LMX Theory

LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX)
RESEARCH: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

OF THEORY, MEASUREMENT, AND
DATA-ANALYTIC PRACTICES
Chester A. Schriesheim”
University of Miami
Stephanie L. Castro
Louisiana State University
Claudia C. Cogliser
Oregon State University
Research conducted since the construct of leader-member exchange (LMX) was first investigated
in 1972 is reviewed with respect to the theoretical, measurement, and analytic adequacy of LMX
studies. It is shown that conceptual definitions of LMX and its subdimensions have evolved over
time, often with little reason or rationale given for changes. Likewise, the measures employed
to assessLMX have varied widely and have included an almost bewildering array of diverse item
content. Finally, LMX research has rarely examined the level of analysis at which its findings
hold. All of these shortcomings lead to the conclusion that we may know less than we should about
fundamental leader-member exchange processes and that future research must be conducted with
greater attention devoted to the key issues outlined in this review.
The relationship-based approach to leadership research developed by Graen, Dan-

sereau, and colleagues over two decades ago (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975;
Graen & Cashman, 1975) has undergone an interesting metamorphosis since its
infancy. This approach was initially termed the “Vertical Dyad Linkage” (VDL)
model of leadership (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1975), and it subsequently evolved along
* Direct all correspondence to: Chester A. Schriesheim, Department of Management, School of Business
Administration, University of Miami, 414 Jenkins Building, Coral Gables, FL 33124-9145; e-mail: chet@
miamiedu.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(l), 63-113.

Copyright 0 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843
64 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 109’)
two very different lines of development. The first branch of development from the
early VDL approach appears to be most commonly called the Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX) model (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b), although
it has sometimes been given other labels as well (e.g., the “Leadership-Making”
model: cf., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). The second branch of VDL development
has been the recent “Individualized Leadership” (IL) model of Dansereau and
colleagues (1995b), which is quite different from the LMX approach and is briefly
discussed later in this review.
A recent meta-analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997) has shown that interest in the
first branch of the VDL approach, the LMX model, has been increasing substantially
over the years, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in the number of scholarly
papers recently produced in this domain (see the first line in Table 3 for a summary
of LMX studies over time). The review by Gerstner and Day (1997) also shows
that LMX research has been quite fruitful, as LMX has been a significant correlate
of such variables as increased subordinate satisfaction (e.g., Graen et al., 1982b),
increased subordinate performance (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, Markham, & Dumas,
1982) enhanced subordinate career outcomes (e.g., Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984).
and decreased propensity to quit (e.g., Vecchio, 1982).
However, as we demonstrate in this review, there are some fundamental problems
related to the validity of the LMX construct, its measurement, and the data analytic
procedures which have been used in the majority of LMX investigations to date.
In particular, the construct has some basic definitional problems, the measures used
to assess LMX have varied substantially without explanation, and the analytic
procedures utilized have generally not been aligned with the theory being proposed
and tested. These issues draw into question the usefulness of any substantively
oriented synthesis of extant LMX literature. However, our intent is not to criticize
early or more recent reviews, but rather to highlight the fundamental issues which
are raised regarding the LMX construct and its associated research.
BACKGROUND
Summarizing the evolution of LMX theory over nearly 30 years, Graen and Uhl-
Bien (1995) recently suggested that LMX theory has passed through four stages, with
each stage building on the stages preceding it (in terms of theoretical clarification of
the LMX process). Stage One research found that leaders developed differentiated
relationships with their subordinates, a departure from the prevailing approach to
leadership which assumed that leaders displayed consistent behavior toward all
subordinates in their work units (the so-called “Average Leadership Style” or ALS
model). The second stage focused on these different relationships the leader had
within the work unit and began the explication of the nomological network sur-
rounding the LMX construct; the majority of LMX research has been conducted
with a Stage Two focus (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
The Leadership Making model (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991) shifted LMX research
into Stage Three, and moved the emphasis from the leader’s differentiation of
subordinates to “how they may work with each person on a one-on-one basis to
develop a partnership with each of them” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 229). The
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 6.5
final stage broadens the scope from the dyad to larger collectives, exploring how
dyadic relationships are organized within and beyond the organizational system.
Despite the apparent high level of scholarly interest in LMX theory and the
description of the theory’s evolution offered by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), as
mentioned earlier, serious concerns about this approach still remain. In particular,
a number of scholars have expressed reservations regarding the adequacy of LMX
theory (e.g., Dansereau, Yammarino, & Markham, 1995a; Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
the adequacy of LMX measures which have been employed in LMX studies (e.g.,
Barge & Schlueter, 1991, Yukl, 1994) and the appropriateness of the methodologies
which have been used for data analysis in LMX research (e.g., Keller & Dansereau,
1995; Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider, 1995).
Much of this concern has arisen from the fact that the theoretical conceptualiza-
tion and operational measurement of the LMX construct have evolved since its
inception (Yukl, 1994). Additionally, we believe that it is not unreasonable to take
issue with the assertion that development of the LMX approach has followed as
orderly and chronological a progression as Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) portray.
The four-stage model presents an overview of the progression of LMX theory
through various stages of development; we maintain that the development of the
theory within each of its stages of development is equally if not more important.
Additionally, while Graen and Uhl-Bien have categorized various LMX studies, it
is difficult to follow the development of the construct (i.e., the ideas) from their
presentation. For example, Graen and Uhl-Bien’s discussion of Stages One, Two,
and Three all contain references to papers within the same time frame (from 1984
to 1987). This chronological “mixing” of studies thus appears to contradict the
assertion that the theoretical development of the LMX construct has been chrono-
logically progressive and based on previous LMX theory: there does not appear to
have been a clear development and refinement of ideas over time.
The above concerns notwithstanding, however, the evolution of LMX theory,
measurement, and analytic methodology should be seen positively in general, partic-
ularly as contrasted with “frozen” or “static” theory (cf., Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977a,
1977b), and we trace this evolution in some detail below. While the theory has
been the subject of previous reviews and critiques (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986;
Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984) we extend and update these prior reviews by systemati-
cally evaluating the LMX approach from its birth to the present in a detailed,
comprehensive manner. Before beginning our review, we should note that our
purpose is not to be critical but to take stock of the past.
We thus review the state of the LMX approach with an eye toward advancing
specific recommendations for future research. These are offered with the hope that
they will serve to further stimulate increased interest in the study of leader-member
exchange and, at the same time, help improve the quality of future work in this
domain. (Parenthetically, we should also note that we rely heavily on tabular presen-
tations to efficiently and concisely summarize a large amount of information in the
review which follows.)
In reviewing LMX theory and research, we hope to focus on the development
of concepts related to LMX. Additionally, the various perspectives in the LMX
literature on the issue of levels-of-analysis will be reviewed. The scales used to
66 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. t 0 No. 1 1999
measure LMX will also be examined, The multiple changes which have been made
in LMX scales will be addressed, as will problems associated with these changes.
The revisions made in the measure of LMX which Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995)
recommend indicate that the measurement problems which have existed since LMX
(or VDL) was first introduced into the literature have not been corrected or ad-
dressed. Finally, the extent to which studies have examined levels-of-analysis issues
will be reviewed.
LMX THEORY, MEASURES, AND ANALYSES: A REVIEW

Develpoment of Theory About the LMX Construct
An oft-quoted statement by Kurt Lewin (1951) is that “There is nothing so
practical as a good theory.” Most scholars would agree that a “good” theory has
as its basis precise concepts and definitions (upon which its propositions and bound-
aries are established) and that its propositions should be clear and organized in a
systematic way (Bacharach, 1989; Copi, 1954). This very preciseness of theoretical
concepts creates an environment conducive to data gathering and thus promotes
cumulative knowledge within a particular research domain (Achinstein, 1968; Osig-
wey, 1989). Theoretical developments should include not only an acknowledgment
of previous theory, but also a clear explication of the logic behind any new proposi-
tions and an identification of the contribution of the new to the previous work
(Sutton & Staw, 1995); a clear link between previous theory and new theory that
is being proposed helps promote the cumulative development of ideas over time.
Evolution of LMX Theory

In examining the adequacy of LMX theory, it is most straightforward to trace
the history of the LMX concept. In this regard, and as mentioned above, it is
apparent that the theoretical content and dimensionality of LMX has varied consid-
erably over the years. This is shown in Table 1; the works included there were
uncovered by an extensive library search and by examining major reviews of LMX
research for additional sources (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986: Gerstner & Day
1997; Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Vecchio &
Gobdel, 1984).
As shown in Table 1, the earliest LMX studies (Studies 1 through 5) were
exploratory in nature and did not provide much detail with respect to theoretically
defining the LMX construct or delineating its dimensionality (i.e., the subdomains
or subareas which would be considered part of LMX). This exploratory nature is
also reflected in the use of the Ohio State Consideration and Initiating Structure
measures to assess aspects of LMX, a practice which subsequently was abandoned
and no longer occurs.
Haga, Graen, and Dansereau (1974) broke with the earlier emphasis on explor-
atory research and began the movement toward the most commonly employed
treatments of LMX. The research by Dansereau et al. (1975) and Graen and
Cashman (1975) then further deveioped the theoretical definition of LMX and
began the evolution toward current measures of LMX. Graen (1976) proposed that
Table 1. Evolution of LMX Definition and Dimensionality
Studv Theoretical Definition Subdimensions. Subdomains. or Subcontent
1. Graen, Dansereau, & Minami Special interdependent relationship of Consideration and structure.
(1972a) leader and member
2. Graen, Dansereau, & Minami Quality of exchange Consideration, structure, influence, dominance, and competence.
(1972b)
3, Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen Quality of exchange Structure.
(1973)
4. Graen, Dansereau, Minami, Quality of exchange Consideration and structure.
& Cashman (1973a)
5. Graen, Orris, & Johnson (1973b) None given Supervisor’s attention.
6. Haga, Graen, & Dansereau (1974) None given Attention.
7. Dansereau, Graen, & Haga (1975) Interpersonal exchange relationship Interpersonal attraction and loyalty; attention. support, and sensitivity.
8. Graen & Cashman (1975) Interpersonal exchange relationship Interpersonal attraction and loyalty.
9.” Graen (1976) Exchange relationship Competence, interpersonal skill, and trust (mentioned in general);
support, sensitivity, and trust (mentioned as specific subaspects).
10. Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, Exchange relationship Attention and sensitivity.
& Haga (1976)
It. Graen & Ginsburgh (1977) Exchange pattern; leader acceptance Attention, sensitivity, support, reward, and satisfaction with leader
relations.
12. Graen, Cashman, Ginsburgh, Linking pin quality Influence, latitude, support. attention, sensitivity, and satisfaction with
& Schiemann (1977) leader and rewards.
13. Schiemann (1977) Role-making; dual exchange rela- Resources, support, and trust listed in text; trust, latitude, exchange,
tionship influence, and support depicted in model.
14. Graen & Schiemann (1978) Quality of exchange Sensitivity, attention, information, and support (reciprocal influence,
extracontractual exchange, mutual trust, respect, and liking, and
common fate are presented as descriptive of high quality rela-
tionships).
(continued)
Table 1. (Continued)
Subdirne~s~~ns, Subdomuins, or Subcontent
James, Gent, Hater & Coray Participation opportunities Supervisor’s description of participation. opportunities, and decision-
(1979) making latitude.
16. Liden & Graen (1980) Quality of exchange Trust, competence, and motivation.
17. Schriesheim (1980) Dyadic leader behavior Leader structuring behavior and leader consideration.
18. James, Hater, & Jones (1981) Opportunities for influence: control Negotiating latitude, leader attention, closeness of supervision, and
use of disciplinary actions.
IY. Katerberg & Horn (1981) None given Consideration and initiating structure.
20. Wakabayashi, Minami, Vertical exchange Assistance and support, understanding. latitude, authority. and
Hashimoto, Sano, Graen, information.
& Novak (1981)
21. Dansereau, Alutto, Markham, Leadership attention 11 dimensions of leadership attention (not specifically discussed).
& Dumas (1982)
22. Graen, Liden, & Hoe1 (1982a) Quality of exchange relationship None discussed.
23. Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp Quality of exchange relationship None discussed.
(1982b)
24. Kim & Organ (1982) Noncontractual social exchange Trust and influence by norms of social exchange.
2.5. Green, Blank, & Liden (1983) Quality of exchange Exchange quality, leader’s personal sensitivity to employee. level of
contribution of employee, and leader’s handhng of performance
problems.
26. Nachman, Dansereau, Negotiating latitude None discussed.
& Naughton (1983)
27. Rosse & Kraut (1983) Quality of exchange Sensitivity, attention. and support from leaders, more time spent on
work activities, greater willingness to contribute ideas to unit.
and greater congruence between present and desired role hehavior.
28. Chassie (1984) Vertical exchange quality Supervisor time. attention, member loyalty. and commitment.
29. Fukami & Larson (I 984) Supervisory relations None discussed.
30. Novak (1984) Quality of exchange Extracontractual assistance. job latitude. and help with job problems.
31. Scandura & Graen (1984) Quality of exchange Supervisor said to be able to offer latitude. influence in decision-
making. communications, support, confidence. and consideration
Study Theoretical Definition Subdimensions, Subdwnains, or Subcontent
32. Seers & Graen (1984) Quality of exchange None discussed.
33. Snyder, Williams, & Cashman Trust in supervisor None discussed.
ww
34. Vecchio & Gobdel(l984) Negotiating latitude: in/out status None discussed.
with supervisor
3s. Wakabayashi & Graen (1984) Quality of exchange relations Talent and trust.
36. Ferris (1985) Quality of exchange None discussed.
31. Liden (1985) Leader-member exchange; leadership None discussed.
interpersonal sensitivity
38. Snyder & Bruning (1985) Quality of exchange None discussed.
39. Vecchio (1985) Quality of exchange None discussed.
40.* Dienesch & Liden (1986) Quality of exchange Contribution to the exchange, mutual loyalty, and mutual affect.
41. Duchon, Green & Taber (1986) Quality of exchange Taking suggestions to supervisor, assistance with problems; and
dependability with supervisor.
42. Scandura. Graen & Novak (1986) Exchange quality of leadership rela- High quality relationship characterized by reciprocal trust.
tionship
43. Vecchio, Griffeth, & Horn (1986) Quality of exchange None discussed.
44. Dienesch (1987) Role-making Perceived contribution to the exchange, loyalty. and affect.
45. Fairhurst, Rogers. & Saar (1987) Social interaction contributing to Extent to which a supervisor negotiates rather than prescribes role
quality of the exchange expectations and other job issues; comparative dominance. total
dominance, and transactional rigidity.
46. Gast (1987) Quality of exchange; negotiating None discussed.
latitude
47. Lagace (1987) Quality of resource exchange Trust.
48.+ Graen & Scandura (1987) Quality of exchange Quality (loyalty, support. and trust) and coupling (influence, delega-
tion, latitude, and innovativeness).
49. Novak & Graen (1987) Quality of reciprocal exchange Extracontractual resources (including trust, expertise. and control of
organizational resources).
SO. Vecchio (1987) Quality of exchange None discussed.
Study Theoretical Definition Subdimensions, Subdomains. or Subcontent
51‘ Blau (1988) Quality of me~tor/prot~g~ exchange Contribution, mutual understanding, and support.
52. K’Qbonyo (1988) Role-making Concern, support, consideration, attraction, role orientation, bar-
gaining, openness, trust, support, and feedback.
53. Leana (1988) Role latitude Subordinate capability, trustworthiness, and motivation to assume
greater responsibility.
54. Peck (1988) Quality of relationship Openness, trust, support, and feedback.
55. Scandura (1988) Exchange Task assignment (challenge), resource allocation, and evaluation (per-
formance appraisal).
56. Sidhu (1988) Negotiating latitude; quality of Attention and support.
exchange
57, Steiner (1988) Leadership exchange Influence and support beyond the employment contract, autonomy.
and responsibility.
58. Wakabayashi, Graen, Graen, Quality of exchange None discussed.
& Graen (1988)
59. Fairhurst & Chandler (1989) Quality of exchange Social structure of exchange; negotiated power and social distance.
60. Heneman, Greenberger, Quality of exchange Trust, interaction, support, and rewards.
& Anonyuo (1989)
61. Kozlowski & Doherty (1989) Negotiating latitude Trust, discretion, and communication.
62. Seers (1989) Quality of team-member exchange Reciprocity between a member and the peer group-wiliingncss to
assist others; share ideas and feedback; availability of informa-
tion, help, and recognition from peer group.
63. Wakabayashi & Graen (1989) Quality of exchange Trust and support.
64. Weitzel & Graen (1989) Quality of working relationship Mutual control and exchange of valued resources, including expertise.
65. Zalesny & Kirsch (1989) Quality of working relationship Job latitude, mutual trust, and loyalty.
66. Dobbins, Cardy, & Platz-Vieno Quality of exchange Leadership vs. supervision: informal feedback and coaching.
t19w
67. Dockery & Steiner (1990) Quality of exchange Influence and support beyond the employment contract: reciprocal
support. mutual trust. respect, liking, greater interaction. and
greater responsibility for subordinate.
tl.~~~?l;llli~~4~)
68. Graen, Wakabayashi. Graen, Quality of vertical exchange None discussed.
& Graen (1990)
69. Lagace (1990) Quality of exchange Supervisory support, latitude, and attention; member contribution.
70. Nystrom (1990) Quality of exchange Discretion. attention, influence, support, information, and other
resources.
71. Tanner & Castleberry (1990) Quality of exchange Latitude, support, and attention.
72. Turban, Jones, & Rozelle (1990) Quality of exchange Liking.
73. Uhl-Bien, Tierney, Graen, Quality of exchange relationship Attention, support, information, influence, authority, and latitude.
& Wakabayasbi (1990)
74. Wakabayashi, Graen, Quality of relationship Dependability, help~lness, trust, and relationship effectiveness.
& Uhl-Bien (1990)
75. Wayne & Ferris (1990) Quality of exchange Support, guidance, and influence in decisions.
16. Yammarino & Dubinsky (1990) Latitude; supervisor attention 9 dimensions (only 3 given-providing information, encouragement,
and performance feedback).
17. Basu (1991) Quality of exchange Loyalty, support, autonomy. and influence in decision making; quality
and coupling.
78. Deluga & Perry (lPP1) Social exchange relationships Interpersonal attraction, mutual influence, support and trust, and
formal and informal rewards.
79.* Graen & Uhl-Bien (1991) Maturity of relationship (Leadership- Loyalty and support (mature relationship said to be characterized by
making model) reciprocal influence, extracontractual behavior, mutual trust,
respect, liking, and internalization of common goals).
80. Krone (1991) Quality of exchange Participation in communication and administration activities, super-
visor support, and responsiveness.
81. McCIane (1991a) Negotiating latitude Leader’s willingness to allow changes in member’s job, and leader’s
inclination to use power to help member solve problems.
82. McClane (1.991b) Negotiating latitude Leader’s willingness to allow changes in member’s job, and leader’s
inclination to use power to help member solve problems.
83. Salzmann & Grasha (1991) Quality of exchange Supervisor adaptability to change, helpfulness, approachability, and
effectiveness of work relationship.
Smdy Theoretical Definition Subditnensions, Subdomnins, or Subcontent
84. Stenina, Perrewe, Wassell. Quality of exchange Trust, negotiating latitude, ~nformat~on~ influence. confidence. and
Hahis, & Mayfield (1991) concern from leader.
85. Uhl-Bien (1991) Role-making processes Trust and mutual exchange of information and resources.
86. Waldron (1991) Quality of exchange Assistance, attention, support, informal rewards, and negotiating
latitude.
87. Baugh (1992) Quality of exchange Trust, attention. and support.
88. Carnevale & Wechsler (1992) Quality of exchange Trust, negotiating latitude, and confidence in supervision.
89. Day 4%Crain (1992) Quality of exchange Trust, interaction, support, and rewards.
90. Deluga (1992) Quality of social exchange relationship Mutual influence, loyalty. support, and a sense of common fate.
92. Dunegan, Duchon, & Uhl-Bien Quality of exchange Additional resources received (information, interaction, and
(1992) personal concern).
92. Dunegan, Tierney, & Duchon Quality of interaction None discussed.
(1992)
93. Gerras (1992) Exchange quality; role-making Contribution, affect, and loyalty.
94. Gessner (1992) Quality of exchange Responsibility, trust, and competence.
95.* Graen & Wakabayashi (1992) Maturity of leadership relationship Mutual trust, respect, and obligation.
96. Markham, Murry, & Scott (1992) Quality of exchange Leadership attention.
97. Schriesheim, Neider. Scandura, Quality of exchange Perceived contribution, loyalty, and affect.
& Tepper (1992a)
98. Schriesheim, Scandura, Quality of exchange Perceived contribution, loyalty, and affect.
Eisenbach, & Neider (199213)
99. Tiemey (1992) Quality of exchange Additional responsibility. risk-taking. and extracontractual activities.
lOO.* Uhl-Bien & Graen (1992) Leadership-making model Mature relationship characterized by reciprocal influence, extracon-
tractual behavior, mutual trust, respect. liking, and a sense
of common fate.
101. Yammarino & Dubinsky (1992) Superior-subordinate relationships Supervisor satisfaction with performance, job congruence. ;ittention
(support and consideration), and job latitude (discretion and
freedom).
102. Baugh, Graen & Page (1993) Team working relationship None discussed.
Studv Theoretical Definition Subdimensions Subdomains. or Subcontent
103. Duarte, Goodson, & Klich (1993) Quality of exchange Trust. interaction, participation, support, and rewards.
104. Fairhurst (1993) Incremental influence Trust. internalization of common goals, extracontractual behavior and
rewards, mutual influence, and support.
105. Jones, Glaman, & Johnson (1993) Quality of interactions None discussed.
106. Judge & Ferris (1993) Quality of exchange None discussed.
107. Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell (1993) Quality of exchange Trust, respect, liking, and reciprocal influence.
108. Murry (1993) Quality of exchange Loyalty and liking, competence. leadership attention, and superior-
subordinate satisfaction.
109. Phillips, J&ran, & Howell (1993) Exchange relationship Contribution, affect, and loyalty.
110. Scott (1993) Quality of exchange Information sharing, authority and autonomy, support, concern, and
trust.
111. Tanner, Dunn, & Chonko (1993) Exchange relationship quality Exchange of support, extracontractual roles, high quality communica-
tion, and resources.
112. Tansky (1993) Quality of relationship None discussed.
113. Vansudevan (1993) Quality of exchange Trust, respect, liking, sense of common fate, extracontractual behavior,
and reciprocal influence.
114. Vecchio (1993) Quality of relationship None discussed.
115. Wayne & Green (1993) Quality of exchange Trust, interaction. support, and formal/informal rewards.
116. Wilhelm, Herd, & Steiner (19Y3) Quality of exchange Trust. support, interaction, and rewards.
117. Ashkanasy & O’Connor (1994) Quality of exchange Freedom, better job assignments, and greater opportunities to work
with leader.
118. Bauer & Green (1994) Quality of relationship None discussed.
119. Borchgrevink & Boster (1994) Interpersonal exchange relationship Trust, respect, loyalty. liking, support, openness, and honesty.
120. Deluga & Perry (1994) Quality of exchange Trust, support. interpersonal attraction, and mutual influence.
121. Duarte, Goodson, & Klich (1994) Quality of relationship Trust versus distance.
122. Kinicki & Vecchio (1994) Dyadic social exchange None discussed.
123. Phillips & Bedeian (1994) Quality of exchange None discussed.
124. Scandura & Schriesheim (1994) Quality of exchange None discussed.
-
Table 1. (C~~~~~~e~)
Study Theoretical Definition Subdimensions, Subdomains, or Subcontent
125. Scott & Bruce (1994) Quality of exchange Trust, mutual liking, and respect: greater autonomy and decision
latitude.
126. Basu & Green (1995) Quality of exchange Loyalty, esteem, trust, desirable assignments, rapid advancement,
and friendship.
127.” Dansereau (1995) Individualized leadership Provision of self-worth.
128.” Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) Team-making Trust, respect, and obligation specifically listed as the dimensions of
LMX; understanding, commitment, loyahy. reciprocal influence,
and support also discussed.
129. Keller & Dansereau (1995) Quality of exchange Trust, voluntary contribution, loyalty, and latitude in performing tasks.
130. Kramer (1995) Quality of exchange Reciprocal influence and trust.
131. Major, Kozlowski, Chao, Quality of relationship Trust and social integration.
& Gardner (1995)
132. Sias & Jablin (1995) Social exchange High quality relationships characterized by high levels of trust. open
communication, greater negotiating latitude, less direct super-
vision, increased supervisory support, and greater subordinate
influence in decision making.
133. Bauer & Green (1996) Exchange process High quality relationships characterized by high levels of mutual trust
and respect.
134. Bhai & Ansari (1996) Exchange Perceived contribution. loyalty (support), and affect (liking).
135. Maslyn, Farmer, & Fedor Quality of the relationship High quality relationships characterized by high levels of affect.
(1996) information, resources, and support.
136. Green, Anderson, & Shivers Quality of exchange None discussed.
(1996)
137.* Scandura & Lankau (1996) Quality of exchange Mutual respect, trust. and mutual obligation.
138. Settoon, Bennett, & Liden Quality of exchange ~xtracontra~ual behaviors.
(1996) .
139. Thibodeaux & Lowe (1996) Quality of the relationship None discussed.
140. Williams, Gavin, & Williams None given None discussed.
(1996)
2
Study Theoretical Definition Subdimensions, Subdomains, or Subcontent
141. Basu & Green (1997f Quality of exchange Loyalty, support, autonomy, and influence. 3>
”
142. Engle & Lord (1997) Quality of exchange None discussed. 2
143.* Sparrowe & Liden (1997) Exchange Three primary dimensions of reciprocity are discussed: immediacy of zn’
returns, equivalence of returns, and degree and nature of the inter-
est of each party in the exchange.
144. Wayne, Shore & Liden (1997) Social exchange High quality relationships characterized by increased resources, infor-
mation, and support.
145. Klein & Kim (1998) Quality of the dyadic relationship Influence, trust, and respect.
146. Liden & Maslyn (1998) Quality of exchange Contribution, loyalty, affect, and professional respect.
147. Schriesheim, Neider, Quality of exchange Loyalty, affect, and perceived contribution.
& Scandura (1998)
*Theoretical/nonempirical work. not included in Table 2.
76 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999
LMX was an exchange relationship based on competence, interpersonal skill, and

trust. while Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1976) saw the exchange rela-
tionship as being based on attention and sensitivity. Graen and Ginsburgh (1977)
later expanded the number of subdimensions, adding support, reward, and satisfac-
tion with the leader; additionally, LMX was described as both an exchange pattern
and as leader acceptance.
The list of LMX subdimensions was next extended by Graen, Cashman, Gins-
burgh, and Schiemann (1977) to include influence and latitude (in addition to the
previous five elements); LMX was defined as “linking-pin quality.” A somewhat
reduced set of subdimensions was presented by Schiemann (1977) who argued that
the LMX subdomain included trust, sensitivity, support, and attention. Graen and
Schiemann’s (1978) set of subdimensions was slightly altered, as they added informa-
tion as an additional element to the set proposed by Schiemann (1977) (while
excluding trust). The variations and evolutionary changes in the theoretical defini-
tion of LMX continued into the next decade, with other researchers undertaking
LMX research.
Throughout the 1980s Graen and colleagues continued to define LMX as the
quality of the exchange between leader and subordinate, while at the same time
describing varying subdimensions or subcontent of the construct.
Eighteen additional subdimensions/content subaspects were included in 13 stud-
ies by Graen and colleagues during this lo-year span (trust, competence, motivation,
assistance and support, understanding, latitude, authority, information, influence
in decision making, communications, confidence, consideration, talent, delegation,
innovativeness, expertise, control of organizational resources, and mutual control).
Even more diverse were the conceptualizations and subcontent employed by other
LMX researchers. Of the 37 other dissertations or research papers published or
presented during the 1980s quite noteworthy is the use of 11 different theoretical
definitions in these works (opportunities for influence/control, leadership attention,
noncontractual social exchange, quality of exchange, negotiating latitude, supervi-
sory relations, trust in supervisor, leadership interpersonal sensitivity, role making,
role latitude, and leadership exchange) as well as 35 different subcontent elements.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that 16 of the articles in this period did not
provide either explicit construct definitions or an explication of LMX subcontent.
Thus, the makeup of the construct definition across this body of research was
expanded substantially (or in some cases not explicitly treated), yet it seems remark-
able that a decade after the inception of LMX theory there was still so much
disagreement as to the basic definition of the construct as well as no clear or
consistent direction provided about where or how to proceed in developing the
theory.
It was during this period (the 198Os), and most likely in response to the state of
confusion in the field, that several comprehensive reviews of the LMX literature
were undertaken. Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) found mixed results regarding rela-
tionships among LMX and various outcomes (previously reported as positively
related to LMX), and called for increased attention to both conceptual and opera-
tional definitions of the LMX construct. Dienesch and Liden (1986) also brought
attention to the lack of theoretical underpinnings, from both the perspective of
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 77
LMX development as well as the dimensionality of the construct (they proposed

a three-dimensional model of LMX-composed of mutual affect, contribution, and
loyalty).
Graen and Scandura (1987) provided what appears to be the first systematic and
thorough discussion of many facets of the construct since Graen’s (1976) earlier
theoretical piece, presenting a three-phase model of LMX development: role-taking,
role-making, and role-routinization. They also provided explication of LMX dimen-
sionality, outlining two higher order dimensions: quality and coupling. The quality
aspect addresses the attitudes present in the exchange relationship (the extent of
loyalty, support, and trust between dyad members), while the coupling dimension
is more behaviorally oriented (addressing influence, delegation, latitude, and inno-
vativeness). Finally, at least one article during this decade provided a clear and
detailed definition of the LMX phenomenon:
Leader-member exchange is (a) a system of components and their relationships

(b) involving both members of a dyad (c) involving interdependent patterns of
behavior and (d) sharing mutual outcome instrumentalities and (e) producing
conceptions of environments, cause maps, and value (Scandura, Graen, &
Novak, 1986, p. 580).
Unfortunately, although a great deal of research on LMX continued into the

next decade and focused on understanding some of the underpinnings of the LMX
phenomenon, the waters continued to be muddied with little consistency about the
basic definition and content of the LMX construct (even in different works by the
same authors).
Eighty-two empirical and theoretical works developed during the 1990s are in-
cluded in this review (see Table 1). As mentioned above, inconsistency in the
subcontent of the construct continued to exist, but the majority of studies showed
good consensus on the nature of the phenomenon as being the quality of the
exchange relationship between leader and subordinate. However, other definitions
of the construct were offered, including: latitude or supervisor attention (Yammar-
ino & Dubinsky, 1990); social exchange relationships (Deluga & Perry, 1991);
maturity of the relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991; Graen & Wakabayashi,
1992); negotiating latitude (McClane, 1991a, 1991b); incremental influence (Fairh-
urst, 1993), and individualized leadership (Dansereau, 1995).
Six content subdomains appear to be predominant in a majority of the studies:
mutual support, trust, liking, latitude, attention, and loyalty. Note, however, that
there were many studies that proposed additional content subdomains (in addition
to the six listed above), as well as some studies that proposed a completely different
set of content subdomains (see Table 1 for further details). Most recently, Graen and
Uhl-Bien (1995) reiterated the Graen and Wakabayashi (1992) three-dimensional
conceptualization of LMX quality as consisting of three factors (respect, trust, and
obligation), such that:
An offer will not be made and accepted without (1) mutual respect for the
capabilities of the other, (2) the anticipation of deepening reciprocal trust
78 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 19W
with the other, and (3) the expectation that interacting obligation will grow
over time as career-oriented social exchanges blossom into a partnership
(Graen & Uhl-Bien. 1995. p. 237).
LMX and Levels of Analysis Issues

As many in the field of organizational studies have recognized, it is important
to clearly specify the level(s) of analysis at which phenomena are expected to exist
(cf., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994).
Organizations are comprised of multiple levels (e.g., individuals, dyads, work groups,
departments), necessitating that researchers specify where (at what level or levels)
their construct of interest is expected to manifest its effects. This is an important
first step in investigations of organizational phenomena, as the theoretical specifica-
tion can then be used to ensure that measurement and data-analytic techniques
correspond to the proposed level of analysis. The level of theory, measurement,
and data-analytic technique must be aligned to ensure that obtained results are not
misleading or artifacts (Klein et al., 1994).
The level of analysis issue is not a minor or trivial one for LMX research, for
one of the noteworthy hallmarks of early VDL theory was its departure from the
traditional ALS approach and its clear specification of dyads as its hypothesized
level of analysis. In fact, the VDL model was initially formulated to treat leadership
as occurring at the dyadic level of analysis, where a dyad consists of the leader and
one subordinate. The VDL model was premised on the fact that leaders differentiate
between subordinates in their work groups, rather than use the same leadership
style with all subordinates (at the time the VDL model was first formulated, the
ALS model was the dominant leadership approach; cf., Kerr. Schriesheim, Mur-
phy, & Stogdill, 1974). Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that early LMX theorists
forcefully argued that “leadership can occur only in the vertical [leader-subordinate]
dyad” (Dansereau et al., 1975, p. 76). that for leadership research “the appropriate
level of analysis is not the work group. . . but the vertical dyad” (Graen & Cashman,
1975, p, 150) and that VDL theory “views the particular relationships between the
leader and each of his individual members as the basic unit of analysis” for leadership
research (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen 1973, p. 187) (see similar statements by
Graen, Dansereau, & Minami, 1972b, p. 265).
While the majority of recent LMX research still assumes that LMX is predicated
on the existence of a leader differentiating among subordinates within his/her work
group, the most recent work by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) makes a remarkable
departure from previous LMX research by describing LMX as strictly a relational
concept and by asserting that the leader and follower within the context of the
work unit are no longer of principal interest in LMX theory-the relationship is
now seen as the main focus. This modification distinguishes the most recent work
of Graen and colleagues from the VDL model, and Dansereau et al. (1995a) have
criticized this recent perspective as being unclear with regard to levels of analysis.
Because the relationship is the primary focus (and the individual followers and
leaders no longer appear to be of interest), Dansereau et al. (1995a) suggest that
the current conceptualization allows any level of analysis as appropriate as long as
the relationship remains the focus. Thus, further theoretical development seems
needed with respect to the appropriate level(s) of analysis for conducting future
LMX research.
Dansereau and colleagues have also distanced themselves from the LMX ap-
proach, as they have recently proposed an alternative conceptualization of leader-
ship relationships (Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau et al., 1995b). Dansereau’s ap-
proach, called “Individualized Leadership” (IL), focuses on dyadic relationships
outside of any collective context, and is different from both the ALS and VDLi
LMX perspectives on leadership. Dansereau (1995) proffers that the VDL model
differs substantially from the LMX model (as conceptualized by Graen and col-
leagues) in that the VDL model asserts that leaders form in-groups and out-groups
(within their work units), and that the VDL can co-exist with the ALS approach
(i.e., both ALS and VDL effects may operate simultaneously). He argues that the
LMX model assumes that “different relationships must occur within supervisory
work groups,” thus replacing the ALS approach as opposed to complementing it
(Dansereau, 1995, p. 482). Dansereau’s IL model proposes that both individuals
involved in the dyad are considered distinct from their respective others (i.e., each
follower is independent of other followers, and each leader is viewed as unique).
However, a linkage still exists between each leader and follower (while the dyad
remains independent of other dyads).
Summary
In summary, and as documented in Table 1, LMX was initially conceptualized
quite broadly, as being comprised of the amount of interpersonal attraction between
a leader and a member and the degree of loyalty that existed between a leader and
a member (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) as well as attention,
support, and sensitivity (Dansereau et al., 1975). However, Cummings (1975), in
commenting on Graen and Cashman’s (1975) explication of the approach, con-
tended that the theory’s constructs were vague and ambiguous. Perhaps in response
to this criticism, multiple iterations of LMX definitions have since followed. These
have been confusing and sometimes appear to be contradictory but, more impor-
tantly, they have appeared with little or no discussion provided as to why the theory
has evolved and why particular changes in the LMX construct have been offered.
While early VDL theory can be said to have evolved along two separate branches
of thinking (LMX and IL), differences among the three approaches are often not
clearly represented by persons doing research in this domain. However, we believe
that these three approaches may be differentiated largely as follows. The VDL
approach has employed negotiating latitude as its key variable and has focused on
differentiated dyads in groups as its level of analysis. The LMX approach has used
measures of leader-member exchange as its central variable and left the level of
analysis open or unspecified (despite using the terms “dyad” and “dyadic,” LMX
theory and research has typically been unclear as to whether dyads in groups, dyads
independent of groups, or some other level of analysis is involved). Finally, the 1L
model has employed self-worth, satisfaction, and performance as its main focus and
has used whole dyads (independent of groups) as its level of analysis (Dansereau,
1995; Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau et al., 1995a, 1995b).
Although some LMX researchers have attempted to respond to criticisms raised
80 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. IO No. 1 1999
about the theory, future theoretical treatments need to include better explanations
and justifications for changes which are proposed. Additionally, it would be quite
useful if future work linked current conceptualizations to the previous ones from
which they derived. [As an illustration, Dansereau’s (1995) treatment of the evolu-
tion of the IL approach did an exemplary job of this.] Finally, levels-of-analysis
issues must be specifically addressed in future theoretical treatments. The level(s)-
of-analysis at which LMX phenomena are expected to hold must be clearly specified
and theoretical justification for the proposed level(s) must be offered. Otherwise,
criticisms that the theory is vague (Cummings, 1975) and that it suffers from “. . . a
lack of specificity” and “. . . needs substantial clarification” (Dansereau et al., 1995a,
p. 108) will continue to detract from the value and contribution of this approach
to the study of leadership phenomena.
Measurement of leader-Member Exchange

Measures of high psychometric quality are necessary in all fields of research so
that the state of knowledge can advance (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Unfortu-
nately, however, within the fields of management (Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987;
Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993) and organizational
behavior (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Stone-Romero, 1994) sufficient
attention has not generally been directed toward measurement development and
validation, perhaps because substantive research tends to be emphasized over meth-
odologically oriented research (Schwab, 1980).
This general lack of attention to measurement issues is also evident in the
leadership domain (Barge & Schlueter, 1991; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977b). Specifi-
cally speaking about psychometric adequacy in leadership research, Korman (1974,
p. 194) noted that, “The point is not that accurate measurement is ‘nice.’ It is
necessary, crucial, etc. Without it we have nothing.” To obtain “accurate measure-
ment,” the principles of scale development outlined by Nunnally and Bernstein
(1994) as well as others (e.g., Hinkin, 1995) should be followed. First and foremost,
a clear definition of the theoretical content domain and any subdomains is needed.
From this definition, items can then be developed which assess the domain. A
systematic program of study should then begin, in an effort to assess the psychomet-
ric properties of the scale and its construct validity. Any changes in a scale should
then be accompanied by both theoretical justification and psychometric evidence
related to the effects of such changes.
Evolution of LMX Measures

The LMX construct has been operationalized with many different measures, and
the various LMX scales have ranged from two to 25 items (cf. Dienesch & Liden, 1986;
Weitzel & Graen, 1989). Table 2 presents a detailed summary of the leadership
measures that were used in the empirical studies presented in Table 1 and discussed
above.
As shown in Table 2, the initial investigations of LMX by Graen, Dansereau,
and Minami (1972a, 1972b), Dansereau, Cashman, and Graen (1973), and Graen,
Dansereau, Minami, and Cashman (1973a) used 40 Consideration and Initiating
Table 2. summary of Measures Used and Analytic Methodology Employed in Empirica LMX
Studies, 1972-1998
Study Reported Measure Used” Analytic Method
1. Graen, Dansereau, & Minami LBDQ (Consideration and Initiating Structure subscales) (40 items) Raw Scores (trichotomized): Correlations;
(1972a) (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) t-tests.
2. Graen, Dansereau, & Minami LBDQ (Consideration and Initiating Structure subscaies) (40 items) Raw Scores (tr~chotomized): Correlations:
(197’2b) (Stogdill & Coons, 1957); Role Orientation Index (Dominance MANOVA.
and Competence subscales) (11 items) (Graen, Dansereau, &
Minami, 1972a); 2 Leader-member influence scales (number of
items not reported) (new scale: Tannenbaum, 1968)
3. Dansereau, Cashman, LBDQ (Consideration and Initiating Structure subscales) (40 items) Raw Scores; ANOVA.
& Graen (1973) (Stogdill & Coons, 1957)
4. Graen, Dansereau, Minami, LBDQ (Consideration and Initiating Structure subscales) (40 items) Raw Scores: Correlations.
& Cashman (1973a) (Fleishman, 1957; Fleishman, Harris, & Burtt, 1955) plus 20 other
new items
5. Graen, Orris. & Johnson 8-facet Supervisory Attention scale (source of scale and number of Raw Scores: Correlations.
(1973b) items not reported; content areas appear similar to Supervisory
Treatment Scafe [Haga, Graen. & Dansereau, 19741)
6. Haga, Graen, & Dansereau Supervisory Treatment (8 items) (new scale; item content similar to Raw Scores; MANOVA.
(1974) Leadership Attention scale [Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 19751)
7. Dansereau, Graen, & Haga Negotiating Latitude (2 items); Leadership Attention (8 facets) and Raw Scores: Means: t-tests.
(1975) Leadership Support (12 facets) to measure leader and member con-
tribution (new scales bul content of Leadership Attention is similar
to Supervisory Treatment scale [Haga, Graen, & Dansereau, 19741)
8. Graen & Cashman (1975) Negotiating Latitude (4 items) (source of scale not reported, but refer- Raw Scores (dichotomized); Correlations.
enced Haga, Graen, & Dansereau [1974]. Dansereau, Graen,
& Haga [1975], and Graen 119761 for details; items not listed)
10. Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, Superior Negotiating Latitude (2 items) (Dansereau. Graen, & Haga, Raw Scores; ANOVA.
& Haga (1976) 1975); Superior Vertical Exchange (3 items) (items and source of
scale not reported)
11. Graen & Ginsburgh (1977) Leader attention to needs, Leader’s divulging job information, Lead- Raw Scores (dichotomized): MANOVA.
er’s support (content of these 3 is similar to Supervisory Treatment
scale [Haga, Graen, & Dansereau, 19741) Leader’s personal sensi-
tivity, Leader’s allowance for self determination (number of items
and source of scales not reported); Leader acceptance (2 items)
(new scale; similar to Negotiating Latitude scale of Dansereau,
Graen, & Haga [1975])
12. Graen, Cashman, Ginsburgh, Leader-boss Linking Pin Quality (4 items) (source of scale not rc- Raw Scores (dichotomized); ANOVA
& Schiemann (1977) ported); Leader- and member-reported Latitude and Support (num-
ber of items and source of scales not reported)
13. Schiemann (1977) Leader Behavior Index (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975); Dyadic Raw Scores: Correlations: Mult. Regression:
Exchange scale (Graen & Cashman, 1975) MANOVAs (dyadic exchange scores tri-
chotomized).
14. Graen & Schiemann (1978) LMX (4 items) (new scale: referenced Dansereau. Graen. & Haga Raw Scores; Profile Similarity: Pattern
119751 and Graen & Cashman [1975]) Agreement.
15. James, Gent, Hater, & Coray 3 items based on discussion in House & Mitchell (1974) and Dansereau, Raw Scores: Standard Dev.; Correlations:
(1979) Graen, & Haga (1975) Subgroup Moderator Analysis.
16. Liden & Graen (1980) Vertical Exchange~egotiating Latitude (4 items) (same items as in Raw Scores (trichotomized); MANOVA.
Graen & Schiemann 119781)
17. Schriesheim (1980) Initiating Structure and Consideration (10 items each) modified from Raw Scores: Subgroup Moderator
the LBDQ-XII (Stogdill, 1963) Analysis: Mult. Regression.
18. James. Hater, & Jones (1981) Influence Opportunity (3 items) and Control (5 items) based on Raw Scores: Parallelism of Regression:
Dansereau, Graen, & Haga (1975) Planned Comparisons.
19. Katerberg & Horn (1981) LBDQ (Consideration and Initiating Structure subscales) (Stogdill, LMX scores partitioned into within and
1963) between variance using regression: raw
scores used for other variables.
20. Wakabayashi. Minami, Vertical Exchange (12 items) (new scale; referenced Graen Raw Scores (trichotomized); ANOVA.
Hashimoto, Sane, Graen. & Cashman [1975])
& Novak (1981)
stwiy Reported Measrrrr Use& Amlviis Method
-
21. Dansereau. Alutto. Markham, Leadership Attention (11 items) (Dansereau, Graen. & Haga, 1975) Within and Between Analysis (WABA).
& Dumas (1982)
22. Graen. Liden, & Hoel (lYX2a) LMX (5 items) (4 items similar to Graen Ot Schiemann [lY78]; Deviation Scores correlated with turnover.
1 new item)
23. Graen, Novak, & Sommer- LMX-7 (new scale; referenced Graen & Cashman (19751 and Liden Raw Scores; ANOVA.
kamp (1982b) & Graen [1980]; items not provided)
24. Kim & Organ (1982) Non-Contractual Social Exchange (15 items) (new scale) Raw Scores; ANOVA.
25. Green, Blank, & Liden (1983) LMX (10 items), some of which were adapted from Dansereau, Raw Scores: Correlations; Canonical
Graen. & Haga (1975); Dyadic Contribution (4 items) (new scale) Correlations; Part-canonical analysis.
26. Nachman, Dansereau, Negotiating Latitude (2 items) (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga. 1975) Raw Scores and between and within
& Naughton (1983) scores for Negotiating Latitude: WABA.
27. Rosse & Kraut (1983) Negotiating Latitude (4 items) (new scale) Raw Scores: Correlations.
28. Chassie (1984) LMX (4 items) (Graen & Schiemann. 1978) Raw Scores (trichotomized); Correlations:
Logistic Regression; t-tests; Path Analysis.
29. Fukami & Larson (1984) LMX (3 items) adapted from Dansereau. Graen. & Haga (1975) Raw Scores: Correlations; Mult.
Regression.
30. Novak (1984) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
31. Scandura 81 Graen (1984) LMX-7 (new scale, 7-item scale also reported to be used in Graen. Raw Scores (trichotomized): MANOVA.
Novak. & Sommerkamp [lY%b])
32. Seers & Graen (19X4) I,eadership Exchange measures reportedly from Dansereau. Graen. Raw Scores: Mutt. Regression.
& Haga (1975). Gracn & Cashman (1975). and Graen (1976) (num-
ber of items not reported)
33. Snyder, Williams, & Cashman VDL (4 items) (Cashman. 1976) Raw Scores: Correlations: Muh.
(19X4) Regression.
34. Vecchio & Gobdel (1984) Negotiating Latitude (4 items) (source of scale not reportcdk In/out Raw Scores (trichotomized); Also variance
status (1 item) (new scale) partitioned as in Katerberg & Horn
(1981).
35. Wakahayashi & Graen (19X4) Vertical Exchange (12 items) (new scale based on Graen CuC’ashman Raw Scores: Mult. Regression.
jiY75] and Cashman. Dansereau. Graen & Haga j197hJ)
Table 2. (C~~~~~~e~)
stunv Reported Measure Use& Analytic Method
36. Ferris (1985) LMX (5 items) (Graen, Liden, & Noel. 1982~1) Deviation Scores for LMX: Raw Scores for
other variables: WABA.
37. Liden (1985) LMX and Leadership Interpersonal Sensitivity (7 items) adapted from Raw Scores; t-tests.
Graen & Cashman (1975), and Liden & Graen (1980)
38. Snyder & Bruning (1985) VDL (4 items) (Cashman, 1976) Raw Scores: Mutt. Regression.
39. Vecchio (1985) Negotiating Latitude (4 items) (source of scale not reported) Average and Deviation Scores used for
LMX; Raw Scores for other variables:
Correlations: Hit Rate Analysis.
41. Duchon, Green. & Taber 5-item scale adapted from 4-item Negotiating Latitude scale (used in Raw Scores; Correlations.
(19886) Graen & Cashman [1975]): also used nominations of best and
worst working relationships
42. Scandura, Graen, & Novak LMX-7 (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b; Scandura Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
(1986) 62 Graen, 1984)
43. Vecchio, Griffeth, & Nom LMX (5 items) (Graen. Liden, &, Hoe], 1982a) Raw Scores (trichotomized): Partial Corrr-
(1986) lations.
44. Dienesch (1987) 4-item LMX scale (described as typical of previous LMX measures); Raw Scores: Mult. Regression; Hierarchical
Attribution/Expectation (15 items)(Dienesch, 1986); Behavioral Regression (aggregated values for
Incident scale (9 items)(Dienesch, 1986); a single item to assess the step 1, individual values for step 2).
relationship between self and other dyad member; 3 behaviorai indi-
cators of LMX
45. Fairhurst, Rogers, & Saar 7 items adapted from Negotiating Latitude scale (Graen & Cashman. Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
( 1987) 1975 and Liden & Graen, 1980); Relational coding scheme (Rogers
& Farace, 1975)
46. Gast (1987) LMX assessed with 5 scales from Novak & Graen’s (1982) Manager- Raw Scores; Correlations; Structural Equa-
Employee Questionnaire: 8-item LMX (Novak. 1985); Trust (3 tions Modeling (SEM).
items; Roberts & Q’Reilly [3974] and Novak [1982]); Availability
(Novak, 1982); Assistance with uncertainty (Novak, 1982); Parlicipa-
lion (Novak, 1982)
47. Lagace (1987) 7 items developed by Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982b) Mult. Regression.
Raw Scores: Correlations: ---~.
(L~ilrrLMreil,
Study Reported Measure Used” Amafytic Mehod
49. Novak & Graen (1987) LMX-7 (Graen, Novak, 6;r Sommerkamp, 1982b: Scandura Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
& Graen, 1984)
50. Vecchio (1987) LMX (4 items) (Liden & Graen, 1980) Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult. Regres-
sion; ANOVA.
51. Blau (1988) Quality of Relationship (3 items) (new scale; based on Dansereau, Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult.
Graen, & Haga [1975]) Regression.
52. K’Obonyo (1988) 15 items from the 17-item LMX scale of Graen (1985) Raw Scores; ANOVA; Hierarchical
Regression.
53. Leana (1988) LMX (9 items} based on discussion in Liden & Graen (1980) Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult.
Regression.
54. Peck (1988) 7-item LMX scale (Graen cited as author on questionnaire in appendix; LMX scores trichotomized for visual
items are identical to those reported in Scandura & Graen [1984], inspection; Raw Scores used for Correla-
with minor word changes) tions and ANOVAs.
55. Scandura (1988) LMX-7 (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b) Raw scores; Simple and Hierarchical
Regression.
56. Sidhu (1988) f7-item scale (referenced Graen and associates) Raw scores; Hierarchical Regression;
Correlations; Canonical Correlation:
SEM.
57. Steiner (1988) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; ANOVA.
58. Wakabayashi, Graen, Vertical Exchange (12 items) (new scale based on Graen & Cashman Raw Scores: Correlations; Mult.
Graen, & Graen (1988) 119751 and Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga 119767; item con- Regression.
tent appears similar to Wakabayashi & Graen 119841)
59. Fairhurst & Chandler (1989) 7 items adapted from Negotiating Latitude scale (Graen & Cashman, Raw Scores (trichotomized); Conversa-
1975 and Liden & Graen, 1980); Conversational analysis of conflict tion analysis.
situation
60. Heneman, Greenberger, & Nominations of best and worst relationships Raw Scores; ANOVA
Anonyuo (1989)
61. Kozlowski & Doherty (1989) 2 measures of negotiating latitude: 7-item LMX scale (Scandura Correlations; Mult. Regression; Dichoto-
& Graen, 1984) and Measure of Information Exchange (13 items mized LMX and Box M test for homoge-
developed for study) neity of variance: MANQVA and
ANOVA.
62. Seers (1989) Team Member Exchange (10 items) (new scale); some items adapted Raw Scores; Correlations: Mu&.
from Seers & Graen (1984); LMX (7 items) (Graen, Novak, Regression; ANCGVA.
& So~erkamp, 1982b)
63. Wakabayashi & Graen (1989) Vertical Exchange (number of items not reported in study 1; 14 items Raw Scores: Correlations; Mult.
used in study 2) (new scale; based on Dansereau, Graen, & Haga Regression.
[1976]; content areas similar to Wakabayashi & Graen [1984])
64. Weitzel & Graen (1989) Quality of the Working Relationship (25 items from Graen & Scan- Raw Scores; Mutt. Regression.
dura [1985], including LMX-7 items [Graen & Scandura, 19841)
65. Zalesny & Kirsch (1989) LMX (6 items) developed by Dansereau, Graen, & Haga (1975) and Raw Scores; Correlations; Similarity
Graen & Schiemann (1978) Indices.
66. Dobbins, Cardy, & Negotiating Latitude (2 items) (Dansereau. Graen, & Haga, 1975) Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult.
Platz-Vieno (1990) Regression.
67. Dockery & Steiner (1990) LMX (16 items) adapted from 17-item LMX scale (Graen & Scandura, Deviation scores for LMX; Raw scores for
1985) for supervisors; LMX (12 items) adapted from 17-item other variables; Correlations; Mult.
LMX scale (Graen & Scandura. 1985) for subordinates Regression.
68. Graen, Wakabayashi, LMX (12 items) based on Graen & Cashman (1975) and Cashman. Raw Scores; Muft. Regression.
Graen, & Graen (1990) Dansereau, Graen, & Haga (1976)
69. Lagace (1990) LMX-7 (Scandura 6%Graen, 1984) Raw Scores (dichotomized); MANGVA
70. Nystrom (19~) Vertical Exchange Quality (5 items) (Graen, Liden, & Hoe], 1982a) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
71. Tanner & Castleberry (1990) LMX (17 items) (Graen, 1985): LMX (4 items) (Graen & Schiemann. Raw Scores (dichotomized in study 1 and
1978); LMX (4 items) (Rosse & Kraut, 1983); LMX (1 item) trichotom~ed in study 2); Correlations:
(Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984) ANOVA.
72. Turban, Jones. & Rozelle LMX (4 items) adapted from LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen. 1984) Raw Scores: MANOVA.
(1990)
73. Whi-Bien, Tierney, Graen. LMX (14 items) (Graen & Scandura 119871 referenced as source) Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult.
& Wakabayashi (1990) Regression.
Study Reported Measure Used“ Analytic Method iT
.f
74. Wakabayashi, Graen, & Vertical Exchange (14 items) (Wakabayashi, Graen, Graen, Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult. Regres- ;‘;
Uhl-Bien (1990) & Graen, 1988) sion; Path Analysis. 3
75. Wayne & Ferris (1990) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores: SEM. 3
76. Yammarino & Dubiisky Supervisor Attention (9 dim.); Latitude (4 items) (Dansereau, WABA. E
5
ww Graen, & Haga, 1975) 3
77. Basu (1991) LMX (5 items) modified from Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp (1982b) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression; Logistic 3
.-
and Seers & Graen (1984) Regression.
78. Deluga & Perry (1991) 6 items of 17-item LMX scale (Graen & Scandura, 1985) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression. sa
80. Krone (1991) LMX (5 items) (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982a) Raw Scores (dichotomized); ANOVA. >
81. McClane (1991a) Negotiating Latitude (4 items) adapted fron Liden & Graen (1980) Raw Scores”; Correlations; Mult. 2
Regression. -5-.
82. McClane (1991b) Negotiating Latitude (4 items) adapted from Liden & Graen (1980) Raw Score@; Mult. Regression. lm
83. Salzmann & Grasha (1991) LMX scale (5 items) (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982a) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
84. Stepina, Pemewe, Hassell, LMX (4 items) (Graen & Cashman, 1975) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
Harris, & Mayfield (1991)
85. Uhl-Bien (1991) LMX (14 items) (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b and Raw Scores; Correlations; MANOVA.
Wakabayashi, Graen, Graen, & Graen, 1988)
86. Waldron (1991) LMX (5 items) (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982a) Raw Scores (trichotomized): Correlations;
MANOVA.
87. Baugh (1992) LMX (14 items) (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult. Regres-
1975; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b) sion; WABA.
88. Carnevale & Wechsler (1992) LMX (5 items) adapted from Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen (1973) Raw Scores; Factor Analysis; Correlations:
Mult. Regression.
89. Day & Cram (1992) LMX-7 for subordinates (Scandura & Graen, 1984); LMX (3 items} Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
for supervisors (new scale)
90. Deluga (1992) LMX (17 items) (Graen & Scandura, 1985) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
91. Dunegan, Duchon, & S-item scale adapted from 4-item Negotiating Latitude (used in Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
Uhl-Bien (1992) Graen & Cashman [1975J): also used nominations of best and worst
working relationships
92. Dunegan, Tierney, & Duchon h-item scale KIansereau. Gracn. & Haaa. 197.5: Duchon, Green, & Raw Scores: Correlations; MANOVA:
(1992) Taber, 1986; Graen & Cashman, 19%; &andura & Graen, 19&1) Hierarchical Regression.
93. Gerras (1992) 24 items developed, designed to measure Dienesch & Liden’s Raw Scores; Mult. Regression; Hierarch-
(1986) dimensions ical Regression.
94. Gessner (1992) 7-item LMX (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b; Scandura Raw Scores; Correlations; Regression;
& Graen, 1984) Dichotomized LMX scores, r-tests.
96. Markham, P/furry, & Scott 4-item scale adapted from D-item Leadership Attention scale WABA; Raw score ANOVA.
ww (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984)
97. Schriesheim, Neider, Scan- LMX (6 items) (new scale) Raw Scores; SEM: Correlations.
dura, & Tepper (1992a)
98 Schriesheim, Scandura, LMX (6 items) (S~h~esheim, Neider, Scandura. & Tepper, 1992af Raw Scores; SEM; Correlations.
Eisenbach, & Neider (1992b)
99. Tierney (1992) LMX (14 items) (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b) Deviation Scores for LMX; Raw Scores for
other variables; Correlations: Muit.
Regression.
101. Yammarino & Dubinsky Leadership Attention, Job Latitude (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) WABA.
WQ) (number of items not reported}; Satisfaction with Performance
(1 item) (Dansereau, Alutto, Markham, & Dumas, 1982); Job Con-
gruence (1 item) (Dansereau, Alutto, Markham, & Dumas, 1982)
102. Baugh, Graen, & Page (1993) Centroid item from 14-item LMX scale (discussed in Graen Raw Scores: MANCOVA; ANCOVA.
& Cashman, 1975)
103. Duarte, Goodson, & Klich LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen. 1984) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
(1993)
104. Fairhurst (1993) 7 items adapted from Negotiating Latitude scale (Graen Bc Cashman, Raw LMX scores used to classify subjects
1975 and Liden & Graen, 1980) as in-, middle-, or out-group; fonversa-
tional Analysis.
105. Jones, Glaman, & Johnson LMX (8 items) adapted from Scandura & Graen (1984) Raw Scores; Correlations.
(1993)
106. Judge & Ferris (1993) LMX (5 items) adapted from Dansereau. Graen, & Haga (1975) and Raw Scores; SEM.
Graen & Schiemann (1978)
Table 2. (Co~~i~~ed)
107. Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores: Mult. Regression.
(1993)
108. Murry (1993) LMX (5 items) adapted from Scandura & Graen (1984) and Graen, WABA.
Novak, & Sommerkamp (1982b) 2
109. Phillips, Duran, & Howe11 18-item Attribution/Expectation scale (Dienesch, 1985) Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor 3
(1993) Analysis (CFA). 2
110. Scott (1993) LMX (14 items) (reported as developed by Graen, Novak, & Sommer- Raw Scores; Correlations: Mult. Regres- %
kamp [ 1982b]) sion; SEM. 2
111. Tanner, Dunn, & Chonko Exchange Relationship Quality (6 items) (new scale) Raw Scores (trichotomized): MANOVA. s
(1993) 2
112. Tansky (1993) LMX (7 items) (Graen & Casbman, 1975; this is a 4-item scale) Raw Scores; t-tests: Correlations; Mult. -5-.
Regression. v,
113. Vansudevan (1993) LMX (modified version of 14-item scale) (source of scale not reported) Raw Scores; Cluster Analysis; Correlations;
Mult. Regression; SEM.
114. Vecchio (1993) LMX (4 items) (Liden & Graen, 1980) Raw Scores for LMX (trichotomized);
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for one
variable; Correlations; ANOVA; Sub-
group Analysis.
115. Wayne & Green (1993) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; Correlations; ANOVA.
116. Wilhelm, Herd, & Steiner 7-item LMX scale adapted from Dansereau, Graen, & Haga (1975) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
(1993) and Graen & Cashman (1975)
117. Ashkanasy & O’Connor ( 1994) Negotiating Latitude (4 items) (Liden & Graen. 1980) Raw Scores (both continuous and categori-
cal); Mult. Regression; Multidimensional
Scaling.
118. Bauer & Green (1994) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
119. Borchgrevink & Boster (1994) 14-item scale (obtained from Graen, personal communication, 1990) Raw Scores; CFA.
120. Deluga & Perry (1994) LMX (17 items) (Graen & Scandura, 1985) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
121. Duarte, Goodson, & Khch LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; Mutt. Regression.
(1994)
Study Reported Measure Used#
122. Kinicki & Vecchio (1994) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores: Mu&. Regression.
123. Phillips & Bedeian (1994) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen. 1984) Deviation Scores for L‘MX correlated with
Raw Scores of other variables.
124. Scandura & Schriesheim LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression: SEM.
(1994)
125. Scott & Bruce (1994) LMX (14 items) (reported as developed by Graen, Novak, & Sommer- Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult. Regres-
kamp [1982b]) sion; SEM.
126. Basu & Green (1995) I(-item scale adapted from Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp (1982b) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
and Seers & Graen (1984).
129. Keller & Dansereau (1995) LMX (5 items) (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982a) for supervisors: WABA.
Modified version of same scale for subordinates.
130. Kramer (1995) 3-level nominal LMX scale (1 item) (new) Raw Scores; Correlations; ANOVA:
MANOVA.
131. Major, Kozlowski, Chao. LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; Mult. Regression.
& Gardner (1995) I;;
132. Sias & Jablin (1995) 7 items (Graen & Cashman, 1975) Raw Scores (dichotomized); t-tests: G
Chi-square. 5;:
133. Bauer & Green (1996) LMX (8 items) (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores: Mult. Regression. ;
134. Bhal & Ansari (1996) Sample 1: 24 new items, and LMX (5 items) (Graen, Liden, & Raw Scores; Correlations: Factor Analysis.
Hoel, 1982a) x31
Sample 2: 10 items (reduced from Sample 1 results), and items of Raw Scores; Correlations; E and F ratios z
Attention and Latitude (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984) of WABA I. r:
13.5. Maslyn, Farmer, & Fedor LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores: Correlations: SEM. 5G
wf4 7
136. Green, Anderson, & Shivers 7 items (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b) Raw Scores; SEM.
o<
0.996) .-
138. Settoon, Bennett, & Liden LMX-MDM (Liden & Maslyn, 1998) Raw Scores: SEM. ;;
(1996)
139. Thibodeaux & Lowe (1996) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores (dichotomized): Correlations: ;
Chi-square; MANOVA.
Study Reported Measure Used0 Analytic Method 2
.i
140. Williams, Gavin, & Williams LMX (8 items) (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b) Raw Scores; Partial Correlations; Variance 5
(1996) Reduction Rate; SEM.
141. Basu & Green (1997) 5 items (Graen. Novak, & Sommerkamp, t982b; Seers & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; Regression; MANOVA. ;
142. Engle & Lord (1997) LMX-7 (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994) Raw Scores: Correlations; Hierarchical z
Regression. sVI
144. Wayne, Shore & Liden (1997) LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) Raw Scores; CFA; SEM.
145. Klein & Kim (1998) LMX (7 items) (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b) Raw Scores; ANOVA; Mult. Regression.
146. Liden & Maslyn (1998) LMX-MDM (13 items) (new scale) Raw Scores; Correlations; Mult.
Regression; SEM.
147. Schriesheim, Neider, LMX-6 (Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura. & ‘pepper, 1992a) Raw Scores; WABA; Mutt. Regression.
& Scandura (1998)
Nore. Modified versions of previously-used instruments are labeled “new” above if items were changed, added, or deleted.
” References for scale source(s) reported in this column are those made by the author(s) of the respective articles. The items used in studies in some instances did not correspond
with the citation given by the author(s) as the source of the measure.
“The LMX-7 scafe refers to the 7-item LMX scale reported in Scandura and Graen (1984) and developed by Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982b).
* One variable, Rote Differentiation. was obtained by summing the absolute value of differences between each member’s Negotiating Latitude score and the mean Negotiating
Latitude of the work unit.
d Member scores on Negotiating Latitude were adjusted to the group’s average.
Structure items from the Ohio State studies’ Leader Behavior Description Quesdon-
naire (LBDQ), with one study “augmenting” these with 20 additional items (Graen,
Dansereau, Minami, & Cashman, 1973a).’ Schriesheim (1980) and Katerberg and
Horn (1981) also used Consideration and Initiating Structure items from the revised
LBDQ (Schriesheim, 1980, used a modified version of the revised LBDQ [Schries-
heim, 19791).
Additionally, the Role Orientation Index (RQI) was used along with the LBDQ
by Graen et al. (1972b, 1973a) as a supplementary leadership measure. The Graen
et al. (1972s) study used a third measure, Leader-Member Influence, which was
reported to be similar to one employed by Tannenbaum (1968).
Leader-member exchange was later measured by the Supervisory Attention
scale, also referred to by several other labels (Supervisor Treatment, Leadership
Attention, Leadership Support, Leader Attention, and Support). However, as only
Haga et al. (1974) give a complete list of items and response categories (caned
Supervisor Treatment in that article), it is difficult to determine whether the four
studies reporting use of this measure actually used the same instrument. However,
the several that did report the content areas they measured presented somewhat
different lists (Graen, Orris, & Johnson, 1973b; Haga et al., 1974; Dansereau et al.,
1975; Craen gi Ginsburgh, 1977).
A two-item measure, Negotiating Latitude, was first used by Dansereau et al.
(1975) to measure LMX in conjunction with measures of Supervisor Attention
(Leadership Attention and Leadership Support). In the same year, Graen and
Cashman (1975) published a study that used a four-item measure of Negotiating
Latitude: information was not provided regarding this measure. However, reference
was made to Haga et al. (1974), Dansereau et al. (1975), Graen (1976), and Graen,
Dansereau, Haga, and Cashman (1975). Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) later provided
information on two of the four items used in the Graen and Cashman (1975)
study, and the two appear similar to the two used by Dansereau et al (1975). No
information was given by the authors regarding the two new items’ development
or why they were included.
The two-item measure of Negotiating Latitude was also used in two additional
studies. Cashman et al. (1976) used a two-item measure called Superior Negotiating
Latitude; the two items were similar to Dansereau et al’s (1975) with only minor
wording changes. Cashman et al. (1976) also used a three-item measure, Superior
Vertical Exchange, but no information was presented regarding the items nor were
any sources cited as references for the measure. Graen and Ginsburgh’s (1977)
measure, Leader Acceptance, was composed of two items that appear similar to
those of the Negotiating Latitude measure of Dansereau et al. (1975).
However, the authors differentiate Leader Acceptance from Negotiating Lati-
tude; Leader Acceptance is based on the leader’s response to the two items regarding
the member, whereas Negotiating Latitude involves the member’s response concern-
ing the leader. This study also looked at Leadership Treatment (as a dependent
variable), composed of five scales: Leader Attention, Info~ation, Support, Personal
Sensitivity, and Allowance for Self-determination; some content areas appear simi-
lar to those in the Supervisor Treatment scale of Haga et al, (1974).
The Leader-Boss Linking-Pin Quality scale, a four-item measure, was used to
assess LMX by Graen et al. (1977). One of the items was similar to the first item
of Negotiating Latitude (Dansereau et al., 1975), but the measure included three
new items. The authors refer to Graen and Cashman (1975) for details on data
collection, and state that validity evidence for the measure is presented in Graen
and Cashman (197.5) and Cashman and Graen (1977). However, the Graen and
Cashman (1975) study does not present the items used, and one of the items Graen
and Ginsburgh (1977) report Graen and Cashman (1975) as using was not used by
Graen et al. (1977). Graen et al. (1977) used a Leader’s Latitude and Support scale,
in addition to the Leader-Boss Linking-Pin Quality scale, as a measure of leadership.
No information was provided regarding the items or the response categories of this
measure, nor were any supportive or informative citations given.
Schiemann’s (1977) dissertation did not clearly distinguish between measures
used to capture the exchange relationship and those that were just related to it.
However, it appears that the Leader Behavior Index [for which Dansereau (1975)
is referenced on p. 45 but Dansereau et al. (1975) was apparently meant] and the
Dyadic Exchange scale [Graen & Cashman (1975) are cited] were intended as
measures of the exchange relationship. The Leader Behavior Index consisted of
three subscales: (1) Information, for which some item content appears similar to
the Supervisory Attention scale (Graen et al., 1973b) and the Supervisory Treatment
scale (Haga et al., 1974); (2) Assurance and Attention (consisting of four items, all
corresponding to the Supervisory Attention scale; Graen et al., 1973b); and (3)
Support, appearing to correspond to the Leadership Support scale as described by
Graen and Ginsburgh (1977). The second instrument Schiemann used to measure
the exchange relationship, the Dyadic Exchange scale, is composed of four items
which appear to be a combination of those used in the Negotiating Latitude scales
of Graen et al. (1977) and Graen and Schiemann (1978).
A four-item measure of LMX was again used in 1978 by Graen and Schiemann,
with two new items and two items drawn from the Negotiating Latitude scale of
Dansereau et al. (1975) ( minor wording changes were made). The authors refer-
enced Graen and Cashman (1975) as having extended and validated the Dansereau
et al. (1975) measure, so it is possible that the two “new” items were actually the
same as those used by Graen and Cashman (1975); however, it is not possible to
determine whether this is the case, since Graen and Cashman (1975) did not report
their items.
The 1980s did not bring any clearer consensus in LMX measurement, although
the development of a seven-item scale used in Graen et al. (1982b) and reported
in Scandura and Graen (1984) (LMX-7) has become the most commonly-used
measure for LMX operationalization (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The majority of
LMX research throughout the 1980s continued to use many different LMX scales,
without providing clear rationale for the use of a particular measure and without
much (if any) psychometric support for the soundness of the measures employed.
Graen and his colleagues used 5-,7-, 12-, 14-, and 17-item measures of LMX during
this period, as well as a four-item Negotiating Latitude scale (see Table 2).
The rest of the research in the 1980s employed 16 different measures, reported
to assess Negotiating Latitude (two- and four-item scales), Influence Opportunity,
Vertical Exchange, Leadership Attention, LMX (three-, four-, five-, six-, seven-,
nine-, lo-, and 25item scales), Non-Contractual Social Exchange, and VDL, as well
as nominations of best and worst working relationships. As mentioned previously.
most studies (1) did not indicate the rationale for choosing a particular measure;
(2) did not provide scale item content (even if the measure was new or modified);
or (3) did not indicate the source or origin of the measure (even if an existing scale
was used, sources would typically be listed that do not correspond to the measure
employed).
As shown in Table 2, LMX measurement in the 1990s is still characterized by
researchers using different LMX measures, some of which are developed on an ad-
hoc basis or modified from existing measures without adequate psychometric testing.
Of the 75 empirical works conducted during this decade and reported in Table 2,
numerous different LMX scales were employed. Because of a great deal of variation
in reporting practices employed in the studies reviewed, it is difficult to determine
whether the scales used were identical to those previously employed or to what
extent they were altered, For example, as can be seen in Table 2, measures consisting
of the same number of items referenced different studies as the source of the
measure, It does appear, at a minimum, that at least 12 different scales were used
to measure LMX in the 1990s (since the number of items varied); various studies
reported using one-, four-, five-, six-, seven-, eight-, 12-, 13-, 14-, 16-, 17-, and 24-
item scales, In addition, Negotiating Latitude (both two- and four-item versions~,
Supervisory/Leadership Attention (four- and nine-item scales), Vertical Exchange
Quality (five and 14 items), Exchange Relationship Quality (six items), nominations
of best and worst working relationships, an Attribution/Expectation scale (18 items),
and a three-level “nominal LMX scale” .were used as operationalizations of the
construct. The bulk of studies employed either LMX-7 or a five-item LMX measure
(it does not appear that the studies used the same five-item scale, however).
Somewhat noteworthy is the recent recommendation by Graen and Uhl-Bien
(1995) that researchers use a revised seven-item LMX measure. This new scale is
quite similar to the LMX-7, with the major difference being a change in response
categories (from four to five categories and revised scale anchors). However, it is
unclear as to why this new measure is recommended and, unfortunately, Graen
and Uhl-Bien (1995) provide no evidence of adequate psychometric testing of the
newly revised LMX-7 scale. [As noted by Schriesheim et al. (1993) and others,
making even minor modifications to a scale may change its psychometric properties,
so that testing revised measures is essential to the development of con~den~e in
their psychometric adequacy.]
Several similar but slightly different versions of LMX measures have also evolved
from the LMX research stream. Seers (1989) developed a lo-item Team-Member
Exchange (TMX) scale that was adapted from an LMX scale used in Seers and
Graen (1984). Uhl-Bien and Graen (1992) used a Project LMX (PLMX) scale and
a Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale. The PLMX measure consisted of one
item with a 5-point response scale (the item and the end anchors were reported).
The Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale was a seven-item scale, and both Seers
(1989) and Uhl-Bien (1991) were referenced but the items and response categories
were not given. Baugh, Graen, and Page (1993) used several scales, all reported to
measure LMX. They used two “process measures,” both single-item scales; the first
was described as the “centroid item from the fourteen-item LMX scale (Graen and
Cashman, 1975)” (Baugh et al., 1993, p. 10) and the second was said to be the
“centroid item from the 7-item team member exchange scale” (Baugh et al., 1993,
p. 10) (no reference was given for this second measure). Although only one item
of each measure was used for data analysis, both of the scales from which the items
came were included in their entirety on the research questionnaire. The two process
measure items and their response categories were listed, and the response alterna-
tives listed for the two items which made up the process measures are identical to
the response categories listed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) for a similar question
they present in their recommended LMX measure.
Paralleling the development of the LMX measure as described above, another
measure of exchange quality, Vertical Exchange, was developed by Wakabayashi,
Minami, Hashimoto, Sano, Graen, and Novak (1981), and consisted of 12 items.
The items and response categories were not provided, but the authors indicated
the five content areas from which the items were drawn, and the Graen and Cashman
(1975) study (which used a four-item measure) was referenced. A 12-item Vertical
Exchange scale was also used by Wakabayashi and Graen (1984) and by Wakabay-
ashi, Graen, Graen, and Graen (1988) both listing five content areas measured by
the scale and both referencing Graen and Cashman (1975) (a four-item measure)
and Cashman et al. (1976) ( a t wo-item Superior Negotiating Latitude scale and a
three-item Superior Vertical Exchange measure). Wakabayashi and Graen’s 1989
investigation involved two studies, each employing Vertical Exchange measures:
one for which four content areas were discussed, and a second which consisted of
14 items (the items and response categories were not presented for either). Both
referenced Dansereau et al.% (1975) study, which utilized a two-item measure.
Addressing the multidimensionality of the LMX construct, several different mea-
sures have been developed to assess the mutual affect, contribution, and loyalty
subdimensions that were suggested by Dienesch and Liden (1986) as being the key
subdimensions of LMX. Dienesch (1987) used two scales developed by Dienesch
(1986) to measure the three dimensions hypothesized by Dienesch and Liden (1986):
an Attribution/Expectation scale and a Behavioral Incident scale. Gerras (1992)
developed a 24-item scale designed to measure these three subdimensions. Phillips.
Duran, and Howell (1993) used 18 of 20 items from an Attribution/Expectation scale
(developed by Dienesch, 1986) to measure the three subdimensions. Schriesheim,
Neider, Scandura, and Tepper (1992a) developed and Schriesheim, Scandura, Eisen-
bath, and Neider (1992b) further validated a six-item measure with two items for
each subdimension. Liden and Maslyn (1998) developed a 13-item scale that includes
these three dimensions plus the added dimension of professional respect. Both the
LMX-6 of Schriesheim et al. (1992a) and the LMX-MDM of Liden and Maslyn
(1998) have undergone reasonable psychometric testing and have shown promising
evidence of satisfactory reliability and validity.
Summary
Given the history of LMX research which is chronicled above, it is not surprising
that confusion exists within the literature about the nature of the phenomenon or
that equivocal relationships have sometimes been found with expected outcomes
96 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 19%
(Gerstner & Day, 1997). Additionally, mirroring other leadership domains, without
the use of a single construct definition and operationalization, it is very difficult to
make comparisons across studies or to make incremental progress in replicating
study findings. Finally, it should be noted that even the primary developer of LMX
theory himself has at times expressed uncertainty as to what some of the LMX
research instruments actually measure.
In Graen’s (1976) discussion of two previous studies, Dansereau et al. (1975)
and Haga et al. (1974), he questions, “What was ‘negotiating latitude’ measuring?
Obviously we had a handle on an important phenomena [sic], but what was its
nature?” (Graen, 1976, p. 1240). The measure of negotiating latitude (the variable
used to indicate development of a dyadic structure in initial LMX studies) was
purported to “assess the relative openness of a leader to individualized assistance
for a member” (Graen & Cashman, 1975, p. 145). Seven years later the same items,
now referred to as LMX, were characterized as assessing individualized leadership
(Graen et al., 1982a, p, 869) and the quality of LMX (Graen et al., 1982b, p. 118).
The same inconsistency and confusion appears to exist for the LMX-7 and revised
LMX-7 scales (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Simply put, this is highly problematic,
and we consider this issue further in the discussion and conclusion sections of this
article.
Analytic Practices in Research

While theory specification and measurement are critical aspects of increasing
knowledge in any research domain, the analysis of data collected tells us what really
exists with regard to the phenomenon of interest. Klein et al. (1994) point out
that incorrect conclusions may be drawn when the level of a theory, its construct
measurement, and the statistical analyses employed to test the theory are not the
same. Furthermore, considering only one level of analysis and excluding others can
cause the researcher to miss, hide, or improperly identify effects (Yamma~no &
Dansereau, 1995), and a recent study by Schriesheim et al. (1995) clearly suggests
the necessity of first theoretically identi~ing the level of analysis at which a phenom-
enon of interest occurs and then empirically assessing whether the tested relation-
ships align with those levels of analysis.
LMX theory of the 1980s and early 1990s appears to have accepted the position
that the dyad (i.e., the relationship between a leader and each of his/her subordi-
nates) is the level of analysis at which effects could be expected to manifest (cf.
Graen et al., 1982a, p. 871).’ Some LMX researchers have even asserted that the
LMX approach is a better predictor of leadership outcomes than is the ALS ap-
proach (e.g., Graen et al., 1982a; Graen & Schiemann, 1978; Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1991). A major problem with this assertion, however, is the fact that it cannot be
supported without the use of analytic techniques which are appropriate for testing
multi-level theories. This is true because while the ALS and VDL models are
theoretically mutually exclusive, they have been found to operate concurrently in
some data sets (cf., Dansereau et al., 1982; Nachman, Dansereau, & Naughton,
1983) (perhaps because a supervisor can act similarly across subordinates on one
behavioral dimension while behaving differently with the same subordinates on
another dimension; Dansereau et al., 1982).
Table 3. Summa~ of Analytic Meth~ology Employed in

LMX Studies
Time Period
1910-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995+” Total
Total number of studies 6 8 20 28 57 18 137

Number of studies using raw
scores and ordinary raw score
analyse? 6 8 15 2s 49 16 119
Number of studies using within-
and between-partitioned scores
and WABA 0 0 2 1 5 2 10
Other’ 0 0 3 2 3 0 8
’ It should be noted that the numbers shown in this cohtmn (1995+) are not for a full five-year period, as are the
other columns in this table (e.g., 1970-1974).
‘While Bhal and Ansari (1996) did use WABA I to analyze the variation in the raw scores, WABA II was not
employed. Additionally, the information obtained from the WABA I results was not utilized (i.e., a “within-groups”
effect was found, yet raw scores were inte~reted). Therefore, this study is not included in the WABA category below
but rather is included in the Raw Score category.
CStudies using some combination of raw and partitioned scores and a methodology other than WABA.
Table 3 thus presents a brief summary of the analyses employed in the 137
empirical LMX studies we uncovered and examined for this review (further detail
on the analyses used in these studies is provided in the right-hand column of Table
2). Although there are several approaches which might be employed to test for
different levels of analysis, the within- and between-entities analytical technique of
Dansereau, Alutto, and Yammarino (1984) appears to be the only fully appropriate
one used in the literature to date (hierarchical linear modeling and other potenti~ly
suitable approaches have apparently not been employed thus far). We therefore
briefly use this approach to illustrate why the testing of multiple levels is critical
for research in domains such as leader-member exchange.
saga: An l~~usfraf~o~ of boy Mu~f~p/e Levels Must Be Tested

The basic practice which underlies within- and between-entities analysis
(WABA) is to partition data into within-cells (deviation from cell average) and
between-cells (cell average) components, where the cells represent analytic entities
such as work groups. The relationships which result from these calculations may
be summarized in an overall equation as follows (cf. Dansereau et al., 1984):
“BX”B,‘B,, + “Wx’W,qW,, = rTxy, (1)
where ?B, and ?B, are the between-entity etas for variables x and y, TWX and
?W, are the corresponding within-entity etas, (Bs and ‘W,.. are the corresponding
between-entity and wi~in-entity correlations, and rTXy is the raw-score or total
correlation.
qW, and “W, may be calculated by correlating the raw scores ([x”] or [y”]) with
the appropriate within-entity deviation scores ([x, - xk] or [yn - yk]) for n parts
(e.g., the 1 to n respondents) within k entities (e.g., the 1 to X work units); “B, and
?B, may be calculated by correlating the raw scores of the n parts ([x,] or [yJ) with
their between-entity scores (i.e., the appropriate [xk] or [yk] for the entity within
which each part is situated). The within-entity correlation may be computed by
correlating the within-entity deviation scores (i.e., [” - x~] and [y” - yh]) for the n
parts, while the between-entity correlation may be computed by assigning each part
its appropriate between-entity scores([xk] and [yk]) and then correlating these across
the parts (i.e., between-entity correlations are simply correlations between the entity
means. weighted by the number of parts within each entity).
As can be seen from the fundamental WABA equation (Equation l), any raw
score correlation is just the sum of two separate components-a between-entity (cell)
component (3BxqBy’Bxy) and a within-entity (deviation) component (~W~~W~rW~~);
both are the products of multiplying their appropriate etas and component correla-
tions. Thus, for example, a raw score correlation of 0.00 may be highly misleading
if it is based upon a large negative within-entity component and a large positive
between-entity component (the conclusion drawn would be one of “no relationship,”
while the data actually support a negative within- and a positive between-entities
relationship). Consequently, raw score correlations (IT,,) cannot be unambiguously
interpreted-the explicit examination of levels of analysis is absolutely critical for
the drawing of sound conclusions.
Analysis in LMX Research

As shown briefly in Table 3, although researcher recognition of the importance
of testing hypotheses for level of analysis inferences appears to have increased over
time, to date only a total of 10 (of 137) empirical studies provide analytically
sound evidence that can speak about support (or nonsupport) for LMX theory at
a particular level of analysis. Ten studies certainly cannot be considered a “weight
of evidence” in favor of the basic LMX or VDL hypothesis, particularly because
not all of these studies have found support for more within- than between-groups
effects. Thus, the extant evidence appears to belie the assertion that the VDLl
LMX approach is clearly more empirically supported than is the ALS approach.
Additional research which utilizes appropriate data-analytic techniques is needed
before we can say with any certainty that one approach is more strongly supported
than the other.
Furthermore, and as can be seen from examining Table 2, none of the 10 studies
which did use appropriate data-~alytic methods also used what would be considered
a fully acceptable LMX measure today (i.e., the LMX-7 scale; Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). In the 1980-84 period, Dansereau et al. (1982) used an 11-item Leadership
Attention scale, and Nachman et al. (1983) used a two-item Negotiating Latitude
measure. In 1985-89, Ferris (1985) used the five-item LMX measure of Graen et
al. (1982a). In 1990-94, Yamma~no and Dubinsky (1990, 1992) used measures
of Supervisor Attention and Latitude (the second study also employed one-item
measures of Satisfaction with Performance and Job Congruence), while Baugh
(1992) used a 1Citem LMX scale. Markham, Murry, and Scott (1992) employed a
four-item Leadership Attention measure that was derived from Dansereau et al.%
(1984) 11-item scale, while Murry (1993) used a five-item LMX scale derived from
that of Scandura and Graen (1984) and Graen et al. (1982b).
Finally, and most recently, Keller and Dansereau (1995) employed a five-item
LMX scale which was taken from Graen et al. (1982a), while Schriesheim, Neider,
and Scandura (1998) used Schriesheim et al.‘s (1992a, 1992b) six-item LMX scale.
Thus, even discounting Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) recent contention that the
LMX-7 is the only measure which should be used, it seems clear that at least five
of the 10 studies that used an appropriate analytic technique also used measures
which are questionable operationalizations of the LMX construct (Dansereau et
al., 1982; Markham et al., 1992; Nachman et al., 1983; Yammarino & Dubinsky,
1990, 1992).
DISCUSSION
This review has examined and summarized 147 works which were completed since
the constructs of VDL and LMX were first investigated in 1972. Several important
difficulties have been highlighted and discussed. Some may view the numerous
definitions and subdimensions of LMX, the multiple measures, and the unspecified
level(s) and analysis to be part of the “richness” of LMX. However, we feel that
there is a good possibility of further developing the potential of the LMX approach
by providing greater clarity in the theoretical conceptualization of the construct
and by enhanced measurement and attention to level(s) of analysis concerns. Thus,
we make some brief recommendations with respect to needed theory, measurement,
and analysis in future LMX research.
Theory
As we discussed during our review of LMX theory, it has evolved substantially
over the past 25 years. This is good. One of the major criticisms which has been
advanced about other leadership theories is that there has been a lack of respon-
siveness to constructive criticisms provided by the field, as well as a failure to
incorporate needed changes as evidence has accumulated (cf. Schriesheim & Kerr,
1977a, 1977b). Neither of these criticisms can be leveled at LMX theory.
On the other hand, we believe that some of the changes which have been made
in LMX theory have not be accompanied by an adequate explanation of those
changes or the theoretical rationale which underlies them. For example, if the
theoretical definitions of LMX which are provided in Table 1 are examined, along
with the subaspects which various writers have specifically mentioned as being
included within the LMX construct, one cannot help but be struck by a lot of
similarities and a lot of differences. While it would be hoped that work which
elaborates or modifies the conceptualization of LMX would include theory, litera-
ture and discussion (rationale) which integrates the new treatment with previous
work (and which develops it in reasonable detail), this simply has not been done.
As a recent case in point, we believe that Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) most
recent revision of the theory does not adequately justify why the theory now only
focuses on the relationship between a leader and a follower (and no longer considers
the leaders and followers themselves). Additionally, it is now becoming increasingly
accepted that “good” theory clearly states the level(s) of analysis at which its
hypothesized relationships hold (cf., Klein et al., 1994). Unfortunately, again, the
most current version of LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) now appears to
have been modified so that it is unacceptable in this regard. We should note that
we are not the only ones believing this-Dansereau et al. (1995a, p. 100) feel that
currently the “LMX approach provides little guidance as to how to view leaders or
followers from a levels-of-analysis perspective,” and that this is a critical deficiency.
Additionally, Dansereau (1995, p. 484) now argues that the newest “LMX approach
is simply unclear as to what level [of analysis] it applies.”
In addition to needing increased attention to the provision of logic and linkages
between new and previous LMX theory, it seems clear to us that more theoretical
work is needed on LMX. The major theoretical papers number only a few, and
with few exceptions, have been written by Graen and associates. We believe that
broader-based, more frequent, and more systematic synthesis and integration of
the LMX literature is needed, along with more basic theorization and model devel-
opment. Certainly, future theoretical explications of LMX should clearly state the
level(s) of analysis at which the phenomena are expected to hold.
While some theorists may choose to go back to VDL’s propositions regarding
differentiation among subordinates (a within-unit phenomenon), or to adopt Dan-
sereau’s (1995) suggestion of independent dyads, it may also be fruitful to explore
alterative levels of analysis possibilities (e..g, Wiley, 1988). If some of this were to
be performed by a cross section of the field, perhaps an increased fertilization of
new ideas would occur. In any event, regardless of authorship, it seems critical to
us that more attention be devoted to theory development. And, at the same time,
it seems important that scholars who use the LMX approach in the future be more
careful to not modify or extrapolate extant theory in their writings without providing
a well-developed and sound theoretical basis for doing so.
Measurement
As evidenced by our review of LMX measures, and ~fortunately following a
good portion of management research practice (Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987; Schries-
heim et al., 1993), LMX scales seem to have been developed on an ad-hoc, evolution-
ary basis, without the presentation of any clear logic or theory justifying the changes
which were made. Also, items have been added to and subtracted from LMX
measures without adequately discussing or presenting evidence regarding the ef-
fect(s) of such changes on scale validity.
Perhaps even more troublesome, none of the scales used to measure LMX
appear to be “based on either systematic psychometric study or explicit construct
validation” (Dienesch & Liden, 1986, p. 623; see also Bhal & Ansari, 1996, and
Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), althou~ validity assessments should be conducted on
all measures on an on-going basis (Guion & Schriesheim, 1997; Nunnally & Bern-
stein, 1994). Schriesheim et al. (1992b) have suggested that extant LMX measures
have not been content valid because, “‘LMX scales have typically not been developed
using an a priori theoretical definition of its content subdomains” (Schriesheim et
al., 1992b, p. 984).
This clearly violates one of the more important principles of scale development
for, as noted by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, p. 102), “one should ensure content
validity (adequacy of sampling the material on which people are tested) in terms
of a well-formulated plan and procedure of test construction before the actual test
is developed rather than evaluate this after construction.” Additionally, it should
be emphasized that content validity is not a trivial psychometric property, since a
measure that is not content valid cannot. be construct valid (Schriesheim et al.,
1993) and because Cook, Campbell, and Perrachio (1990, p. 505) suggest that one
of the more serious threats to construct validity is “the inadequate preoperational
explication of constructs.”
Our review thus suggests that the LMX construct may not be what was actually
measured by at least some of the LMX scales which have been employed to date.
Because a systematic program of development and validation has not been con-
ducted, exactly what these scale are measuring is unknown and attempting to
substantively synthesize the existing literature may therefore not make much sense.
As such, we believe that either a reconceptualization of the LMX construct is
needed or further development and validation of a suitable LMX scale should be
undertaken. With respect to this second course of action, it is probably worthwhile
to note that current LMX theory lacks a clear description of the exchange process
between a leader and subordinate (Dansereau et al., 1995a; Dienesch & Liden,
1986) and that it “doesn’t specify what pattern of downward exchange relationships
with different subordinates is optimal for leadership effectiveness” (Yukl, 1994, p.
239). Furthermore, although LMX has been considered to involve an “exchange”
process, neither the supervisor nor the subordinate are asked in any of the LMX
scales (with the exception of the Negotiating Latitude scale used by Dansereau et
al., 1975) what must be given (exchanged) for the reward or benefit to be received
(Gerstner & Day, 1997).
However, some possible dimensions of the leader-member exchange have been
suggested (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Thus, future work may be able to build upon
this initial effort and a great opportunity appears to exist for psychometric work
to advance future research on LMX. To avoid the mistakes of the past, such
future psychometric work needs to carefully follow established practices for scale
development and validation (cf., Hinkin, 1995; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Schries-
heim et al., 1993). Additionally, a challenge exists for future researchers to better
and more accurately describe their measures and how they relate to previous
measures, and why one measure is employed rather than another.
Analysis
The level of analysis at which LMX theory should generally be tested appears
to be either dyadic or within-group, and there appears to be basic agreement within
the field regarding this position (see Footnote 2, however). The determination of
whether LMX is a dyadic or within-group phenomenon and whether LMX is a
better predictor of leadership outcomes than is the ALS approach is an empirical
question which requires the use of analytic techniques which test for various levels
of analysis. A dyadic approach would involve looking at each supervisor-subordinate
dyad as a “whole,” the analytic focus being the deviation of each dyad member’s
score from this whole (or dyad average) score. Alternatively, a within-group analysis
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 I990
would consider the entire unit or work group as the “whole.” with deviations of
individual members’ scores from this whole (or group average) as the focus.
Unfortunately, although methodologies have existed for some time to permit
such testing (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1984), apparently only 10 studies have employed
an appropriate methodology. Because it is highly inappropriate to draw conclusions
about the level of analysis at which a particular effect operates without first testing
for such an effect, it therefore appears that support for LMX theory as a dyadic
or within-group protrayal of leadership processes is substantially less than it should
be. As we noted earlier, 10 studies, even if all were supportive of LMX level-of-
analysis predictions, cannot be considered an adequate weight of scientific evidence
on as complex a phenomenon as leader-member exchange.
The recommendation which seems most reasonable to rectify this situation seems
obvious to us: (1) all future research on LMX should first specify the level(s) of
analysis at which effects are expected to occur, and (2) suitable analytic methods
should be employed to test for such levels and effects. We have briefly highlighted
within- and between-entities analysis (WABA) as one particularly suitable approach
but we should note that others exist as well. Thus, it does not matter whether one
is or is not favorably disposed toward WABA as a data-analytic system. What
does matter is that future research on leader-member relations exercise caution in
framing and then testing hypothesized relationships. Without direct and explicit
treatment of the level of analysis issue future research is not any more likely to be
pertinent to our understanding of leader-member exchange than is much of the
extant literature to date.
CONCLUSION
Although perhaps seeming obvious at first glance, this review clearly indicates the
need for improved theorization about LMX and its basic process, for improved
measurement practices, and for enhanced and more appropriate data-analytic tech-
niques. It is true that many scholars believe that the LMX approach has substantially
contributed to deepening our understanding of fundamental leadership phenomena.
However, greater advances in the future appear possible if the basic theoretical,
psychometric, and statistical recommendations presented in this review are em-
braced and enacted by LMX researchers.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Terri A. Scandura and Francis J. Yamma-

rino for their constructive feedback and comments on earlier versions of this manu-
script.
NOTES
1. Parenthetically, several versions of the LBDQ exist, but none have 40 scored items. The
Halpin (1957) and the Halpin and Winer (1957) versions (which are slightly different)
present 40 items but score only 30. This, plus the fact that Graen and associatesincorrectly
cite Stogdill and Coons (1957) Fleishman (1957) and Pleishman, Harris, and Burn
(1955) as the source of the LBDQ, makes it impossible to be sure exactly what leadership
measuresthey employed in these studiesor how they were used (cf., Schriesheim&
Kerr, 1977b).
2. As mentioned earlier, Craen and colleagues(e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;Graen &
Wakabayashi, 1994) have recently placed theoretical emphasison the relationship or
linkage betweenthe superior and subordinateand excluded the leader and the follower
(as individuals) from the LMX model (Dansereauet al., 1995a).As Dansereauet al.
(1995a)have noted, this new emphasisresultsin ambiguitiesregarding the appropriate
level of analysisfor this phenomenon.It seemsclear to us, however, and to Dansereau
and colleagues(e.g., Dansereau,Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984;Nachman,Dansereau,&
Naughton, 1983;Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992) that in mostinstancestestsof the LMX
model need to examinewhether resultshold at the dyadic, within-group, or other levels
of analysis.
REFERENCES
Achinstein, P. (1968). Concepts of science. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1994). Value differences as a barrier in leader-member
exchange: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Paperpresentedat the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management,Dallas, TX.
Bacharach,S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Somecriteria for evaluation. Academy of
Management Review, 14,496515.
Barge, J. K., & Schlueter,D. W. (1991). Leadershipasorganizing: A critique of leadership
instruments.Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 541-570.
Basu, R. (1991). An empirical examination of LMX and transformational leadershipas
predictors of innovative behavior. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer-
sity Microfilms International, 9201299.
Basu, R., & Green, S. (1995). Subordinateperformance, leader-subordinatecompatibility,
and exchangequality in leader-memberdyads:A field study. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 77-92.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997).Leader-memberexchangeand transformationalleadership:
An empirical examination of innovative behaviorsin leader-memberdyads.Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.
Bauer, T., & Green, S.(1994).LMX: Relationships withperformance, expectations, experience,
and leader delegation at two points in time. Paper presentedat the annualmeeting of
the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S.G. (1996).Developmentof leader-memberexchange:A longitudinal
test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.
Baugh, G. (1992).Interpersonalinfluence in a project organization: A role setanalysis.UMZ
Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9233218.
Baugh, G., Graen, G. B., & Page,D. (1993). Effects of team gender and racial composition
on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Paper presentedat the
annual meeting of the Southern ManagementAssociation, Atlanta, GA.
Bhal, K. T., & Ansari, M. A. (1996). Measuring quality of interaction between leadersand
members.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 945-972.
Blau, G. (1988).An investigation of the apprenticeshiporganizationalsocializationstrategy.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 176-195.
Borchgrevink, C. P., & Boster, F. J: (1994).Leader-memberexchange:A test of the measure-
ment model. Hospitality Research Journal, 17, 75-100.
Carnevale,D. G., & Wechsler,B. (1992).Trust in the public sector:Individual and organiza-
tional determinants.Administration & Society, 23, 471-494.
Cashman, J. F. (1976). The nature of vertical dvad linkages within managerial units. UMJ
Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. 7616101.
Cashman.J.. Dansereau.F.. Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976).Organizational understructurc
and leadership:A longitudinal investigation of the managerialrole-making process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 278-296.
Cashman,J. F., & Graen, G. (1977).The nature of leadershipin the vertical dyad: The team
building process.Cited in Graen et al. (1977,p. 504) asforthcoming in Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance (but not publishedin that journal nor in any we
could find).
Chassie,M. B. (1984).Vertical dyadic linkage formation: Predictorsand processes determin-
ing quality superior-subordinaterelationships.UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor,
MI: University Microfilms International, 8506411.
Cook. J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work.
London: Academic Press.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T.. & Perrachio, L. (1990). Quasi experimentation. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy: Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 491-576). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologistsPress.
Copi. I. M. (1954). Symbolic logic. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Cummings,L. L. (1975). Assessingthe Graen/Cashmanmodel and comparingit with other
approaches.In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 181-185).
Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dansereau,F. (1995).A dyadic approachto leadership:Creating andnurturing this approach
under fire. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 479-490.
Dansereau,F., Alutto, J. A., Markham, S. E., & Dumas,M. (1982).Multiplexed supervision
and leadership:An application of within and between analysis.In J. G. Hunt, U.
Sekaran, & C. A. Schriesheim(Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp.
81-103). Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dansereau,F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational
behavior: The variant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dansereau,F.. Jr., Cashman.J., & Graen, G. B. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity
theory ascomplementaryapproachesin predicting the relationship of leadershipand
turnover among managers.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, IO,
184-220.
Dansereau.F.. Jr., Graen. G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approachto
leadershipwithin formal organizations:A longitudinal investigationof the role-making
process.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Dansereau,F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995a).Leadership:The multiple level
approaches.Leadership Quarterly, 6, 97-109.
Dansereau,F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M.,
Nachman, S., Naughton, T., Kim, I., Al-Kelabi, S., Lee, S., & Keller, T. (1995b).
Individualized leadership:A new multiple level approach. Leadership Quarterl.y, 6,
413-450.
Day, D. D., & Crain, E. C. (1992).The role of affect and ability in initial exchangequality
perceptions.Group and Organization Management, 17. 38&397.
Deluga, R. J. (1992).Supervisortrust building, leader-memberexchange,and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-
326.
Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing
behaviour,satisfaction,andperceivedsuperioreffectiveness.Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 64, 239-252.
Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinateperformance and ingratiation
in leader-memberexchanges.Group and Organization Management, 19,67-86.
Dienesch,R. M. (1986).A three dimensionalmodelof leader-memberexchange:An empirical
test. Paper presentedat the Academy of Managementmeeting, Chicago,IL.
Dienesch,R. M. (1987). An empirical investigation of the relationship between quality of
leader-memberexchangeand subordinateperformanceandsatisfaction.UMI Disserta-
tion Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8800026.
Dienesch,R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-memberexchangemodel of leadership:A
critique and further development.Academy of Management Review, 11. 618-634.
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to
appraisal satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational
variables and appraisalcharacteristics.Journal of Management, 16, 619-632.
Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990).The role of the initial interaction in leader-member
exchange. Group and Organization Studies, 1.5, 395413.
Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1993).How do I like thee? Let me appraise
the ways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14. 239-249.
Duarte, N. T.. Goodson,J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994).Effects of dyadic quality and duration
on performanceappraisal.Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499-521.
Duchon. D., Green, S., & Taber, T. (1986).Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment
of attitudes, measures.and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71. 56-60.
Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader-
member exchangeand subordinate performance:The role of task analyzability and
variety asmoderators.Journal of Management, 18, 59-76.
Dunegan, K. J., Tierney, P., & Duchon, D. (1992). Perceptionsof an innovative climate:
Examining the role of divisionalaffiliation, work group interaction, and leader/subordi-
nate exchange.IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39, 227-235.
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas,and leader-member
exchange.Academy of Management Journal, 40,988-1010.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993).The leader-memberexchangepatternsof womenleadersin industry:
A discourseanalysis.Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-memberinteraction.
Communication Monographs, 56. 215-239.
Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers,L. E., & Saar,R. A. (1987).Manager-subordinatecontrol patterns
and judgmentsabout the relationship. Communication Yearbook, IO, 395-415.
Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadershipin the employeewithdrawal process:A constructive
replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.
Fleishman,E. A. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill &
A. E. Coons(Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 103-119).
Columbus,OH: Bureau of BusinessResearch,Ohio State University.
Fleishman,E. A., Harris, E. F., & Burtt, H. E. (1955).Leadership and supervision in industry.
Columbus,OH: Bureau of Educational Research,Ohio State University.
Fukami. C. V., & Larson,E. W. (1984).Commitmentto companyand union: Parallel models.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 367-371.
Gast, I. F. (1987). Leader cognitive complexity and its effects on the quality of exchange
relationshipswith subordinates.UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University
Microfilms International, 8708350.
Gerras, S. J. (1992). The effect of cognitive busynessand nonverbal behaviors on trait
inferencesand leader-memberexchangejudgments. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9236826.
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. ? 19Y1
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-memberexchange

theory: Correlates and construct issues.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82. X27-844.
Gessner.M. (1992).An interpersonalattraction approachto leader-memberexchange:Pre-
dicting the predictor. ~Mr~~sertat~on Services. Ann Arbor. MI: University Microfilms
International, 9234564.
Graen. G. (1976). Role-makingprocesseswithin complex organizations,In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 1201-1245).Chicago.
IL: Rand-McNally.
Graen, G. B. (1985). Leader-memberexchangescale.Unpublished paper, Department of
Management, College of BusinessAdministration, University of Cincinnati, OH.
Graen, G., & Cashman,J. F. (1975). A role-makingmodel of leadershipin formal organiza-
tions: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership
frontiers (pp. 143-16.5).Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G., Cashman,J. F., Ginsburgh, S., & Schiemann,W. (1977). Effects of linking-pin
quality upon the quality of working life of lower participants:A longitudinal investiga-
tion of the managerialunderst~cture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 491-SO4.
Graen, G., Dansereau,F., Haga, W. J., & Cashman,J. F. (1975). The invisible organization.
Boston, MA: ShenkmanPublishingCo.
Graen, G., Dansereau,F., Jr., & Minami, T. (1972a).Dysfunctional leadershipstyles.Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 216-236.
Graen, G.. Dansereau,F., Jr., & Minami, T. (1972b). An empirical test of the man-in-the-
middle hypothesisamongexecutives in a hierarchical organization employing a unit-
set analysis.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 262-285.
Graen, G., Dansereau.F., Jr., Minami, T.. & Cashman,.I. (1973a).Leadershipbehaviors as
cuesto performance evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 16.611-623.
Graen, G., & Ginsburgh,S.(1977).Job resignationasa function of role orientation andleader
acceptance:A longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation.Organ~zat~onaZ
Behavior and Human Performance, 19, l-17.
Graen, G., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982a). The role of leadershipin the employee
withdrawal process.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,868-872.
Graen, G., Novak. M. A., & Sommerkamp,P. (1982b). The effects of leader-memberex-
changeand job designon productivity and job satisfaction:Testing a dual attachment
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G. B., Orris, J. B., &Johnson, T. W. (1973b).Role assimilationprocesses
in a complex
organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 39.5420.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura,T. A. (1985). Leader-member exchange scale-17 Unpublished
paper, Department of Management, College of BusinessAdministration, University
of Cincinnati, OH.
Graen, G., & Scandura.T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
Graen, G., & Schiemann,W. (1978). Leader-memberagreement:A vertical dyad linkage
approach.Journal of Applied psychology, 63.206-212.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991).The transformationof professionalsinto self-managing
and partially self-designingcontributors: Toward a theory of leadership-making.Jour-
nal of Management Systems, 3,25-39.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995).Relationship-basedapproachto leadership:Develop-
ment of leader-memberexchange(LMX) theory of leadershipover 2.5years:Applying
a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership ~~~erfy, 6, 219-247.
Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi.M. (1992).Cross-culturalleadershipmaking:Bridging Ameri-
can and Japanesediversity for team advantage.In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4

(2nd ed., pp. 41546). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologistsPress.
Graen, G., Wakabayashi,M., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. (1990).International generaliz-
ability of American hypothesesabout Japanesemanagementprogress:A strong infer-
enceinvestigation. Leadership Quarterly, I, l-23.
Green. S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational
influences on leader-memberexchange and related work attitudes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214.
Green, S. G., Blank, W., & Liden, R. C. (1983). Market and organizational influenceson
bank employees’work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68.
298-306.
Guion, R. M., & Schriesheim,C. A. (1997). Validity. In L. H. Peters,C. R. Greer. & S. A.
Youngblood (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource manage-
ment (pp. 380-381). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Haga, W. J., Graen, G., & Dansereau,F., Jr. (1974). Professionalismand role making in a
service organization: A longitudinal investigation. American Sociological Review, 39,
122-133.
Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of BusinessResearch.
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957).A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions.
In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons(Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measure-
ment (pp. 39-51). Columbus,OH: Ohio StateUniversity, Bureau of BusinessResearch.
Heneman,R. L., Greenberger,D. B., & Anonyuo, C. (1989).Attributions andexchanges:The
effects of interpersonalfactors on the diagnosisof employeeperformance.Academy of
Management Journal, 32,466476.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995).A review of scaledevelopmentpracticesin the study of organizations.
Journal of Management, 21, 967-988.
House,R. J., Rousseau,D. M.. &Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995).The mesoparadigm:A framework
for the integration of micro and macro organizationalbehavior. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 17, 71-114.
James,L. R., Gent, M. J., Hater, J. J., & Coray, K. E. (1979). Correlatesof psychological
influence: An illustration of the psychologicalclimate approachto work environment
perceptions.Personnel Psychology, 32, 563-588.
James,L. R.. Hater, J. J., & Jones, A. (1981). Perceptionsof psychologicalinfluence: A
cognitive information processingapproach for explaining moderated relationships.
Personnel Psychology, 34,453-477.
Jones,A. P., Glaman, J. M., & Johnson,D. S. (1993). Perceptionsof a quality program
and relationshipswith work perceptionsand job attitudes. Psychological Reports, 72.
619-624.
Judge, T. A.. & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.
Katerberg, R., & Horn, P. W. (1981). Effects of within-group and between-groupsvariation
in leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 218-233.
Keller, T., & Dansereau,F. (1995). LMX: Dyads embedded in groups or dyads independent
of groups? Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Kerr, S., Schriesheim,C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974).Toward a contingency
theory of leadershipbasedupon the considerationand initiating structure literature.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62-82.
Kim, I(. I., & Organ, D. W. (1982). Determinantsof leader-subordinateexchangerelation

ships.Group and Organization Studies, 7, 77-89.
K’Obonyo, P. 0. (1988). A dyadic upward influence process:A laboratory investigation of
the effect of a subordinate’singratiation (praise and performance) on the supervisor-
subordinateexchangerelationship.UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: Ilniver-
sity Microfilms Inte~ational, 8910261.
Kinicki. A. J., & Vecchio. R. P. (i994). Influenceson the quality of supe~isor-subordinate
relations: The role of time-pressure,organizationalcommitment,and locusof control.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1.5, 75-82.
Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S.(1998).A field study of the influenceof situationalconstraints,leader-
member exchange.and goal commitment on performance.Academy of Management
Journal, 41, W-95.
KIein, K. J., Dansereau,F., & Hall, R. J. (1994).Levels issuesin theory deveiopment,data
collection and analysis.Academy of Management Review, 19, 19.5229.
Korman, A. F. (1974).Contingency approachesto leadership:An overview. In J. G. Hunt &
L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingencyapproaches to ~eudership (pp. 189-195).Carbondale,
IL: Southern llhnois University Press.
Kozlowski, S.W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989).Integration of climateandleadership:Examina-
tion of a neglectedissue.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 546-553.
Kramer, M. W. (1995).A longitudinal study of superior-subordinatecommunicationduring
job transfers.Human Communication Research, 22, 39&.
Krone, K. J. (1991). Effects of leader-memberexchangeon subordinates’upward influence
attempts. Communication Research Report, 8, 9-18.
Lagace,R. R. (1987). An investigation into the impact of interpersonaltrust on the quality
of the relationshipand outcomevariablesin the salesmanager/salesperson dyad. UMI
Lagace,R. R. (1990).Leader-memberexchange:Antecedents and consequences of the cadre
and hired hand. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, IO, 11-19.
Leana, C. R. (1988). Predictors and consequencesof delegation.Academy of Management
Journal, 31. 754-774.
Lewin. K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical
papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Liden, R. C. (1985).Femaleperceptionsof female and malemanagerialbehavior. Sextioles,
12, 421432.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership.Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-memberexchange:An
empirical assessment through scaledevelopment. Journal of ~unageme~t, 24,43-72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S.J., & Stilwell, D. (1993).A longitudinalstudy on the early development
of leader-memberexchanges.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1996). Failed upward influence attempts.
Group & Organization Management, 21, 461-480.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal
investigationof newcomerexpectations,early socializationoutcomes,and the moderat-
ing effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.
Markham, S. E.. Murry, W. D., & Scott, K. D. (1992). The dual impact of leadershipon
performanceappraisal:A levels-of-analysisperspective.In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, &
D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 459-467). Greensboro,NC: Center
for Creative Leadership.
McClane, W. E. (1991a). Impli~tions of member role d~erentiation: Analysis of a key

concept in the LMX model of leadership.Group & Organization Studies, 16, 102-113.
McClane, W. E. (1991b).The interaction of leaderand membercharacteristicsin the leader-
memberexchange(LMX) model of leadership.Small Group Research, 22, 283-300.
Murry, W. D. (1993). Leader-memberexchange and work value congruence:A multiple
levels approach. UMI Dissertation Services.Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms
International, 9331469.
Nachman,S., Dansereau,F., & Naughton, T. J. (1983).Negotiating latitude: A within- and
between-groupsanalysisof a key construct in the vertical dyad linkage theory of
leadership.Psychological Reports, 53, 171-177.
Novak, M. A. (1982). The manager-employeequestionnaire.Unpublished questionnaire,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Novak, M. A. (1984).A study of leaderresourcesasdeterminantsof leader-memberexchange.
I/MI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International,
8509493.
Novak, M. A., 6t Graen, G. (1987). Perceived leader control as a moderator of personal
leaderresourcescontributing to leader-memberexchange.Proceedings ofthe Academy
of Management. 206-209.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchangesand organizational commitmentsof American
businessmanagers.Croup & Organization Studies, 25, 296-312.
Osigwey. C. A. B. (1989).Concept fallibility in organizationalscience.Academy o~~unage-
ment Review, 14, 579-594.
Peck, M. (1988). Head nurse fit with staff, administration, and situation: Impact on unit
performanceand staff satisfaction.UMI Dissertation Services. Arm Arbor, MI: Univer-
sity Microfilms International, 8817885.
Phillips, A. S.. Br Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchangequality: The role of
personaland interpersonalattributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37,990-1001.
Phillips,R. L., Duran, C. A., & Howell, R. D. (1993).An examinationof the multidimensional-
ity hypothesisof leader-memberexchange,using both factor analytic and structural
modelingtechniques.Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 161-163.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1987).Researchmethodologyin organizational studies.
Journal of management, 13,419-441.
Rogers, L. E., & Farace. R. V. (1975). Relational communicationanalysis:New measures
and procedures.Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239.
Rosse,R. G., & Kraut, A. I. (1983). Reconsideringthe vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 63-71.
Salzmann,J., & Grasha,A. F. (1991). Psychologicalsizeand psychologicaldistancein man-
ager-subordinaterelationships.The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 629-646.
Scandura.T. A. (1988).Beyond the dyad: Interdependencein managementnetworks. UMZ
Scandura,T. A., 81Graen, G. B. (1984).Moderating effectsof initial leader-memberexchange
statuson the effects of a leadershipintervention. Journal o-f Applied Psychology, 69,
428-436.
Scandura,T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986).When managersdecidenot to decide
autocratically: An investigation of leader-memberexchangeand decision influence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.
Scandura,T. A.. & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders:A leader-member
exchangeapproach. Leadership quarterly, 7, 243-263.
170 LEA~ERSHIPQUARTERLY Vol.10 No. I 19W
Scandura. T. A.. & Schriesheim.C. A. (1994). Leader-memberexchange and supervisor

career mentoring as complementary constructsin leadership research.Acadrm~ of
Mwlagement Journal, 37, 1588-1602.
Schiemann.W. A. (1977). The nature and prediction of organizational communication:A
review of the literature and an empirical investigation. UMf dissertation Services. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 7724747.
Schriesheim.C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual-directed and group-directed leader
behavior descriptions.Academy of Management Journnl, 22, 345-355.
Schriesheim,C. A.. Cogliser,C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). “Is it trustworthy?” A multiple
levels-of-analysisreexalnination of an Ohio State leadershipstudy with implications
for future research.Leadership QuarterI-y, 6, 111-145.
Schriesheim,C. A., & Kerr. S. (1977a). R.I.P. LPC: A reply to Fiedler. In J. G. Hunt &
L. L. Larson(Eds.), Leadership: Thecutting edge (pp. 51-56). Carbondale,IL: Southern
Illinois IJniversity Press.
Schriesheim.C. A.. & Kerr. S. (1977b). Theories and measuresof leadership: A critical
appraisal.In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson(Eds.), Leffdersh~p: The cutting edge (pp. 9-45).
Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schriesheim,C. A., Neider, L. L.. & Scandura,T. A. (1998).A within- and between-groups
analysisof leader-memberexchangeas a correlate of delegationand as a moderator
of delegationrelationshipswith performanceand satisfaction.Academy of Management
Journal, 4I, 298-318.
Schriesheim,C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura,T. A., & Tepper, B. J. (1992a).Development and
preliminary validation of a new scale(LMX-6) to measureleader-memberexchangein
organizations.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 135-147.
Schriesheim,C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J.
(1993). Improving construct measurementin managementresearch:Commentsand a
quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-
pencil survey-type instruments.Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.
Schriesheim,C. A.. Scandura,T. A., Eisenbach,R. J., & Neider, L,. L. (1992b).Validation
of a new leader-memberexchangescale(LMX-6) usinghierarchically-nestedconfirma-
tory factor analysis.educational and Psychoiogjca~ Meusurement, 52, 983-992.
Schriesheim,J. F. (1980).The socialcontext of leader-subordinaterelations:An investigation
of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183-394.
Schwab,D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior, Research in Organiza-
tionnl Behavior, 2, 3-43.
Scott. S. G. (1993).The influence of climate perceptionson innovative behavior: A model
of individual innovation in the workplace. UMI ~~ssert~tio~ Services. Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms International, 9319261.
Scott, S. Cr., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace.Academy of Management Journal, 37,580-607.
Seers,A. (1989).Team-memberexchangequality: A new constructfor role-makingresearch.
Or~an~zat~~n~l Behnvior and Human Decision Froresses, 43, 118-135.
Seers,A.. & Graen, G. B. (1984).The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation
of the combinationof taskcharacteristicsandleader-memberexchange.Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 283-306.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996).Socialexchangein organizations:Perceived
organizational support, leader-memberexchange and employee reciprocity, Journnl
of Applied Psych~~ogy~ 81.219-227.
Sias.P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinaterelations, perceptions
of fairness,and coworker communication.Human Communication Research, 22,5-38.
Sidhu, K. K. (1988). The role of a leader-memberexchangeand work experience in the

early careerdevelopmentof professionals.UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms International, 8822842.
Snyder, R. A., & Bruning, N. S. (1985). Quality of vertical dyad linkages: Congruenceof
supervisorand subordinatecompetenceand role stressasexplanatory variables.Group
and Organizational Studies, 10, 81-94.
Snyder, R. A., Williams, R. R., & Cashman,J. F. (1984).Age, tenure, and work perceptions
aspredictors of reactionsto performancefeedback.Journal of Psychology, 116, 11-21.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997).Processand structure in leader-memberexchange.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
Steiner, D. D. (1988). Value perceptions in leader-memberexchange.Journal of Social
Psychology, 128, 611-618.
Stepina, L. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hassell,B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). A
comparative test of the independenteffects of interpersonal,task, and reward domains
on personaland organizationaloutcomes.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
6, 93-104.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form
XII. Columbus,OH: Bureau of BusinessResearch,Ohio State University.
Stogdill, R. M., & Coons,A, E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus,OH: Bureau of BusinessResearch,Ohio State University.
Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validity issuesin organizational behavior research.
In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 155-179).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sutton, R. I.. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40. 371-384.
Tannenbaum,A. S. (1968). Control in organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tanner, J. F., Jr., & Castleberry, S. B. (1990). Vertical exchangequality and performance:
Studying the role of the salesmanager.Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage-
ment, 10, 17-27.
Tanner, J. F., Jr., Dunn, M. G., & Chonko, L. B. (1993).Vertical exchangeand salesperson
stress.Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13, 27-36.
Tansky, J. W. (1993).Justiceandorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior: What isthe relationship?
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 195-207.
Thibodeaux, H. F., III, & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergenceof leader-memberexchange
and mentoring. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, II, 97-114.
Tierney. P. (1992). The contribution of leadership,supportive environment, and individual
attributes to creative performance:A quantitative field study. UMI Dissertation Ser-
vices. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9313826.
Turban, D. B., Jones,A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1990). Influencesof supervisor liking of a
subordinateand the reward context on the treatment and evaluation of that subordi-
nate. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 215-233.
Uhl-Bien, M. K. (1991).Teamwork of the future: An investigation into teamwork processes
of professionalwork teamsin knowledge-basedorganizations. UMI Dissertaton Ser-
vices. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9205408.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1992). An empirical test of the leadership-makingmodel in
professionalproject teams. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.),
Impact of leadership (pp. 379-387).Greensboro,NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P. S.,Graen, G. B.. & Wakabayashi,M. (1990).Companypaternalism
and the hidden-investmentprocess:Identification of the “right type” for line managers
in leading Japaneseorganizations.Group and Organization Studies, 1.5, 414-430.
Vansudevan,D. P. (1993).Developing a model for predicting the career intentions of under-

graduate engineeringstudents.UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor. MI: University
Microfilms International, 9329876.
Vecchio, R. P. (1982). A further test of leadershipeffects due to between-groupvariation
and within-group variation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 200-208.
Vecchio, R. P. (1985).Predictingemployeeturnover from leader-memberexchange:A failure
to replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 478485.
Vecchio, R. P. (1987).Situational leadershiptheory: An examinationof a prescriptive theory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 4444.51.
Vecchio, R. P. (1993). Self- and supervisor ratings: A dyadic approach. The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1. 73-83.
Vecchio, R. P.. & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). Th e vertical dyad linkage model of leadership:
Problemsand prospects.Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.
Vecchio, R. P.. Griffeth, R. W., & Horn, P. W. (1986). The predictive utility of the vertical
dyad linkage approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126. 617-625.
Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The Japanesecareer progressstudy: A 7-year
follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 603-614.
Wakabayashi,M., & Graen, G. B. (1989).Human resourcedevelopmentof Japanesemanag-
ers: Leadershipand career investment. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 1, 235-256.
Wakabayashi,M., Graen, G.. Graen, M. & Graen, M. (1988).Japanesemanagementprogress:
Mobility into middle management.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 217-227.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen. G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1990). The generalizability of the hidden
investment hypothesisin leading Japanesecorporations. Human Relations, 43, 1099-
1116.
Wakabayashi. M., Minami, T., Hashimoto, M., Sano, K., Graen, G., & Novak, M. (1981).
Managerial career development: Japanesestyle. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 4, 391-420.
Waldron, V. R. (1991).Achieving communicationgoalsin superior-subordinaterelationships:
The multi-functionality of upward maintenancetactics. Communication Monographs,
58, 289-306.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinateinteractions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75,487-499.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-memberexchangeon employee
citizenship and impressionmanagementbehavior. Human Relations, 46,1431-1440.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-memberexchange: A social exchangeperspective. Academy of Management
Jqurnal, 40, 82-111.
Weitzel. J. R., & Graen. G. B. (1989). Systemdevelopmentproject effectiveness:Problem-
solving competenceas a moderator variable. Decision Sciences, 20, 507-531.
Wiley, N. (1988).The micro-macroproblem in socialtheory. Sociological Theory, 6254-261.
Wilhelm, C. C., Herd, A. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1993).Attributional conflict betweenmanagers
and subordinates:An investigation of leader-memberexchange effects. Journal o,f
Organizational Behavior, 14, 531-544.
Williams. L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996).Measurementand nonmeasurement
processes with negativeaffectivity and employeeattitudes.Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 81, 88-101.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau,F. (1995).Dyadic leadership: MuItiple views and longitudinal
Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Academy of Manage-

considerations.
ment, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1990). Salespersonperformance and managerially
controllable factors: An investigation of individual and work group effects. Jorwnal o,f
~~nage~e~~, 16.87-106.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992).Superior-subordinaterelationships:A muftiple
levels of analysisapproach.i&man Relations, 45, 57.5400.
Yukl. G. A. (1994). ~eaders~~~ in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zalesny. M. D., & Kirsch, M. P. (1989). The effect of similarity on performanceratings and
interrater agreement.fugue R~~a~~o~s, 42, 81-96.

LMX Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LMX Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX)

RESEARCH: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

The relationship-based approach to leadership research developed by Graen, Dan-

Leadership Quarterly, 10(l), 63-113.

LMX THEORY, MEASURES, AND ANALYSES: A REVIEW

Evolution of LMX Theory

LMX was an exchange relationship based on competence, interpersonal skill, and

LMX development as well as the dimensionality of the construct (they proposed

Leader-member exchange is (a) a system of components and their relationships

Unfortunately, although a great deal of research on LMX continued into the

LMX and Levels of Analysis Issues

Measurement of leader-Member Exchange

Evolution of LMX Measures

Analytic Practices in Research

Table 3. Summa~ of Analytic Meth~ology Employed in

Total number of studies 6 8 20 28 57 18 137

saga: An l~~usfraf~o~ of boy Mu~f~p/e Levels Must Be Tested

Analysis in LMX Research

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Terri A. Scandura and Francis J. Yamma-

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-memberexchange

L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4

Kim, I(. I., & Organ, D. W. (1982). Determinantsof leader-subordinateexchangerelation

McClane, W. E. (1991a). Impli~tions of member role d~erentiation: Analysis of a key

Scandura. T. A.. & Schriesheim.C. A. (1994). Leader-memberexchange and supervisor

Sidhu, K. K. (1988). The role of a leader-memberexchangeand work experience in the

Vansudevan,D. P. (1993).Developing a model for predicting the career intentions of under-

Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Academy of Manage-

You might also like