The Moderator Role of Leader-Member Exchange Differentiation in Relationship of Leader-Member Exchange with Task and Contextual Performance

Öz

In business life, there are some relationships between both subordinates and managers. Thanks to the quality relationship exchange, subordinates and managers provide themselves some benefits. In addition, managers can develop different relationships with employees between groups. In this study, the moderated role of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation at the team level in the effect of LMX on task and contextual performance in call center teams is investigated. After the Ethics Committee report dated 09.06.2021 and numbered 2021/4 was received from Gümüşhane University, 228 call center employees and 40 call center teams were researched and survey questions were applied to the employees with the quota sampling method in order to test the relevant research hypotheses. As a result of the obtained data, it was concluded that leader-member exchange increased individual task and contextual performance. High-level differentiated leader-member exchange negatively affected the relationship between task and contextual performance, which is seen as a result of individual leader-member exchange. Consequently of the researchers examined, it has been seen that working performance in working life is affected by the leader-member interaction in different ways and situations. However, studies mostly focused on the performance of the individual. The original aspect of this study is the examination of differentiated leader-member interaction between teams.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Leader-Member Exchange
• Leader-Member Exchange Differentiation
• Job Performance
• Task Performance
• Contextual Performance

Lider-Üye Etkileşiminin Görev ve Bağlamsal Performans ile İlişkisinde Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Farklılaşmasının Düzenleyici Rolü

Öz

İş hayatında hem astlar hem de yöneticiler arasında birtakım ilişkiler söz konusu olmaktadır. Kaliteli ilişki değişimi sayesinde, ast ve üstler kendilerine bazı faydalar sağlamaktadırlar. Ayrıca yöneticiler, gruplar arası çalışanlara karşı da farklı ilişkiler geliştirebilmektedirler. Bu çalışmada, lider-üye etkileşiminin (LÜE) çağrı merkezi ekiplerinde görev ve bağlamsal performans üzerindeki etkisinde takım düzeyinde LÜE farklılaşmasının düzenleyici rolü incelenmiştir. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi’nden 09.06.2021 tarih ve 2021/4 sayılı Etik Kurul raporu alındıktan sonra ilgili araştırma hipotezlerini test etmek amacıyla, 228 çağrı merkezi çalışanı ve 40 çağrı merkezi takımı araştırılmış ve çalışanlara anket soruları kota örnekleme yöntemiyle uygulanmıştır. Ulaşılan veriler neticesinde lider-üye etkileşiminin, bireysel anlamda görev ve bağlamsal performansı arttırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Yüksek düzey farklılaştırılmış lider-üye etkileşimi ise, bireysel lider-üye etkileşiminin sonucu olarak görülen görev ve bağlamsal performans arasındaki ilişkiyi negatif etkilemiştir. İncelenen araştırmalar sonucunda çalışma hayatı içerisinde çalışma performansının lider-üye etkileşiminden farklı şekil ve durumlarda etkilendiği görülmüştür. Fakat yapılan çalışmalar çoğunlukla bireyin performansına odaklanmıştır. Bu çalışmanın özgün tarafı, takımlar arasındaki farklılaştırılmış lider-üye etkileşiminin incelenmesidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Lider-Üye Etkileşimi
• Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Farklılaşması
• İş Performansı
• Görev Performansı
• Bağlamsal Performans

Kaynakça

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage Publications.
2. Anton, J. (1996). Call venter management by the numbers. Santa Maria: Press on Regardless.
3. Bauer, T. N. & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of a leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal 39(6), 1538–1567. doi:10.2307/257068
4. Berdicchia, D. (2015). The relationship between LMX and performance: The mediating role of role breadth self efficacy and crafting challenging job demands. Electronic Journal of Management 1, 1-28.
5. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions 349–381.
6. Bliese, P. D. (2002). Multilevel random coefficient modeling in organizational research: Examples using SAS and S-PLUS. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass business & management series. Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis, 401–445.
7. Boies, K. & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader–member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246–257. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.004
8. Bolino, M. C. & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lowerquality leader–member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 276–286. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.001

9. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to ınclude elements of contextual performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations, 71-98.
10. Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (6), 238-241.
11. Breevaart K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. & van den Heuvel, M. (2015). Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7). doi:10.1108/jmp-03-2013-0088
12. Chan, S.C.H. & Mak, W. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance: the mediating role of leader–member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal Management, 29(2), 285–301. doi:10.1007/s10490-011-9275-3
13. Chiaburu D.S., Smith T.A., Wang, J. & Zimmerman, R.D. (2014). Relative ımportance of leader ınfluences for subordinates’ proactive behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and task performance a meta-analysis. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 70-86.
14. Chiniara, M. & Bentein, K. (2018). The servant leadership advantage: when perceiving low differentiation in leader-member relationship quality influences team cohesion, team task performance and service OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 333–345. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.002
15. Clarke, N. & Mahadi, N. (2016). Differences between follower and dyadic measures of lmx as mediators of emotional intelligence and employee performance, wellbeing, and turnover intention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1-12.
16. Dansereau F., Graen G. B. & Haga WJ. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: Alongitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. doi: 10.1016/0030- 5073(75)90005-7.
17. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1-19. doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7. De Ruyter, K. O., Wetzels, M., & Feinberg, R. (2001). Role stress in call centers: Its effects on employee performance and satisfaction. Journal of interactive Marketing, 15(2), 23-35. doi:10.1002/dir.1008
18. Detert, J. R. & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: ıs the door really open? The Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. doi:10.2307/20159894
19. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634. doi:10.5465/amr.1986.4306242
20. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280
21. Erdogan, B. & Bauer, T. N. (2010a). Differentıated leader-member exchanges: the moderating role of justice climate. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1–6. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2010.54492402
22. Erdogan, B. & Bauer, T. N. (2010b). Differentiated leader–member exchanges: the buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120. doi: 10.1037/a0020578
23. Furst, S. A. & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 453–462. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453
24. Gerstner, C. R. & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct ıssues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827−844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
25. Goodman, S. A. & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person–organization fit and contextual performance: do shared values matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 254–275. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1682
26. Graen, G. & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers, 143−165. Kent, OH: Kent State Press.
27. Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.
28. 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. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
29. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A. & Parker, S., K., (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behaviour in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. doi:10.2307/20159857
30. Gürbüz, S. & Ayhan, Ö. (2017). Lidere yakın olmanın dayanılmaz hafifliği: Lider-üye etkileşimi, görev performansı, tecrübe ve terfi edebilirlik arasındaki ilişkilerin testi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 32(80), 1–15
31. Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R. & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader–member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371–382.
32. Harris, T. B., Li, N. & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX’s influence on OCB and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 2, 314–328. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.001
33. Harrison, D. A. & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
34. Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C. & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517–534. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.003
35. Hooper D.T. & Martin R. (2008). Beyond personal leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.002
36. Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes ın covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
37. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D. & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269−277. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
38. Janssen, O. & van 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. doi:10.5465/20159587
39. Jawahar, I. M., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R. & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Self-efficacy and political skill as comparative predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study constructive replication. Human Performance, 21(2), 138–157. doi:10.1080/08959280801917685
40. Jawahar, I. M. & Ferris, G. R. (2011). A longitudinal ınvestigation of task and contextual performance ınfluences on promotability judgments. Human Performance, 24(3), 251–269. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.580806
41. Lai, J. Y. M., Chow, C. W. C. & Loi, R. (2016). The interactive effect of LMX and LMX differentiation on followers’ job burnout: Evidence from tourism industry in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–27. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1216875
42. Law, K. S., Wang, H. & Hui, C. (2009). Currencies of exchange and global LMX: How they affect employee task performance and extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(4), 625–646. doi:10.1007/s10490-009-9141-8
43. Le Blanc, P. M. & González-Romá, V. (2012). A team level investigation of the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 534–544. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.006
44. Lee, K. & Chae, Y. J. (2017). LMX differentiation, diversity, and group performance. Career Development International, 22(2), 106–123. doi:10.1108/cdi-11-2015-0154
45. Liao, H., Liu, D. & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1090–1109. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.54533207
46. Liden, R. C. & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment trough scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43−72.
47. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, 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.
48. Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J. & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723–746. DOI: 10.1002/job.409
49. Ma, L. & Qu, Q. (2010). Differentiation in leader–member exchange: A hierarchical linear modeling approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 733–744. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.004
50. Manata, B. (2019). The effects of LMX differentiation on team performance: Investigating the mediating properties of cohesion. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 154805181984279. doi:10.1177/1548051819842792
51. Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Thomas, G. & Topakas, A. (2010). A critical review of leader-member relationship (LMX) research: future prospects and directions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25: 61-91.
52. Martin, R., Thomas, G., Legood, A. & Russo, S. D. (2017). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168. doi:10.1002/job.2202
53. Mcdonald, D. & Smith, A. (1995). A proven connection. Compensation & Benefits Review, 27, 1: 59–64.
54. Naidoo, N. J., Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W. & Graen, G. B. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on team performance. J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:347–357. doi 10.1007/s10869-010-9193-2
55. Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J. & Brenner, S.-O. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 16–32. doi:10.1080/02678370801979430
56. Nishii, L. H. & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426. doi:10.1037/a0017190
57. Özdevecioğlu, M. & Kanıgür, S. (2009) Çalışanların ilişki ve görev yönelimli liderlik algılamalarının performansları üzerindeki etkileri. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 11(16), 53-82.
58. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P. & Lee, J. Y. (2003). The mismeasure of management) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 615-656.
59. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. & du Toit, M. (2004). Hlm 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. United State of America.
60. Scandura, T. A. & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428
61. Shusha, A. (2013). The mediating role of leader-member exchange in the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(8), 157-164.
62. Sui, Y., Wang, H., Kirkman, B. L. & Li, N. (2015). Understanding the curvilinear relationships between LMX differentiation and team coordination and performance. Personnel Psychology, 69(3), 559–597. doi:10.1111/peps.12115
63. Şahin, F. (2018). Lider-üye etkileşimi ile işten ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişki üzerinde cinsiyetin etkisi. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(2), 277 – 288.
64. Tekin, E. (2018). Lider-üye etkileşiminin çalışan performansı üzerindeki etkisinde örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışının aracı rolü. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), 343-363.
65. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader–member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 137–185.
66. Ünlü, O. & Yürür, S. (2011) duygusal emek, duygusal tükenme ve görev/bağlamsal performans ilişkisi: Yalova'da hizmet sektörü çalışanları ile bir araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 37, Ocak-Haziran, 183-207.
67. Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R. & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103-1126.
68. Wayne, S. J. & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate ınteractions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487
69. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82−111.
70. Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262. doi:10.1177/1046496408328703
71. van Yperen, N.W., Berg, A.E. & Willering, M.C. (1999). Towards a better understanding of the link between participation in decision‐making and organizational citizenship behaviour: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(3), 377-392. doi:10.1348/096317999166734
72. Vidyarthi, P.R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B. & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do i stand? Examining the effects of leader–member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849–861. doi:10.1037/a0020033
73. Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A. & Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader- member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 49–78. Doi:10.1111/J.1744-6570.2011.01238.X