between LMX and job perception

Anahtar Kelimeler

Leader-Member Exchange LMX, Job Performance, Role Ambiguity

LİDER-ÜYE ETKİLEŞİMİ KALİTESİ İLE ÇALIŞANLARIN İŞ PERFORMANSI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN ALGILANAN ROL BELİRSİZLİĞİNİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİ ROLÜ İLE BİRLİKTE İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, İstanbul’da yiyecek&içecek sektöründeki hizmet işletmelerinde çalışanların Lider-Üye Etkileşim Kalitesi LÜE algılamaları ile iş performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi ve bu ilişkide algılanan rol belirsizliğinin düzenleyici değişken rolünü incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın çerçevesinde yer alan değişkenler arasındaki ilişkilere dair beklenti ve varsayımlar LÜE Teorisine, Atfetme Teorisine ve Performans Davranışı Yaklaşımına dayanmaktadır. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgular, LÜE’nin ve alt boyutlarının çalışanların iş performansı ile anlamlı ve pozitif yönde ilişkili olduğunu ve algılanan rol belirsizliğinin de bu ilişkide anlamlı bir düzenleyici değişken rolüne sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Lider-Üye Etkileşim Kalitesi LÜE, İş Performansı, Rol Belirsizliği

Kaynakça

• Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1141-1158.
• Akdoğan, A., Cingöz, A., & Mirap, S. O. (2009). Lider-üye etkileşiminin/değişiminin yenilikçi iş performansı, görev performansı ve bağlamsal performans üzerindeki etkisinin belirlenmesi. 17. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Mayıs, 379-386.
• Allen, T. D., Facteau, J. D., & Facteau, C. L. (2004). Structured interviewing for OCB: Construct validity, faking, and the effects of question type. Human Performance, 17(1), 1-24.
• Aslan Ş., & Özata, M. (2009). Lider-üye etkileşiminin (LMX) yöneticiye duyulan güven düzeyine etkisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (9), 95–118.
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
• Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1568.
• Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1981). A path-analytic study of the consequences of role conflict and ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 417–424.
• Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower- quality leader-member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 20, 276–286.
• Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational relationship: An integration of trust and LMX. Leadership Quarterly,11 (1), 227-250.
• Burns, J. Z., & Otte, F. L. (1999). Implications of leader-member exchange theory and research for human resource development research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(3), 225-248.
• Carolina, G., & Benson, R. (2001). The LMX as a link between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group and Organization Management, 26 (1), 53-70.
• Cevrioğlu, E. (2007). Lider-üye etkileşimi ile bireysel ve örgütsel sonuçlar arasındaki ilişki: Ampirik bir inceleme. (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). Afyonkarahisar Kocatepe University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of Business Administration, Afyon.
• Arslantaş, C. C. (2007). Lider-üye etkileşiminin yöneticiye duyulan güven üzerindeki etkisinin belirlemeye yönelik görgül bir çalışma. Tisk Akademi, 1, 161-173.
• Dansereau, J. F., Graen, G., & Haga,W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13 (1), 46-78.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
• Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19, 67–86.
• Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). LMX model of leadership: A critique and further development. In Schriesheim, C. A, Castro,S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (Ed.), Leadership Quarterly, 10 (1), 63-114.
• Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 395–413.
• Duchon, D., Green,S. G., & Taber,T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 56- 60.
• Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leadermember exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, 59–76.
• Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M. U., & Duchon, D. (2002). LMX and subordinate performance: the moderating effect of task characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 44-68.
• Garmon, J. O. (1996). Dissertation abstarcts international section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 56(A), 3207-3228.
• Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta analytic review of LMX theory: correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (6), 827-844.
• Graen, G. (1976). Role making process within complex organizations. Cited in Schriesheim, C. A, Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (Ed.), Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-114.
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219-247.
• Gürpınar, G. (2006). Örgütsel adalet, örgütsel bağlılık, lider-üye mübadele ilişkisi ve ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişkiler üzerine ampirik bir çalışma. (Unpublished Master Dissertation). Yeditepe University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of Business Administration, İstanbul.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley, New York.
• Hewstone, M. (1983). Attribution theory and common-sense explanations: An introductory overview. In Hewstone, M. (Ed.), Attribution theory: Social and functional extensions (pp. 1-26), Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
• Janssen, O., & Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader- member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384.
• Jensen, J. L., Olberding, J. C., & Rodgers, R. (1997). Closeness of supervision, leader-member exchange (LMX) and subordinate performance: A meta-analytic test of theory. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Conference, Boston, MA.
• Jing-Zhou, P., Xiao-Xue, Z., & Xia-Qing, Z. (2010) The role of leadership between the employees and the organization: a bridge or a ravine?: An empirical study from China. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 1-14.
• Jones, G. R. (2007). Organizational theory, design, and change. Fifth Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
• Judeh, M. (2011). Role ambiguity and role conflict as mediators of the relationship between orientation and organizational commitment. International Business Research, 4(3), 171- 181.
• Kang, D., & Stewart, J. (2007). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and HRD development of units of theory and laws of interaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(6), 531-551.
• Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-133.
• Katz, L. A., Fisher. J., & Notrica, V. (2007). Gender and the quality of the leader-member exchange: Findings from a South-African Organization. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 316–329.
• Ko, J. (2005). Impact of leadership and team members’ individualism-collectivism on team processes and outcomes: A leader-member exchange perspective. (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). Faculty of Business Administration, Department of Management, University of Arizona, U.S.A.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected ıssue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (4), 546-553.
• Kuşçuluoğlu, S. (2008) The roles of organizational justice, trustworthiness, trust and propensity of trust in the relationship of lmx with OCB and job satisfaction. (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). Marmara University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of Organizational Behaviour, İstanbul.
• Lee, J. (2001). Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and cooperative communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 574−589.
• Lee, J. (2007). Effect of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 670-687.
• Liden, R. C., Sparrow, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47-119.
• Liden, R.C. & Graen, G.(1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.
• Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multi- dimentionality of LMX: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
• Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.
• Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.
• Liden,R.C. & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multi- dimentionality of LMX: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
• Luthans, F. (2008). Organizational behaviour. 11th Edition, McGraw Hill, U.S.A.
• Major, D., Kozlowski, S., Chao, G., & Gardner, P. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.
• Mallalieu, L. (2005). Consumer perception of salesperson influence strategies: An examination of the influence of consumer goals. In Geeta Menon and Akshay R. Rao (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (32, pp.522-523). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
• Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl Bien, M. (2001). LMX and its dimensions: Effects of self effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 697-708.
• Morling, B., & Epstein, S. (1997). Compromises produced by the dialectic between selfverification and self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1268-1283.
• Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employees’ perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543-1567.
• Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475- 480.
• Nicbin, D., Ismail, I., Marimuthu, M., & Abu-Jarad, I. Y. (2011). The impact of firm reputation on customers‘ responses to service failure: The role of failure attributions. Emerald Group Publishing Limited Business Strategy Series, 12(1), 19-29.
• Onyemah, V. (2008). Role ambiguity, role conflict, and performance: Empirical evidence of an inverted-u relationship. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28 (3), 299–313.
• Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
• Özutku, H., Ağca, V., & Cevrioğlu, E. (2008). Lider-üye etkileşimi teorisi çerçevesinde, yönetici-ast etkileşimi ile örgütsel bağlılık boyutları ve iş performansı arasındaki ilişki: Ampirik bir inceleme. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), 193-210.
• Piccola, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of job characteheristics. Academy of Management Journal. 49 (2), 327- 340.
• Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
• Rosse, J. G., & Kraut, A. I. (1983). Reconsidering the vertical dyadic linkage model of leadership. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 63–71.
• Şahin, F. (2011). Lider-üye etkileşimi ile işten ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişki üzerinde cinsiyetin etkisi. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(2), 277-288.
• Schuler, R. S., Aldag, R. J., & Brief, A. P. (1977). Role conflict and ambiguity: A scale analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 111-128.
• Sekiguchi, T., Burton, J., & Sablynsky, C. J. (2008). The role of job embeddedness on employee performance, the interactive affects with leader-member exchange and organization- based self esteem. Personnel Psychology Journal, 61, 761-792.
• Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, LMX, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (3), 219-227.
• Slatterya, J. P., Selvarajanb T., & Andersonc, J. E. (2008). The ınfluences of new employee development practices upon role stressors and work-related attitudes of temporary employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19 (12), 2268– 2293.
• Smitt, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the −hot cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 916-929.
• Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
• Stringer, L. (2006) The link between the quality of the supervisor-employee relationship and the level of the employee’s job satisfaction. Public Organizational Review, 6, 125-142.
• Taştan, S.B. (2011). The mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between participative organizational climate, self-efficacy and individual performance behaviors. (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). Marmara University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of Organizational Behaviour, İstanbul.
• Tierney, P., Bauer, T. N., & Potter, R. (2002). Extra-role behavior among Mexican employees: The impact of LMX, group acceptance and job attitudes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10 (4), 292-303.
• Van Dyne, D., & Le Pine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
• Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean-Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (17, pp. 215-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Vecchio, R., & Gobdel, B. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5–20.
• Vecchio, R., & Norris, W. (1996). Predicting employee turnover from performance, satisfaction, and leader-member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 113–125.
• Vecchio, R. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group variation and within-group variation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 200–208.
• Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). LMX as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’s performance and OCB. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
• Wayne, S, J., & Green, S. A.(1993). The effects of LMX on employee OCB and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431-1440.
• Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-105.
• Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and LMX. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 590-598.
• Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor- subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499.
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
• Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17 (3), 601-617.