Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta‐Analytic Review

verifiedrich profile · Personnel Psychology · 2015

Martin, Robin; Guillaume, Yves; Thomas, Geoff; Lee, Allan; Epitropaki, Olga

10.1111/peps.12100 · CrossRef: verified

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: cross sectionaldata: quantitative survey

A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.

analysis: meta analysis · validity (validity): internal addressed · external addressed · construct addressed · statistical addressed · classifier confidence 0.9

What this article reports

The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.

leader member exchange lmxcounterproductive work behaviours

r = -0.24 · grade B · unverified

leader member exchange lmxorganizational citizenship behavior ocb

r = 0.34 · k=97 · grade A · unverified

leader member exchange lmxtask performance

r = 0.3 · grade B · unverified

leader member exchange lmxtask performance

r = 0.3 · k=146 · grade A · unverified

leader member exchange lmxjob satisfaction

r = 0.61 · grade B · unverified

leader member exchange lmxorganizational citizenship behavior ocb

r = 0.34 · k=97 · grade A · unverified

leader member exchange lmxorganizational commitment

r = 0.49 · grade B · unverified

Models this article informs

The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.

In the authors’ words

The article’s own abstract.

This paper reports a meta‐analysis that examines the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship quality and a multidimensional model of work performance (task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance). The results show a positive relationship between LMX and task performance (146 samples, ρ = .30) as well as citizenship performance (97 samples, ρ = .34), and negatively with counterproductive performance (19 samples, ρ = ‒.24). Of note, there was a positive relationship between LMX and objective task performance (20 samples, ρ = .24). Trust, motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction mediated the relationship between LMX and task and citizenship performance with trust in the leader having the largest effect. There was no difference due to LMX measurement instrument (e.g., LMX7, LMX‐MDM). Overall, the relationship between LMX and performance was weaker when (a) measures were obtained from a different source or method and (b) LMX was measured by the follower than the leader (with common source‐ and method‐biased effects stronger for leader‐rated LMX quality). Finally, there was evidence for LMX leading to task performance but not for reverse or reciprocal directions of effects.

What the literature says about it

Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.

6 supportinglegacy verdicts

No open-access quotations have been captured yet.

Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.