Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader-member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes

By Claudia Cogliser, C. Schriesheim, T. Scandura, W. Gardner. 2009

272 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5398e2074569bc6446a7f9d65623cdaad451e534

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Does Seeing “Eye To Eye” Affect Work Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior? A Role Theory Perspective on LMX Agreement (2014, background): “Similarly, when both a leader and a subordinate see their LMX relationship as transactional (that is, of low LMX quality: quadrant 2), the leader and the subordinate achieve consistency, consensus, and mutual understanding surrounding the “exchange of material necessary for basic completion of work””
Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged enactment’s moderating role on the relationship between perceived narcissistic supervision and work outcomes (2012, background): “, 2009), and leader-member exchange quality (Cogliser et al., 2009).”
The Leader–Member Exchange Relationship (2016, background): “Second, dyadic dispersion LMX could be higher when leader LMX ratings are inflated due to self-enhancing bias (e.g., Cogliser et al., 2009) or follower LMX ratings are tainted by a desire to respond in socially desirable ways (e.g., Cogliser et al., 2009).”
A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange (2012, background): “Therefore, we recommend that more studies include leader perceptions of LMX as well as studies that examine leader-member agreement on LMX as a substantive variable, such as in the pioneering study by Cogliser et al. (2009).”
Leader-member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review (2016, result): “, Cogliser et al., 2009; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-Bien, 2006), we provide the first evidence from a meta-analysis to support this crucial theoretical assumption. Our results, however, found no evidence for reverse causality or reciprocal causal effects. The lack of a temporal effect of performan”
Mutual Trust Between Leader and Subordinate and Employee Outcomes (2018, background): “It proposes that when both supervisors and subordinates work hard for their relationship, they share a positive feeling about the relationship, which can promote beneficial work outcomes (Cogliser et al. 2009; Maslyn and Uhl-Bien 2001).”
The impact of emotional intelligence on accuracy of self‐awareness and leadership performance (2011, unknown): “In previous research (e.g., Yammarino and Atwater, 1997; Cogliser et al., 2009), managers who are self-aware are categorized as in agreement, which can be divided further into in agreement/good and in agreement/poor.”
The Effects of Leader–Member Exchange and Organizational Identification on Performance and Turnover Among Salespeople (2011, background): “LMX was related directly and positively to a salesperson’s performance, which supports past research with other groups of employees (Burton, Sablynski, and Sekiguchi 2008; Cogliser et al. 2009; Gerstner and Day 1997).”
Organizational climate, relative psychological climate and job satisfaction: The example of supportive leadership climate (2009, result): “Similarly, research into leadership, such as research on LMX, has followed similar calls for more research on the organizational context in which interactions between leaders and followers takes place (Cogliser et al., 2009).”
Critique and review of leader–member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence (2010, background): “Cogliser et al. (2009) discuss a few possibilities that might contribute to disagreement or unbalanced dyads such as follower dispositions (e.g., negative affectivity, locus of control), cognitive processes stemming from differences in implicit leadership theories, relational dynamics such as the…”
Out of the Box? How Managing a Subordinate’s Multiple Identities Affects the Quality of a Manager-Subordinate Relationship (2015, unknown): “These hypotheses could then be examined through a field study of manager-subordinate dyads (cf., Cogliser et al., 2009; Paglis & Green, 2002), using a survey that combines existing measures with those developed through the qualitative study to capture both individuals’ views of their multiple…”