Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T03:37:28.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Innovation Climate: the Role of LMX Differentiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2013

Núria Tordera  and
Vicente González-Romá
Núria Tordera*
Affiliation:
Universitat de València (Spain)
Vicente González-Romá
Affiliation:
Universitat de València (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Núria Tordera. IDOCAL. Universitat de València. Avda. Blasco Ibáñez 21. 46010. València (Spain). Phone: +34–963864566. Fax: +34–963864668. E-mail: nuria.tordera@uv.es.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leader-member Exchange (LMX) theory has been shown to be one of the most compelling theories for understanding the effects of leadership on organizational behavior. This theory proposes that leaders establish differentiated relationships with each of their subordinates according to the exchanges produced between them. Recently, the concept of LMX differentiation has been introduced into the theory to extend research from the dyadic to the group level. The present paper uses a longitudinal design to analyze the moderator role of LMX differentiation in the relationship between mean LMX and innovation climate in a sample of 24 healthcare teams. The results showed no direct effects of mean LMX on changes in innovation climate over time. However, they provide support for the moderator effect of LMX differentiation in this relationship, as it was stronger when LMX differentiation was low than when it was high.

Keywords

leadershipinnovation climateleader-member exchange (LMX)LMX differentiation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 16 , 2013 , E83
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This investigation was supported by Research Grant PSI2010-21746 from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.

References

Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004) The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.3.CO;2–3 Google Scholar
Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In Klein, K. & Kozlowski, S. (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations. (pp.349–381). San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass Google Scholar
Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader–member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 246−257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.004 Google Scholar
Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442819921004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, D. (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7 Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277795 Google Scholar
Dunegan, K. J., Tierney, P., & Duchon, D. (1992). Perceptions of an innovative climate: Examining the role of divisional affiliation, work group interaction, and leader/subordinate exchange. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 39, 227–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.156556 Google Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. ( 2006) Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012716 Google Scholar
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.6.827 Google Scholar
González-Romá, V. (2008) La innovación en los equipos de trabajo [Innovation in work teams]. Papeles del psicólogo, 29, 32–40.Google Scholar
González-Romá, V., Peiró, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 465–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.465 Google Scholar
González-Romá, V., Tomás, I., Peiró, J. M., Lloret, S., Espejo, B., Ferreres, A., & Hernández, A. (1996). Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario de clima organizacional FOCUS-93 [Analysis of the psychometric properties of the FOCUS-93 organizational climate questionnaire]. Revista de Psicología Social Aplicada, 6, 5–22.Google Scholar
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(82)90236-7 Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In Staw, B. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208–1219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012678 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269 Google Scholar
Kazama, S., Foster, J., Hebl, M., West, M., & Dawson, J. (2002, August). Impacting climate for innovation: Can CEOs make a difference?. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Le Blanc, P. M., & González-Romá, V. (2012). A team level investigation of the relationship between Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 534–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liden, R. C. & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035002 Google Scholar
Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., & Goldstein, H. W. (2008). Examining the relative importance of leader-member exchange on group performance over time. In Graen, G. B. & Graen, J. A. (Eds.), Knowledge driven corporation: A discontinuous model. LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 5., pp. 211–230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
OECD (2007). Innovation and growth. Rationale for an innovation strategy. Paris, France: OECD Publishing Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/40908171.pdf Google Scholar
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 211–266). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sanders, K., Moorkamp, M. Torka, N., Groenveld, S., & Groenveld, C. (2010). How to support innovative behavior? The role of LMX and satisfaction with HR practices. Technology & Investment, 1, 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ti.2010.11007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.69.3.428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schyns, B. (2006). Are group consensus in Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and shared work values related to organizational outcomes? Small Group Research, 37, 20–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496405281770 Google Scholar
Schyns, B., & Day, D. V. (2010) Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903024922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256701 Google Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45, 3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.658656 Google Scholar
van Muijen, J. J., Koopman, P., De Witte, K., De Cock, G., Susanj, Z., Lemoine, C., … Tunipseed, D. (1999). Organizational culture: The focus questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 551–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135943299398168 Google Scholar
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 51 355–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00951 Google Scholar