Beyond personal Leader Member Exchange (LMX) quality: the effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions

By D. Hooper, Robin Martin. 2008

330 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/e007f52081415af44dd6b1a3f9d550aeef621510

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

Organizational climate, relative psychological climate and job satisfaction: The example of supportive leadership climate (2009, background): “In terms of the outcomes of differentiation, a recent study by Hooper and Martin (2008) found that perceived variability in LMX is negatively related to job satisfaction and well-being.”
Leader-member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review (2016, background): “…to develop high LMX relationships with all their followers requires not only good relationship-building skills but the ability to manage several followers and to ensure that the leader is seen as procedurally fair and unbiased in the treatment of all members of their team (Hooper & Martin, 2008).”
Getting Everyone on Board (2015, background): “…intrateam divisions, which, in turn, would create subgroups that range from in-groups, in which members receive high levels of personal consideration from the CEO, to out-groups, in which members receive less support and consideration from the CEO (Hooper & Martin, 2008; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).”
When Does (Mis)Fit in Customer Orientation Matter for Frontline Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Performance? (2016, background): “…social disintegration and relational fractions among coworkers such that the advantages (e.g., interpersonal relationships, communication, collaboration) that accrue from CO fit will be dampened and therefore will have limited impact on coworker relationship quality (Hooper and Martin 2008).”
Navigating uneven terrain : the roles of political skill and LMX differentiation in prediction of work relationship quality and work outcomes. (2016, methodology): “Perceived LMX differentiation (e.g., Hooper & Martin, 2008) is a perceptual measure residing at the individual level of analysis.”
What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders (2009, unknown): “The measures we suggest are: perceived LMX variability/favoritism (Hooper & Martin, 2008), attribution of leader sincerity (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2004), negative affect (PANAS: Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), LMX-7 (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), TMX (Seers, 1989), Trust (McAllister, 1995), climate…”
The Influence of Ethical Leadership and Regulatory Focus on Employee Outcomes (2013, background): “For example, the quality of social exchanges between leaders and followers has been demonstrated to affect the followers’ job satisfaction, task performance, and organizational commitment (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Hooper & Martin, 2008).”
What Is Wrong With Treating Followers Differently? The Basis of Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation Matters (2018, methodology): “Previous research has examined different indicators of intragroup relational quality as plausible outcomes of LMX differentiation (e.g., Ford & Seers, 2006; Hooper & Martin, 2008).”
Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research (2011, background): “Likewise, Hooper and Martin (2008) found in two samples that LMX variability in the team was negatively related to job satisfaction and well-being and that relational team conflict mediated these relationships.”
Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: conceptual clarification and critical review (2018, methodology): “Team conflict (both relational and task) has also been investigated as a key team process (i.e., Boies & Howell, 2006; Chen et al., 2015; Cobb & Lau, 2015; Hooper & Martin, 2008).”
Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. (2012, background): “Whereas consensus composition models have been the dominant theoretical basis for explaining the emergence of aggregate leadership phenomena, researchers (e.g., Cole, Bedeian, & Bruch, 2011; Hooper & Martin, 2008) have also applied an alternative approach termed a dispersion composition model.”