A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG LEADER-MEMBER

EXCHANGE, EFFECTIVENESS AND PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN WORK

ORGANISATIONS

BY

KWABENA NKANSAH SIMPEH

THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

M.PHIL PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE

©Kwabena Nkansah Simpeh

SEPTEMBER 2003

i

DECLARATION

I Kwabena Nkansah Simpeh, author of this thesis, do hereby declare that the work

presented here was done by me as a student of the Department of Psychology, University

of Ghana, Legon, 2002/2003 academic year under the supervision of Dr.Robert

Akuamoah-Boateng and Dr.Agyepong Afrifa.All references to other literature have been

duly acknowledged. This work has never been submitted in whole or part for any degree

of this University or elsewhere. This has been submitted for examination with approval

by my supervisors.

Signature of Student -------------------------------------------------------

(Kwabena Nkansah Simpeh)

Signature of Supervisor ----------------------------------------------------------

(Dr.Robert Akuamoah –Boateng)

Signature of Supervisor ----------------------------------------------------------

(Dr.Agyepong Afrifa)

ii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to the glory of God.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to my Supervisors Dr.Robert Akuamoah Boateng and

Dr.Agyepong Afrifa who took time to read and made the necessary criticisms,

suggestions and corrections in the course of writing this thesis.

My special thanks also go to Mr. Jonathan Ocansey, Human Resource Manager Fan Milk

Limited, Mr.Aryeh Human Resource Director and Mrs. Louisa Mc Carthy Turkson HR

Officer of Accra Breweries Limited, Mr, Bright Osei, Graphic Communications Group,

Mr.Sarfo Prempeh of Nestle Ghana Limited and Mr.Ampadu of Ghana Breweries.

Without your help this work could not have been completed.

To all employees who participated in the study, I am very grateful.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION iiDEDICATION iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ivTABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES viABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER ONE

1.0. Introduction 1

CHAPTER TWO

2.0. Literature Review 112.1. Research Hypotheses 392.2. Definition of Terms 42

CHAPTER THREE3.0. Research Methodology 473.1. Population 473.2. Sample 473.3. Research Instruments 493.4. Procedure 55

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0. Results 57

CHAPTER FIVE5.0. Discussion 775.1 Conclusion 975.2 Limitations of the study 985.3 Recommendations

References 100 Appendices

v

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 4.1 Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four factors of LMX and Organizational Effectiveness 58

Table 4.2 Summary of Pearson Product –Moment Correlation between LMX and Organizational Effectiveness 60

Table 4.3 Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four Components of LMX and Perception of Change 61

Table 4.4 Summary of Pearson’s product –moment correlation between LMX

and perception of change 63

Table 4.5 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the Impact of Sex and Level of LMX on employees Effectiveness 65

Table 4.6 Summary of Two–way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to Which Sex and Level of LMX Predict effectiveness of Employees 66

Table 4.7 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations Scores on the Influence of Sex and LMX on Perception of change among Employees 67

Table 4.8 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to Which Sex and LMX Influence Perception of change 68

Table 4.9 Summary of Newman Kuel’s multiple comparisons following 2-way ANOVA to determine which two means precisely interact in predicting perception of change 69

Table 4.10 Summary of Means and standard deviations showing the extent to

which Job status and LMX influence Effectiveness 70

Table 4.11 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Influence of Employee Job Status and LMX influence Effectiveness 71

Table 4.12 Summary of Means and standard deviations showing the impact of education and LMX influence Effectiveness 72 Table 4.13 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Education and LMX influence Effectiveness 73

vi

Table 4.14 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of age and LMX on Effectiveness 74 Table 4.15 Summary of Two – way Analysis of Variance showing the extent to which age and LMX impact on Effectiveness 75

vii

ABSTRACT

The combined effect of leader-member interaction on leader effectiveness is an emerging

area of research. The importance of this study is to investigate the combined effect of

leader-member interaction on effectiveness and perception of change in work

organizations. Two hundred participants of middle and line staff with standard

seven/Junior secondary school certificate to Higher National Diploma/Degree were

drawn from the population for the study. The participants were systematically selected

from the production departments of five manufacturing organizations. . Out of the two

hundred participants, one hundred and eighty six (186) participants completed the

questionnaire and returned them. This resulted in ninety three percent (93%) return rate.

Thirty -six (36) were rejected because some participants failed to fill the questionnaires

well. This resulted in a total of one hundred and fifty (150) completed questionnaires for

analysis. All participants were given questionnaires, which measured the LMX

interaction, effectiveness and perception of change at work. The study found that there

was a positive and significant relationship between LMX and employees effectiveness.

Again LMX was positively and significantly related to perception of change. However,

affect and professional respect, two of the four factors of LMX, had significant effect on

effectiveness in work organizations. The same effect was recorded between contribution

and employees perception of change. In addition, sex, job status and education of

employees also impacted on the study of LMX. However, the age of employees had no

impact on the LMX. These findings provide further empirical evidence of the importance

of studying Leader-member exchange (LMX) through a multi-dimensional approach.

viii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Leadership, effectiveness and change in work organizations are very important

components to any profit or non-profit making organization. Their importance explains

why researches on these three concepts have been widely conceptualized and tested in

psychology, management and military studies.

The area of leadership and leadership effectiveness is full of theory, most of which

emphasize leader traits, behavior, personality and interaction between leader behavior

and the situation. The combined effect of leader-member interaction on leader

effectiveness is an emerging area of research. The importance of this study is to

investigate the combined effect of leader-member interaction on effectiveness and

perception of change in work organizations.

In line with this, four main aims have been outlined in this study. To establish a positive

significant relationship among affect, loyalty, contribution, professional respect and

effectiveness in work organizations. To establish a positive significant relationship

among affect, loyalty, contribution, professional respect and perception of change in

work organizations. To investigate whether the strength of the relationship among leader-

member exchange (LMX), effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations.

Finally the study is aimed at investigating the impact of sex or gender on the leader-

member exchange.

ix

By investigating these relationships a clearer understanding of the three concepts:

leadership, effectiveness and change will be achieved. This could serve as the basis for

the formulation of a comprehensive framework of how leadership relates to effectiveness

and change in work organizations.

Given the volume of research on leadership, one might assume that psychologists are in

fairly good agreement about what leadership is. Unfortunately, this is not the case; Bass

(1990) describe the situation well when he said, “There are almost as many different

definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.”

In defining leadership (Bernard, 1986; Jenkins, 1947) referred to certain personality traits

or characteristics as constituting leadership. Thus, people with such traits have the

potential to influence others and become leaders, whereas people without them are

destined to be followers. The emphasis on great leaders directed researchers’ attention to

identifying the characteristics that distinguish leaders from non-leaders. Hence most

leadership research was designed to identify such traits.

Stodgill (1948) reviewed the early literature on leader traits, and found consistent

evidence that leaders were higher than other work-group members on such characteristics

as intelligence, scholarship, dependability, activity, participation, and socio-economic

status. Stodgill also found that leaders tended to score higher on measures of sociability,

x

initiative, persistence, self-confidence, insight, popularity, adaptability, cooperativeness,

verbal skill and task knowledge. House & Baetz, (1979) unlike using personality traits in

explaining leadership saw leadership as influence, that is to say leader behavior has some

desired effect on follower behavior. This approach does not really suggest why leaders

are effective or why some people are better leaders in a given situation, though it does

stress that leadership involves getting others to do what the leader wants. In effect, the

leader’s role is what matters.

While others viewed leadership as certain personality trait or influence, others looked at

leadership as behavior. Thus, leadership is defined here as the behaviors in which the

leaders engage (Fiedler, 1967; Hemphill, 1949). In practice, this approach has virtually

always equated leadership with managerial or supervisory behavior, meaning ineffective

leadership results when supervisors engage in the wrong behaviors.

The significant difference between this approach and the definition of leadership as

influence is that, if you view leadership as influence, then you must examine the behavior

of the followers to see whether or not leadership has taken place. On the other hand,

when leadership is looked as simply the behavior of the people in supervisory positions,

then we have not taken into account reactions of the follower.

Subsequently, power is introduced as the basis for leadership. French & Raven (1959)

have described power as the extent to which one person (the Leader) can expend more

force on other group members than they in turn can exert to resist the leaders intentions.

xi

It should be noted that power depends on the reactions of followers as well as the

behavior of leaders. In fact, unlike most leadership explanations, the power approach

does not also automatically assume that supervisors and managers are the only leaders in

an organization. Depending on their ability to influence others, all members of an

organization can, at times, be leaders.

A close analysis of these leadership theories has not been completely satisfactory. They

tend to argue their point from the leaders perspective, making the leader the cardinal

focus in their analysis. For example, the presence of certain personality traits or

particular behaviors has not been explained satisfactorily to constitute leadership.

In the writing of Stodgill, he admits that people do not become leaders simply because

they possess a certain combination of traits, but rather because the traits must be

appropriate for the situations in which leaders find themselves. In other words,

leadership depends on the characteristics of the leader and those of the environment. The

environmental characteristics include such things as the follower, organizational goals,

and competition from outside the group. It is the first component (the follower’s

behavior) that has engaged the researcher’s attention.

Contrary to previous explanations to leadership, the present study is focused on the

importance of the quality of exchange between leader and member/follower. The

researcher intends to examine how these exchanges affect leaders’ behavior. This

exchange (LMX) is the basis for the present study. It is against this background that the

xii

study proposes a dyadic relationship approach usually referred to as leader-member

exchange theory to explain the concept of leadership.

This approach is a fairly recent development in leadership research, where leadership

depends not only on the behavior, personality, power, goal achievement and attribution of

the leader but essentially on the reactions of the followers, which in turn have

implications for the leader’s subsequent behavior. The leader-member exchange

approach conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered in the interaction

between leaders and followers (Dansereau, Graen &Haga, 1975; Graen, Novak

&Sommerkamp, 1982; Liden &Graen, 1980).

According to Yukl (1998), Leader-member exchange (LMX) describes how a leader and

an individual subordinate develop a relationship as they influence each other and

negotiate the subordinate’s role in the organization. The negotiation occurs during the

role formation process. This process involves three important phases. During the first

phase, role taking, the member enters the organization and the leader assesses his or her

abilities and talents. Based on this assessment, the leader provides opportunities for the

member to “take” a specific role. At the second phase, role making, the leader and the

member engage in unstructured and informal negotiation. It must however be

emphasized that it is during the second phase that the member begins to “make” a role.

During the third phase, role routinization, an on going social exchange pattern emerges.

This entire role formation process is expected to occur early in the member’s tenure with

the leader.

xiii

The role formation process develops through a mechanism referred to as “Negotiating

latitude”. This negotiation occurs through series of exchanges or interactions between

the leader and the member. As the relationship develops, the latitude given to the

subordinate by the supervisor increases. This latitude, which makes the exchanges

greater, is linked to member perceptions of the degree of empowerment (sparrow 1994).

Positive relationship has also been found between Leader-member exchange and

subordinate performance such that a higher quality LMX correlated with higher levels of

performance. This relationship was moderated by perceptions of task analyzability and

variety (Dunegan, Duchon&Uhl-Bien, 1992). In addition to this, research has also found

supervisor liking of subordinate to positively influence the expected leader-member

exchange treatment of the subordinate, and evaluations of subordinate performance.

Therefore, in seeking a clear understanding of the concept of leadership so that its

relationship with effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations can be

explained, Quinn and Rohrbagh’s (1981, 1983) competing values framework of

organizational effectiveness would be of particular importance to the present study.

Turning to the concept of effectiveness. There are many ways in which an organization

can be effective or otherwise. Cameron (1980) described four major approaches to

evaluating effectiveness: goal, system resource, multiple constituency and internal

process approaches.

xiv

The first approach states that an organization can be described as effective if it is

successful in accomplishing its goals, usually with respect to outputs or production. The

second approach to evaluating effectiveness is the successful acquisition of resources the

organization needs from the environment. In particular, this approach emphasizes

successful competition for scarce resources. Unlike goal and resource acquisition the

third means of evaluation looks at how smooth an organization’s internal functioning is

and free of major problems. Such characteristics as trust and benevolence towards

individual workers, smooth information flow, and freedom from conflict between work

units represent such an organization. While the third emphasizes internal functioning, the

fourth approach of evaluating an effective organization may be seen as one that is able to

keep its “strategic constituencies” satisfied. Strategic constituencies are groups of people

who have a stake in the organization, such as customers, workers, and stockholders.

There have been many studies on organizational effectiveness that have attempted to

identify the factors that determine organizational performance. The present study is no

exception, where it departs from previous studies is an emphasis on a global perspective

of evaluating organizational effectiveness.

Cameron (1981) has argued that effectiveness is multidimensional rather than a unitary

construct. In effect, we cannot measure a single aspect of an organization’s performance

and hope to have captured the essence of its effectiveness. Connally, Conlon &Deutsch

(1980) have earlier indicated that, in general, the consensus seems to be that the measure

of effectiveness that is used in a given situation should be contingent upon a variety of

xv

factors. Accordingly, Cameron (1980) suggests the following six critical factors or

questions that should be considered when evaluating organizational effectiveness: (1)

what domain of activity is being focused on? (2) Whose perspective, or which

constituency’s point of view, is being considered? (3) What levels of analysis is being

used? (4) What time of frame is being employed? (5) What type of data is to be used? (6)

What reference is being employed?

In line with these, Quinn &Rohrbaugh’s (1981; 1983) competing values framework of

effectiveness was used. The rationale for using the competing values framework lies in

its consideration of multiple measures and perspectives in evaluating effectiveness .It has

nine (productivity-efficiency, quality, cohesion, adaptability readiness, information

management-communication, growth, planning and goal setting) underlying criteria or

dimensions for measuring effectiveness. Finally, this framework takes into account the

six questions or factors that Cameron mentioned in his writings.

In much the same vein, change in organization is an important area of research. Much of

the researches on change in organizations have dealt with changes in either jobs or the

tasks that jobs comprise. These types of changes tend to be narrow. The purpose of the

present study is to broaden the scope of the internal factors of change while adding some

external factors. Of importance, would be employee perception of change. The rationale

is attributed to this statement that “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”. In other

words, as individuals, we vary in the way we perceive our environment. Because of this

xvi

variation in perception, we may respond to situations differently at the work place as

individuals or group.

Thus our reaction towards change at the workplace may be influenced by our perception.

For example, employees have been found to be less likely to resist when they perceived

that the benefits of a change overshadow the personal costs.

It is worth pointing out that most researchers and theorists in the past have considered

leadership from the perspective of the leader, the leader always has played the dominant

role at the neglect of the influence. The follower brings to bear on the leader’s behavior.

This situation does not present a better understanding of the concept of leadership. That

is, the essence of leadership centers on the leader but what should be noted is that

organizations are manned by leaders and followers; as such any attempt to study

leadership should factor the follower into the equation. This is the problem the study

seeks to address.

The existing theories of leadership, effectiveness and perception of change in

organizations may only at best be described as partial theories in the sense that they

explain only a narrow band or specific aspects of the three concepts. It is hoped that by

succeeding in identifying the quality of exchange and establishing relationships between

the quality of exchange, effectiveness and perception of change, it would provide the

basis for the formulation of a comprehensive theory of leadership which takes into

account the influence of both leader and follower in work organizations.

xvii

The present study beside the theoretical relevance is expected to provide improved

explanation for the relationship among the leader-member exchange, effectiveness and

perception of change in organizations so that they can be interpreted for purposes of

practical application.

xviii

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter reviews relevant literature in leader-member exchange, organizational

effectiveness, and change.

2.1Leader-member Exchange

The leader-member exchange theory asserts that leaders do not interact with subordinates

uniformly because supervisors have limited time and resources. In-group subordinates

perform their job in accordance with the employment contracts and can be counted on by

the supervisor to perform unstructured tasks, to volunteer for extra work, and to take on

additional responsibilities. Supervisors exchange personal and positional resources

(inside information, influence in decision making, task assignment, job latitude, support,

and attention) in return for subordinates’ performance on unstructured tasks (Graen &

Cashman, 1975)

As a result, research shows mutual trust, positive support, informal interdependencies,

greater job latitude, common bonds, open communication, high referee and autonomy,

satisfaction and shared loyalty (Dansereau, Graen, &Haga, 1975; Dienesch &Liden,

1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

In contrast, subordinates who perform only in accordance with the prescribed

employment contract are characterized as “out-group” with limited reciprocal trust and

xix

support, and few rewards from their supervisors (Deluga, 1998). The exchange among

the superior-subordinate (dyad), a two-way relationship, is the unique basic premise and

the unit of analysis of LMX.

The theoretical development of LMX is based on the premise that leader-member

relationships emerge as the result of a series of exchanges or interactions during which

leader and member roles develop. This role formation process involves three phases.

During the first phase, role taking, the member enters the organization and the leader

assesses his or her abilities and talents. Based on this assessment, the leader provides

opportunities for the member to “take” a specific role. During the second phase, role

making, the leader and the member engage in unstructured and informal negotiation. It is

during the second phase that the member begins to “make” a role. During the third

phase, role routinization, an ongoing social exchange pattern emerges or becomes

“routinized”. This entire role formation process is expected to occur early in the

member’s tenure with the leader.

Graen et al., (1975, 1976 & 1978) developed the most widely known of these theories.

His proposed Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL), or leader-member exchange (LMX) theory,

is an important attempt to explain how the relationship between leader and follower can

affect the leadership process. According to the theory, a manager’s subordinates can be

divided into two groups: The in-group and the out-group. The in-group consists of the

workers believed by the supervisor to be competent, trustworthy, and motivated to work

hard and accept responsibility. The nature of the relationship between the leader and the

xx

in-group members is different from the relationship between the leader and the out-group

members. In-group members are given responsibility for important tasks, thereby

making the supervisor’s job easier. In return, the leader provides in-group members with

support, understanding, and a more personal relationship. Out-group members are given

tasks requiring less ability and responsibility and so do not benefit from a personal

relationship with the supervisor. Interaction with the out-group members is based on the

supervisor’s formal authority rather than on respect or friendship.

The quality of the leader-member exchange relationship is theorized to be related to work

and attitudinal outcomes. For example, exchange quality has been demonstrated to

predict such outcomes as employee withdrawal or resignation, salary and promotion,

productivity, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior and organizational

commitment.

Research on leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has generally supported the theory.

For example, in-group foremen accepted greater responsibility and were rewarded with

more support, feedback and personal attention than out-group foremen (Liden & Graen,

1980). Examining the relationship between conflict and dyadic relationships, Howat &

London (1980) found that as the relationship approached an in-group style; there were

fewer interpersonal conflicts between supervisor and subordinate. In much the same

vein, perceptions of organizational climate are related to the quality of leader-member

relations (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989).

xxi

Deluga&Perry (1994) using the LMX theory found that subordinate performance was

positively associated with higher exchanges. The same researchers found that

subordinates ingratiating activity, including opinion conformity, other enhancement, and

self-presentation augmented performance in the prediction of higher quality exchanges.

However, some research has not supported the theory’s predictions, such as a study

conducted by Vecchio (1985). He reported that leader-member relationship or exchange

was unrelated to employee turnover. One implication of leader-member exchange

(LMX) theory is that leadership can be better understood by focusing on individual

leader-member dyads rather than the supervisor’s “average leadership style” (ALS),

which assumes that all subordinates are, treated the same. A number of researches have

tested this prediction. Comparing forecasts on turnover based on leader-member

interactions with those based on manager’s overall styles, the dyadic approach resulted in

a better prediction (Graen, Novak &Sommerkamp, 1982).

Katerberg & Hom (1981) examined the relationship between national guardsmen’s

ratings of their supervisor’s consideration and initiation of structure and measures of

satisfaction and role perceptions. They found that within-unit differences, corresponding

to differences in dyadic relationships, predicted the satisfaction and role perceptions

better than between unit differences, which represent average leadership styles.

However, both measures were significantly related to job satisfaction and perceptions,

indicating that they are both important to consider. Similar results were found in a study

of Air force personnel, but only for predicting attitudes such as job satisfaction.

xxii

Perhaps the most interesting influence on the development of a high quality LMX

relationship is affect. The role formation process develops through a mechanism referred

to as “negotiating latitude”. This negotiation occurs through the series of exchange or

interactions between the leader and the member. The exchanges or interactions, of

interest are primarily work-related in terms of content. However, recent empirical

findings suggest that person-related variables may contribute to LMX in addition to work

related variables.

The affective responses are influenced by the perceived similarity between the leader and

the member, the more they perceive themselves to be similar the more they like each

other and the more likely they are to develop a high quality LMX relationship. Persons

who are similar are more likely to interact frequently causing an increase in the level of

familiarity within an LMX relationship. In addition, leaders and members who share a

high quality LMX relationship tend to interact more about personal topics than about

work-related topics. This may occur because these leaders and members may develop a

high level of communication comfort and they may feel that they can broach any topic

with each other.

The increased interaction may result in higher levels of trust. Leaders tend to trust in-

group subordinates and therefore empower them with decision-making authority.

Leaders use delegations, not as a test of the member’s abilities, but as a reward for

excellent past performance and as a sign of respect and consideration. Therefore, as trust

xxiii

between the leader and the member increases, so is the number of delegated

responsibilities from the leader to the member, consequently, the quality of the LMX

relationship also increases.

As indicated earlier, many work-related outcomes have been predicted by LMX quality.

For example, LMX quality has been found to predict job satisfaction (Dionne, 2000),

specifically, as the reported quality of the LMX relationship increases, so does the

follower’s report of job satisfaction. Other research has indicated that LMX-outcomes

relationships are moderated by several variables. Task characteristics as moderators of

the LMX-outcome relationship were examined. By taking into consideration the level of

complexity and challenge afforded by the task, a wider variety of outcomes were more

strongly predicted than by using LMX quality alone. For example, LMX quality was

found to correlate positively with performance when the task challenge was extremely

low or extremely high. In addition, job satisfaction related more strongly to LMX quality

when the type of task was taken into account than when it was not considered.

Situational factors specifically unit size, workload, and financial resources have also been

examined as moderators. These factors, in conjunction with LMX quality, were able to

predict organizational commitment and to more strongly predict job satisfaction.

Demographic differences in leaders and members accounted for seventeen percent (17%)

of the variance in LMX. It is likely that social categorization on the basis of gender

explains a significant amount of LMX variance and it may have a negative impact on

xxiv

LMX relationships in diverse groups. Specifically, gender diversity in the workplace

may have substantial impact on the way leaders and members interact and on the

establishment of LMX relationships. For example, supervisors in mixed sex dyads rated

the members’ performance lower and reported more negative affect towards members

than those supervisors in the same sex dyads.

Furthermore, the subordinates in mixed sex dyads related their level of role ambiguity

higher than subordinates in same sex dyads. In the first stage of the LMX development

process, role taking and mutual respect is essential, leaders and members must each

understand how the other views and desires respect. This is especially difficult in mixed

gender relationship and will not develop and progress to the next stage if there is lack of

respect. This is common in gender diverse relationships because of social categorization

on the basis of gender groups and the prevalence of stereotyping.

In the second stage of the LMX relationship, role-making, trust must be developed in

order for leaders and members to further develop the relationships and influence each

other’s attitudes and behaviors. This role making is critical in diverse dyads. If trust is

violated in a single time in diverse dyadic relationships, the relationship may be

destroyed. Trust is especially critical in diverse relationships because violations may

reinforce discriminatory practices.

xxv

The final stage of LMX development is role routinisation, where mutual obligation is

formed. This stage also addresses any gender relevant issues. This last stage establishes

role making, here, leaders and members have shared meanings.

Cultural competence and perspective taking are also very important to the LMX process.

In order for a high quality LMX relationship to develop, leaders and members must be

able to take each other’s perspective. Cultural and gender barriers may naturally exist

that hinder dyad members and increasing education about other groups may avoid social

categorization and the reliance on stereotypes. This facilitates the development of high

quality LMX relationships regardless of the leader’s and the member’s sex. Perspective

taking reflects a tendency to use one’s existing role-taking capacities in order to

understand the psychological point of view of another person, a non-affective component

of dispositional empathy. Empathy consists of empathetic concern, personal distress and

perspective taking.

Traits that related positively to perspective taking were patience, reasonableness and

sensitivity. Traits that related negatively to perspective taking were aggressiveness and

sarcasm. High perspective takers were more accurate than low perspective-takers at

judging others. Perspective taking is likely to be important in the development of LMX

relationships. Three role-taking aspects related to high perspective taking have been

identified. First, role takers must be accurate in their ability to perceive how others

understand and respond to the world. Secondly, role takers should have large role-taking

ranges. In other words, they should be able to view a situation from many perspectives.

xxvi

Thirdly, role takers should be able to perceive the other’s perspective in depth and have a

full understanding of the other’s perspective. When leaders and members are high on

these aspects, then the role taking process may result in higher quality LMX

relationships.

Perspective taking also involves suppressing one’s usual egocentric point of view and

viewing the world from the other’s vantage point. Perspective taking may influence a

member’s task motivation; increase with respect to his or her leader, then the member

should be better able to “read” his or her leader. The member’s level of perspective

taking may also affect the quality of information shared between the leader and the

member. Because perspective taking has shown to be related to understanding others,

those high in perspective-taking skills may be better able to know what information needs

to be discussed in order to reach a solution on the task.

Now let us turn our attention to studies conducted on the leader-member exchange

theory. Heneman, Greenberger & Anonyuo (1989) surveyed one hundred and eighty

eight supervisors in thirty seven organizations to assess the relationships among

supervisory attributions, the exchange relationship between leaders and subordinates and

critical performance incidents. Results indicate that internal but not external causal

attributions were significantly related to the leader-member exchange and to critical

performance incidents. Supervisors were less consistent on attributions for both in-group

and out-group members.

xxvii

In another study, Dockery & Steiner (1980) examines the influence of ability, liking and

three upward-influence tactics (ingratiation, assertiveness and rationality) on the quality

of leader-member exchange both from the perspective of group leaders and members in

one hundred and eighty- eight undergraduates assigned to groups of four (a leader and

three members). From the leader’s perspective, liking for members and ability of

members were the variables most consistently related to quality of leader-member

exchange. Members placed more importance on the emotional or interactive aspects of

their relationships with leaders during the initial interaction, while leaders tended to focus

more on considerations such as work group productivity and member ability. From the

member’s perspective all variables except self assessed ability were related to quality of

leader-member interaction, while leaders tended to focus more on consideration such as

work-group.

Mc Clane (1991) studied the leader-member exchange (LMX) model of leadership and

the impact of the interaction of leader and member characteristics on the leader-member

relationship by constructing twenty six task group, composed of six members

(undergraduates) and one leader (a graduate student with work experience). In the first

session, the leader and members were encouraged to exchange information about one

another in preparation for a second task. Variables included gender, locus of control,

least preferred coworker, power and achievement needs. Subjects completed individual-

difference measures prior to the group session and leaders completed post session

measures assessing member-negotiating latitude (NL). The hypothesis that leaders would

accord additional negotiating latitude to members with critical characteristics similar to

xxviii

their own received only limited support. In contrast, leader -member need for power

appeared to play a critical role in determining members negotiating latitude.

Waldron (1991) used an inductive procedure to identify upward maintenance tactics

(UMTS) used by subordinates, subsequent factor analyses using five hundred and

eighteen working adults yielded four maintenance tactic types; personal, contractual,

regulative and direct. Supervisory relationship quality influenced reported tactic use:

subjects participating in leadership exchanges scored higher on the personal, contractual

and directiveness factors. Subordinates in supervisory exchanges scored higher on the

regulative factor. Results indicate that in high quality supervisory relationships, upward

maintenance tactics (UMTS) may be multi-functional, simultaneously preserving

relational stability and the capacity for negotiation and change. Results both confirm and

extend previous research on leader-member exchange by specifying how subordinate

communication contributes to exchange quality, Fairhurst &Chandler (1989).

Schriesheim, Scandura, Eisenbach &Neider (1992) as part of LMX scale development

investigated the convergent and discriminant validity of a short (six Item) new leader-

member exchange scale (LMX- 6). Using data from a sample of two hundred and twenty

one (221) MBA students, the validity of the new scale was confirmed by its high and

significant loadings on a leader-member exchange factor and by the superiority exchange

factor over all their rival models.

xxix

Research by Wayne, Liden & Sparrowe (1994) explores the effects of gender on the

leader-member exchange (LMX) model and occurrence of ingratiating. High-quality

LMX (in-group exchange) was characterized by mutual trust and support, where low-

quality LMX (out-group exchanges) were based on fulfilling the employment contract. It

is noted that members involved in high LMX relationships enjoy a significantly better

relationship with their supervisors, including greater access to information, influence and

opportunities for professional growth, decision-making latitude and supervisory support

than members involved in low LMX relationships.

On the other hand, Vecchio (1985) in predicting employee turnover from leader-member

exchange administered a questionnaire battery, including the job description index, to

forty-five (45) bank tellers to replicate the findings of Graen, Novak &Sommerkamp

(1982) which indicated that leader-member exchanges rather than overall leadership style

influenced a member’s decision to remain in an organization. Leader-member exchange

scores were calculated for subjects, using the method by Graen, Novak &Sommerkamp

(1982). Within 1 year, two (2) subjects had involuntarily left and twelve (12) had

voluntarily left, while thirty-one (31) remained at their jobs. None of the leader-member

exchanges correlated significantly involving eighty-three (83) computer-processing

employees of a large service organization.

In a recent study, Dionne (2000) investigated the relationship between leader-member

exchange and job satisfaction. Results showed positive relationship between leader-

member exchange and subordinate job satisfaction. Also found in the same study was

xxx

positive relationship between all four variables (Affect, Loyalty, Contribution and

Professional Respect) and employee job satisfaction. Truckenbrodt (2000) has also

examined the relationship between leader-member exchange, commitment and

organizational citizenship behavior. Results indicate that leader-member exchange was

positively found to relate to employee commitment and citizenship behavior.

Vecchio & Kinicki (1994) investigated the impact of time-based stress on leader-member

exchange (LMX) in a sample of one hundred and thirty eight employees and twenty-four

managers (all aged 21-64 years). Results indicated that unit level variability on LMX

was inversely related with time-based stress, while unit level mean on LMX was

positively related with time-based stress. Additionally, LMX acted as a mediator of the

relation between employee locus of control (a suspected antecedent of dyadic quality)

and organizational commitment (a suspected outcome), while employee locus of control

correlated with employee organizational commitment. Result suggests the usefulness of

considering time-based stress in conjunction with current models of leadership.

Liden, Wayne & Stilwell (1993) in a longitudinal study investigated the first six-month

that one hundred and sixty six (166) newly hired employees and their immediate

supervisors worked together. Expectations, perceived similarity, liking, demographic

similarity and performance were examined as determinants of leader-member. Perceived

similarity and liking from both the leaders’ and members’ perspectives predicted LMX at

most time periods. Demographic similarity between leaders and members had no

xxxi

significant effects on LMX development and subordinate performance ratings were

relatively less important in predicting LMX than were affective variables.

Results from a field study with one hundred and fifty two (152) members of a large urban

hospital indicate that the relationship between the quality of leader-member exchange

(LMX) and subordinate performance was moderated by perceptions of task analyzability

and variety. LMX and performance were found to be related significantly when task

challenge was either very high or very low. Under these task conditions, data indicate

that there was a positive link between LMX and performance such that a higher quality

LMX correlated with higher levels of performance. On the other hand, analyses revealed

that when tasks were perceived to be moderately challenging, no significant relationship

between LMX and performance was present. In other word, these data suggest that

characteristics of the task act as moderating agents of the LMX performance relationship

(Dunegan, Duchon & Uhl-Bien 1992).

Turban, Jones & Rozzelle (1990) investigated the influence of supervisor liking (SL) of a

subordinate on the treatment of the subordinate, the leader-member exchange with the

subordinate, and the evaluations of subordinate performance (SP). One hundred and

forty (140) undergraduates worked on their own tasks and supervised an alleged

subordinate during a thirty minutes work period. SL of a subordinate was manipulated

by altering the personality characteristics and the attitude similarity of the subordinate.

Reward context was manipulated by rewarding supervisors for either the total

performance of both the supervisors and subordinates or for the individual performance

xxxii

of each supervisor only. SL positively influenced the expected leader-member exchange

treatment of the subordinate and an evaluation of subordinate’s performance.

In a constructive replication of past vertical dyad linkage (VDL) research, the leader-

member exchange scores of one hundred and ninety two (192) hospital employees in the

US were used to predict reports of felt equity and satisfaction, as well as employment

status over a one-year period. Subjects also completed scales of job satisfaction and an

organizational fairness scale. Although the results failed to establish leader-member

exchange as predictive of employee turnover, leader-member exchange was closely

associated with satisfaction and felt equity.

Results suggest that findings reported should not be overgeneralised rather additional

conceptual refinement of VDL approach may be necessary (Vecchio &Norris 1996).

2.2 Organizational effectiveness

The organizational effectiveness concept is based on four (goal model, system resources

model, multiple constituency, internal process model) major models Cameron (1980).

These four models or approaches to evaluating effectiveness in organization have been

integrated into what has been referred to as the competing values framework.

Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983) developed this framework by integrating the four

models. Pounder (1999) evaluating effectiveness of higher educational institutions in

Hong Kong also developed nine underlying criteria or dimensions (productivity-

efficiency, quality, cohesion, adaptability-readiness, information management

xxxiii

communication, growth, planning goal setting, human resource development and

stability-control) based on the competing values framework.

Pounder’s work tested for the empirical basis of this framework by using a behaviorally

anchored rating scale to standardize the nine dimensions and use them to evaluate

institutional or organizational effectiveness. The outcome of Pounder’s work eliminated

the last two dimensions (human resources development and stability-control) of the

competing values framework on grounds of low reliability. It is due to this development

that the present study has conceptualized effectiveness in line with the competing values

framework, but with the first seven dimensions retained by Pounder’s study. In addition,

the researcher’s choice is as a result of the integrative nature of the competing values

framework and its emphasis on multiple measures. In other words, it has a global

perspective of evaluating organizational effectiveness.

Traditionally, organizational effectiveness has been defined as the meeting or surpassing

of organizational goals (Barnard, 1938). This perspective has become known as the goal

model to the study and measurement of organizational effectiveness since it views

organizations as principally concerned with the attainment of certain end products or

goals.

2.2.1 The Goal Model

The goal model rests on the implicit assumption that an organization’s goals can be

clearly established and that necessary human and material resource can be manipulated

xxxiv

for goal attainment. Various shortcomings in the goal model have been noted repeatedly.

For instance, it has been observed that most contemporary organizations are

multifunctional, pursuing numerous goals at the same time (Cameron, 1981).

Consequently effectiveness in attaining the goal may be inversely related to effectiveness

in attaining other goals. This suggests the likelihood that an organization will find it

impossible to be effective in all areas simultaneously if it has multiple goals.

Secondly, the establishment of unambiguous criteria for measuring effectiveness has

been labeled as a shortcoming and ability to assess effectiveness on the basis of goal

attainment depends upon the extent to which goals are measurable, Business firms for

example, have identifiable “Bottom line” objectives. The goal model has no comparable

yardstick for public organizations such as social welfare agencies and voluntary

associations (Keating & Keating, 1981, Meyer 1985). The determination of what

constitutes goal attainment in these and similar situations can be quite unclear. Beside

the goal model another model for evaluating effectiveness is the system resource model.

2.2.2 The System Resource Model

Another accepted alternative to goal model is known as the system resource model. This

model incorporates an open systems perspective and defines effectiveness as the degree

to which an organization is successful in acquiring scarce and valued resources. The

system resource model focuses on the interaction between the organization and its

environment. In contrast to the goal model, inputs replace outputs as the primary

consideration (Shipper &White, 1983). Organizations are viewed as involved in a

xxxv

continuous bargaining relationship with their environment, importing scarce resources to

be returned as valued inputs. An organization’s survival through time clearly depends

upon its ability to establish and maintain a favorable input-output ratio. In other words,

the organization is to establish and maintain a greater resource intake than is required to

produce its output. Like the goal model, the system resource model (SRM) has also some

shortcomings. Principal among these is that, it is difficult to operationalise. While the

system resource model (SRM) holds that an organization is most effective when it

optimizes its resources intake, it provides little guidance as to what constitutes optimum

procurement. Moreover, it does not elaborate on which scarce and valued resources are

relevant for assessing an organization’s effectiveness and how, once obtained, they

should be internally allocated. More recent models relating to organizational

effectiveness have been largely integrative. Two of these models, the multiple

constituency model and the competing values models, have generated sufficient concern.

2.2.3 The Internal Process Model

The internal process model views organization effectiveness in terms of the internal

functioning of the organization. In other words, an effective organization is one whose

internal functioning is smooth and free of major problems. Such characteristics as trust,

and benevolence toward individual workers, smooth information flow, and freedom from

conflict between work units would typify such an organization. More recent models

relating to organizational effectiveness have been largely integrative. Two of these

models, the multiple constituency models and the competing values model have

generated sufficient concern.

xxxvi

2.2.4 The Multiple Constituency Model

Connally, Conlon & Deutsch (1980) defines effectiveness as the extent to which an

organization satisfies the goals of its strategic constituent thus, it represents an expansion

of the goal model in the sense that it incorporates in the assessment process the goals of

constituencies other than managers. As generally portrayed, a typical organization’s

constituencies include society in general, customers, governments, owner, employees’

suppliers and competitors (Bedeian, 1986a).

The multiple constituency model thus, avoids problems of specifying and assessing

organizational goals inherent in the goal model, as well as problems of identifying and

assessing optimal resource acquisition as required by the system resource model (SRM).

Its shortcomings most notably are that it incorporates several underlying value based

issues. Major among these are that, selecting specific constituencies to participate in

assessing an organization’s effectiveness (Mark & Shortland, 1985). This obviously has

implications for the actual measurement of organizational effectiveness. Admittedly,

perceptions of an organization’s effectiveness depend largely upon its constituents’ frame

of reference (Zammuto, 1984).

As Bedeian (1986b) has observed, this presents three rather complicated measurement

issues. Any and all effectiveness criteria that are proposed will doubtlessly be viewed in

terms of self-interest by each of the constituents involved, notwithstanding claims to the

contrary; no criteria will be viewed impartially. Assessment of effectiveness does not

xxxvii

take place in a neutral vacuum. Each criterion will likely benefit some constituents more

than others. Third and finally, given the above consideration, in a situation in which

resources are scarce, we would have every reason to expect a wide divergence and

commensurate conflict in the criteria different constituents propose for assessing

effectiveness. The above models or approaches for evaluating effectiveness are narrow

by their explanation, viewing only a section of effectiveness rather than employing a

multidimensional approach for assessment.

Cameron (1981) in his writings concluded that effectiveness is a multidimensional rather

than a unitary construct. In other words, we cannot measure a single aspect of an

organization’s performance and hope to have captured the essence of its effectiveness. It

is against this backdrop that the present study views effectiveness as a multidimensional

construct that consider multiple measures and perspectives for evaluation. Hence, the

rationale for choosing the competing values model over any single model that emphasizes

unidimensionality in its analysis of organizational effectiveness.

2.2.5 The competing Values Model

This framework is a multidimensional and integrative model for assessing organizational

effectiveness. It is the most recent one developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983).

This is called the “competing values” model because; it provides a means for integrating

different models of organizational effectiveness with respect to three underlying value

dimensions. An internal focus versus external focus, a concern for flexibility versus a

concern for control and a concern for ends versus a concern for means.

xxxviii

Using these three underlying value dimensions, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983)

integrated four alternative models of organizational effectiveness. The human relations

model, this emphasizes an internal focus together with flexibility. It stresses

effectiveness criteria such as cohesion and morale (as means) and human resource

development (as an end). The second, the “rational goal” model, emphasizes an external

focus, as well as control. It stresses effectiveness criteria such as planning and goal

setting (as means) and productivity (as an end). The third model, the open system model;

emphasizes an external focus along with flexibility. It stresses effectiveness criteria such

as innovation and readiness to adapt (as means) and organizational growth (as an end).

The fourth and final model, the internal process model emphasizes internal focus together

with control. It stresses effectiveness criteria such as the role of information management

and communication (as means) and stability and predictability (as ends).

The critical point to note, however, is that while certain pairs of effectiveness criteria

reflect competing values, in practice they are not mutually exclusive. To be effective it

may require that an organization be both cohesive and productive, or stable and

innovative. The competing values models clearly recognizes that multiple criteria and

potentially conflicting constituent interests underline any effort at assessing and

understanding of the values different constituencies hold, it provides a basis for

predicting the effectiveness criteria a constituency will likely employ in judging an

organization’s performance.

xxxix

2.3 Perception of change

Over the past several decades, leaders and organizations have come to terms with the fact

that change really is here to stay. Change in the organization could occur in the structure

of competition, the shifts of consumer preferences, employer relations, developments in

new technology (products and process), the aging of buildings, equipments and,

machines. In addition, the resources get older, employee skills and abilities are also

affected. These changes can affect all aspects of the operation and functioning of the

organization.

To survive, organizations must be properly prepared to face the demands of internal and

external changes. Most organizational change are triggered by the need to respond to

opportunities or demands presented by external environmental factors such as:

1. Customers demanding products and services to be customized to their needs.

2. Customers’ satisfaction standards are increasingly established by global

competition.

3. Reductions in international trade barriers and growth of foreign competitors.

4. Rapidly changing and developing technology, this is in many cases, easily

transferable.

5. Public sectors financial constraints and political pressure for higher value of

money

6. Privatization of the public sector

xl

7. Growth of environmental issues (green movement, environmental protection

law etc.)

8. The growth of service industries and decline of manufacturing industries.

9. More frequent changes in ownership through acquisition by another company.

10. Growth of disposable income.

11. Acceleration in business cycles

12. Interest rates

13. Money supply

14. Gross national product (GNP) trends.

15. Rates of obsolescence etc

There seem to be no end for environmental factors, which are affecting organizations.

Change could also be triggered by the changes in the workplace. These are referred to as

internal forces of changes. These forces may be subtle, such as low morale, or can

manifest in outward signs, such as low productivity and conflict. Internal forces of

change come from both human resource problems and managerial behavior or decisions.

These problems stem from employee perceptions about how they are treated at work and

the match between individual and organizational needs and desires.

Theories underpinning changes in organization stem from the landmark work by Lewin

(1958). He proposed a three-stage model of planned change (Lewin’s change model),

which explains how to initiate, manage and stabilize the change process. The three stages

xli

are unfreezing, changing and refreezing. Before reviewing each stage, it is proper to

underscore the importance of the assumption that underlies this model:

1. The change process involves learning something new, as well as discontinuing

current attitudes or organizational practices.

2. Change will not occur unless there is motivation to change. This is often the

most difficult part of the change process.

3. People are the hub of all organizational changes. Any change whether in

terms of structure, group process, rewards systems or job design, requires

individuals to change.

4. Resistance to change is found even when the fouls of change are highly

desirable.

5. Effective change requires reinforcing new behaviors and attitudes.

The unfreezing stage focus is to create the motivation to change. In so doing, individuals

are encouraged to replace old behaviors and attitudes with those desired by management.

Managers can begin the unfreezing process by disconfirming the usefulness or

appropriateness of employees’ present behaviors or attitudes. In other words, employees

need to become dissatisfied with the old way of doing things. Managers also need to

devise ways to reduce the barriers to change during this stage.

The second, changing, is the next stage. Because change involves learning, this stage

entails providing employees with new information, new behavior models and new ways

xlii

of looking at things. The purpose is to help employees learn new concepts or point of

view. Role models, mentors, experts and training are useful mechanisms to facilitate the

change process. The third and Final stage is refreezing. This is where helping employees

integrate the change behavior or attitude into their new way of doing things brings

stability to the change process. This is accomplished by first giving employees the

change to exhibit the new behaviors or attitudes. Once exhibited, positive reinforcement

is used to reinforce the desired change. Additional coaching and modeling also are used

at this point to reinforce the stability of the change.

Nutt (1986) also proposed a transactional model of planned change. This model of

change describes the interactions among five stages of planned change. These five stages

of change are formulation, concept development, detailing, evaluation and installation.

This model is premised upon unforeseen circumstances, e.g. the likelihood of a wildcat

strike, accidents and a death of some key executive personnel. Other changes including

strategic shifts, management purposely implements reorganization, personnel changes

and adoption of new technology. He argues that there is a distinction between the

decision-making and developmental portions of the change process. The decision mode

portion of the model constitutes the manager’s formal authority and ultimate

responsibility for the proposed change. The developmental mode happens given the fact

that organizational problem solving, creativity and decision-making generally are group

activities. The decision-making manager may or may not play a full role in the

developmental team, however critical transactions occur between the manager and

xliii

developmental team during each stage. Again each set of the transactions brings the

proposed change closer to reality.

In that regard, the manager can contribute to the change process by specifying needs in

stage one and premises (assumptions about how to proceed) in stage two. The manager

can further assist the developmental team by pointing out misconceptions in stage three

and specifying criteria for weighing options in stage four. Before installation of the

change in stage five, the manager needs to do some administrative housekeeping. Skilled

people, resources, incentives and delegation mechanisms must be in place.

For it part, the committee or project team defines problems and suggests objectives. It

also recommends options and tentative plans, considers cost and benefits and gathers

feedback information once the change has been installed. The greater the degree of

participative management, the greater the contribution of the developmental team. The

present study has integrated aspects of the three perspectives mentioned in this

discussion. In other words, this research views change as comprising both internal and

external forces that affects the overall performance of work organizations.

Studies on perception and change are explored. In a field survey and laboratory

experiment by Brockner et al, (1993) the determinants of survivors’ reactions to job

layoffs were examined. Independent variables included (1) change in the perceived

intrinsic quality of the content of survivors’ jobs relative to and before the layoffs and (2)

context favourability as determined by (a) the perceived fairness of the layoffs and (b)

xliv

survivor’s perceptions of their co-workers’ reactions to the layoffs. Both studies revealed

similar job contents, context interaction effects on the primary dependent variable of

commitment: change in job content was more strongly (positively) related to survivors’

organizational and task commitment when the context was more favorable.

Kleiner &Corrigan (1989) in a related study present a simplified organizational model

and organizational life cycle that views change from a systemic perspective.

Developmental (evolutionary), transitional (TSC) and transformational (TFC) change

categories are discussed. TSC is planned within a set time frame and implements a

known new state to obtain a known, desired outcome, whereas TFC is revolutionary and

implemented rapidly in bursts. TFC often includes reformed mission and core values,

altered power and status, reorganization, revised interaction patterns and new executives.

Also described is the role of the company culture in organizational change, the mechanics

of TFC and the pitfalls of successful TFC.

Carnall (1986) discusses personal evaluations of change based on the assumption that

people experience change as fair or not in relation to their perceptions of their own

position in the network of exchange relations that emerges from the organizational

change to be evaluated. Resistance or opposition to change emerges from the experience

of injustice and control over resources and information combined with the emergence of

leaders able to mobilize support. Responses can be active (e.g. exit, mobilization of

support) or passive (e.g. dependency, absenteeism). The distinction between

organizational evaluations and organizational effectiveness is emphasized and it is

xlv

suggested that evaluation should concentrate on people’s own evaluations, their

experience of change and their response to it.

A review of the industrial robotics literature identified 4 areas of employee concern

during the implementation of robots: general robotics orientation, job security,

management concern and expected change. A principal factor analysis of a 58 – item

questionnaire generated to measure these dimensions extracted 4 factors that reproduced

the priori conceptual areas. Composite scales formed from items loading on these factors

yielded acceptable reliabilities. A discriminate analysis using the scale scores indicated

significant group differences among 316 manufacturing employees in 3 occupational

classes – assembly line workers, job setters and skilled trades. These results,

corroborated by a content analysis of an open-ended question, show that low skill

workers reacted negatively toward the implementation of robots, perceiving them largely

as threats to their job security. High-skill workers reacted more positively toward the

robots and perceived the implementation as providing opportunities to expand their skills

(Chao &Kozlowski 1986).

Maloney, Bartz & Allanach (1991) in examining staff perceptions of their work

environment before and six months after an organizational change administered the work

environment scale to 170 professional and 175 paraprofessional nursing staff members

before and after an organizational change designed to address problems in supervisor

effectiveness, staff productivity and consistency of patient care. Middle management

supervisors had little influence on the work environment, since there was essentially no

xlvi

change in any of the work environment scales. The working environment showed little

cohesion among staff members. There was strong pressure to keep up with the workload.

The staff members perceived the setting as poorly organized and inefficient and were

unclear as to expectation about rules and procedures. There was a high degree of control

over the workers. Findings highlight the need to employ mechanisms that create working

environments in which employees feel their work is an important contribution to the

organization.

Based on the studies reviewed the following hypotheses have been advanced for testing.

The leader member exchange (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) is the

Independent variable. While Effectiveness and Perception of Change are the two

dependent variables.

2.4 Statement of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

Liden and Maslyn (1998) in their formulation of the leader member exchange (LMX-

MDM) concept of leadership put forward four different factors: Affect, loyalty,

contribution and professional respect as constituting LMX. For the purposes of this

research, LMX is conceptualized as multidimensional with four factors explaining the

concept. Since any combination of these factors can be different for each individual who

fills out the questionnaire, different specific factors can influence the results of LMX.

This is the reason why each domain should be verified against effectiveness in work

organizations. Based on the above reasoning, it is hypothesized that:

xlvii

Hypothesis 1

1.There will be significant positive correlation between affect and effectiveness in work

organizations.

Hypothesis 2

2.There will be a significant positive correlation between loyalty and effectiveness in

work organizations.

Hypothesis 3

3.There will be a significant positive correlation between contribution and effectiveness

in work organizations.

Hypothesis 4

4.There will be a significant positive correlation between professional respect and

effectiveness in work organizations.

Hypothesis 5

5.There will be a significant positive correlation between affect and perception of change

in work organizations.

Hypothesis 6

6.There will be a significant positive correlation between loyalty and perception of

change in work organizations.

Hypothesis 7

7.There will be a significant positive correlation between contribution and perception of

change in work organizations.

xlviii

Hypothesis 8

8.There will be a significant positive correlation between professional respect and

perception of change in work organizations.

Hypothesis 9

The literature on LMX indicates that empowerment and productivity have been found to

have a high relationship; likewise, empowerment has also been found to have a high

relationship with job satisfaction (Schriesheim, Neider&Scandura, 1998). In other words,

the higher the degree of leader-member exchange (LMX) the more satisfied the worker is

on the job.

Thus, it is hypothesized that there will be a positive significant relationship between

Leader-member exchange and organizational effectiveness.

Hypothesis 10

Research on LMX has generally supported the theory. For example, in-group foremen

accepted greater responsibility and were rewarded with more support, feedback, and

personal attention than out-group foremen (Liden & Graen, 1980). Further, examining

the relationship between conflict and dyadic Relationship, Howat & London (1980)

found that as the relationship approached an in-group style, there were fewer

interpersonal conflicts between supervisor and subordinate. Kozlowski & Doherty

(1989) examined the LMX theory and indicated that perceptions of organizational

climate were related to the quality of exchange.

It is therefore hypothesized that there will be a positive significant relationship between

LMX and perception of change.

xlix

Hypothesis 11

Female employees will exhibit a high level of effectiveness than their male counterparts.

Hypothesis 12

Female employees’ perception of change will be less favorable than their male

counterparts.

2.5 Definition of Terms

The researcher provides the following definitions for terms used in the course of the

study.

2.5.1 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

For purposes of this study LMX is defined as the personal exchanges or interaction

between the leader and member in work organizations. It is measured using four factors:

affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect.

2.5.2 Affect

This is the mutual affection member of the dyad have for each other based primarily on

interpersonal attraction, rather than work or professional values. Such affection may be

manifested in the desire for/or occurrence of a relationship, which has personally

rewarding components and outcomes, e.g. a friendship.

l

2.5.3 Loyalty

This refers to the expression of public support for the goals and the personal character of

the other members of the LMX dyad. Loyalty involves faithfulness to the individual that

is generally consistent from situation to situation.

2.5.4 Contribution

This refers to the perception of the current level of work-oriented activity each member

puts forth toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad. Members of the

dyad handle responsibilities and complex tasks that extend beyond their job description

and/or employment contract and like wise, the extent to which the supervisor provides

resources and opportunities for such activity.

2.5.5 Professional Respect

This refers to the perception of the degree to which each member of the dyad had built a

reputation, within and/or outside the organization, of excelling at his or her line of work.

This perception is be based on historical data concerning the person, such as; personal

experience, comments made about the person from an individual within or outside the

organization and awards or other professional recognition achieved by the person.

2.5.6 Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational effectiveness refers to the competing values framework (Quinn

&Rohrbaugh’s 1981; 1983). This framework integrates four alternative models: human

relations model which emphasizes two criteria cohesion and morale as means and human

li

resource development as end. The second is the rational goal model focusing on planning

and goal setting as means and productivity as end. The third is open system model,

stresses on innovation and readiness to adapt as means and organizational growth as end.

While the last one internal process model emphasizes information management and

communication as means and stability and predictability as ends.

2.5.7 Productivity-Efficiency

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that account for the quantity of produce and the cost of operation.

2.5.8 Quality

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that accounts for the quality of product or service.

2.5.9 Cohesion

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that account for staff morale, interpersonal relationship, teamwork.

2.5.10 Adaptability-Readiness

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that accounts for its readiness to alter or adapt its structure, programmes, courses etc, in

response to change demands.

lii

2.5.11 Information Management Communication

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that accounts for the timely and accurate distribution of information needed by employees

to do their jobs.

2.5.12 Growth

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that reflects the ability to secure external support, acquire resources and increase its

capabilities.

2.5.13 Planning-Goal Setting

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that reflects the ability to set goals and systematically plan for the future.

2.5.14 Human Resources Development

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that accounts for the responsiveness of the individual needs of employees. It also has to

do with the extent to which the organization facilitates employees’ participation in

decision-making. In addition, this aspect is concerned with behavior relating to hiring,

training and development of employees.

liii

2.5.15 Stability-Control

This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior

that reflects the ability to control the flow of work, to direct the behavior of its members

and to maintain the organization’s continuity particularly under periods of pressure and

threat.

2.5.16 Perception of Change

This refers to interpretations employees give to change that have a propensity of

occurring in work organizations. These comprise external and internal factors that affect

change in organizations.

2.5.16 Young Employees

This refers to employees between the ages of nineteen to thirty-nine.

2.5.17 Old employees

While old employee refers to those between forty to sixty years old

liv

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Population

The population sampled was workers in the manufacturing industry in Accra and Tema.

The essence of using this target population is in two fold: first, the importance of LMX is

in the interaction that exists between supervisors and subordinate, thus most of the

participants of interest would easily be found in the manufacturing sector. The second is

the fact that some of the components the researcher used in measuring effectiveness

would only be useful in organizations that were in the manufacturing sector. It was for

these reasons that workers from mainly the manufacturing industry were used as

participants

3.1 Sample

Two hundred participants of middle and line staff with standard seven/Junior secondary

school certificate to Higher National Diploma /Degree were drawn from the population

for the study. The participants were drawn mainly from the production departments of

five manufacturing organizations. Only employees who reported to an immediate

supervisor were sampled, since the LMX theory basically looks at supervisor–

subordinate relationship. In selecting the participants for the study the researcher

randomly selected the first participant after which every third person on the list of

employees in the production unit was selected.

lv

Seventy nine (79) were male and seventy one (71) were female employees. The minimum

age was nineteen (19) and the maximum age fifty-one (51). The average age was thirty

two (32). Education of participants was put into three categories for convenience.

Eighteen (18) employees had MSLC/JSS certificates representing twelve percent (12%)

of participants. Eighty six (86) had SSCE/O&A LEVELS/DIPLOMA representing fifty

seven percent (57%). Forty-six (46) employees had HND/DEGREE representing thirty

one percent (31%) of the total sample for the study.

In the case of job status, participants were classified into three; factory hands (37)

representing 25%, assembly line staff (51), representing 34%, assistant supervisors (62)

representing 41%. The age of employees was also put into two groups: young

(19-39years) and old (40-60years). The young employees were 41 and the old were

44.There is a short fall of sixty five (65) participants who failed to fill in their age on the

questionnaires. Thus, they did not reflect in the analysis when the two age groups were

compared.

Out of the two hundred participants selected, one hundred and eighty six participants

completed and returned the questionnaires. This resulted in ninety three percent

(93%)return rate. Thirty -six (36) were rejected because some participants failed to fill

the questionnaires well. This resulted in a total of one hundred and fifty participants.

lvi

3.2 Research Instruments

3.2a. LMX-MDM scale

Warr et al, (1979) have argued that “adequate measurement of complex psychological

states usually requires an interactive process; researchers must move several times

between conceptualization and operationalization, adjusting their ideas and measures as

they go… and it is sometimes necessary to accept or adapt a previously reported measure

or to create a new scale…”. For this reason the data collection instruments or materials

for the present study consists of an LMX-MDM scale formulated and validated by Liden

& Maslyn, (1998).

The organizational effectiveness questionnaire used was based on the competing values

framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1981; 1983) and Pounder’s seven dimensions for

assessing effectiveness in higher institutions, which was standardized in Hong Kong

(1999).

Also used in the present study was a perception of change questionnaire designed and

validated by the researcher in a pilot study. Reliability levels for each dimension and for

the pilot study have been discussed below.

The study examined each of the three questionnaires used by the researcher. The leader-

member exchange used the LMX-MDM scale (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). The LMX-MDM

scale has a total of twelve items categorized into four domains of affect, loyalty,

contribution and professional respect. Question 1-3 of the LMX-MDM questionnaire is

lvii

designed to measure employees overall affect. Question 4-6 of the same scale tapped

information on loyalty. Question 7-9 measured employees’ overall contribution or effort

and the extent to which the supervisor provides resources and opportunities for such

activity. Question 10 – 12 measured employees’ professional respect. In effect it is to

measure employees’ perception of the degree to which each member of the dyad has built

a reputation, within and / or outside the organization, of excelling at his or her line of

work. All 12 items were scored from one (1) through seven (7). One (1) represents the

lowest score and seven (7) the highest rating on each item.

On each of the four domains (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) the

minimum score for an employees who filled the questionnaire was 3 and the maximum

score 21.The minimum score for all four domains was 12 while the maximum score was

84. The lower the score the lower the exchange and the higher the score the higher or

better the exchange.

Test-re-test reliability over two weeks for the four factors of LMX were as follows;

affect (r = 0.83, p<0.01), loyalty (r = 0.75, p<0.01), contribution (r = 0.72,p<0.01) and

professional respect (r = 0.83,p<0.01). The present study recorded a test-re-test reliability

levels for affect (r = 0.86, p<0.01), loyalty (r = 0.81, p<0.01), contribution (r =

0.89,p<0.01) and professional respect (r = 0.91,p<0.01) The validity of the LMX-MDM

was derived from support for the 4-factor model using exploratory factor analysis, and

conformation using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with independent samples

(Bagozzi, Yi & Phillips 1991;Rahim&Magner, 1995). However, consistent with Schmidt

lviii

& Klimoski (1991) argument that validity is best assessed using multiple approaches,

Liden & Maslyn (1998) in their own words said, “we examined our scale with respect to

response bias susceptibility, content validity, discriminated validity and criterion-related

validity.

3.2 b Organizational effectiveness scale

The second instrument used in measuring effectiveness was a behaviorally anchored

rating scale developed by Pounder (1997). The scale has nine criteria or dimensions

(productivity – efficiency, quality, cohesion, and adaptability – readiness, information

management-communication, growth, planning-goal-setting, human resource

development, and stability-control).

This multi-domain effectiveness scale is based on the competing values framework or

model (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1981, 1983) of effectiveness. This model or framework

integrates all four models of effectiveness (rational goal model, human relations model,

internal process model and the open system model) with the above-mentioned underlying

dimension or criteria. Each question on the organizational effectiveness questionnaire is

rated on a 7-point scale beginning from 1 – 7. The minimum and maximum rating a

participant could obtain on answering a question was 1 and 7 respectively; the

questionnaire had a total of 19 questions, segmented into 7 dimensions. The first

dimension, productivity efficiency contained 2 items or questions which tapped

employees behavior relating to how much they produced and the cost of production .The

lix

minimum and maximum score a participant could obtain on these two items were 2 and

14 respectively.

The second dimension contained three items or questions. It sought to tap employees’

behavior, which accounted for quality of produce. The minimum and maximum score

obtained on this dimension or domain was 3 and 21 respectively.

On the third dimension of measuring effectiveness, a total of 5 items or questions were

asked. These questions tapped information relating to cohesion in organization (i.e.

behavior that reflects the extent to which effectiveness is concerned with staff morale,

interpersonal relationship, teamwork, and sense of belonging. It had a minimum and

maximum domain score of 5 and 35 respectively.

Adaptability-readiness was the fourth dimension or domain of effectiveness. This

dimension contained 2 items which required information on employee behavior that

reflects the ability to readily alter to adapt the organization’s structure, programmes

courses in response to changing demands. In effect, the extent of the organization’s

readiness to adapt to change. It was also rated on a seven-point scale of 1-7 and had a

minimum and maximum rating score of 2 and 14 respectively.

The fifth dimension touched on information management and communication as aspects

for evaluating effectiveness in the present study. This domain dealt with the timeliness

lx

and accuracy of information distributed to members to do their jobs. It also contains 2

items with a minimum and maximum rating score of 2 and 14 respectively.

Growth is the sixth dimension for evaluating effectiveness in the present study. It had 3

items or questions on aspects of an organization’s performance, which has to do with

behavior that reflects the extent of its ability to secure external support, acquire resources,

and increase its capabilities. It also had total minimum and maximum scores of 3 and 21.

Planning and goal setting was the last domain or dimension for evaluating effectiveness.

This last dimension, which is also the seventh, had 2 items or questions and was rated on

a 7-point scale of 1-7. It also had 2 as its minimum rating score and 14 as its maximum

rating score. In short, the overall effectiveness questionnaire contained a total of 19 items

or questions of 7 dimensions or domains for measuring effectiveness of organization in

the present study. The total minimum score a respondent could get on the overall

effectiveness questionnaire was 19 and the maximum score he / she could obtain was

133.The midpoint (67) of the effectiveness scale was chosen as the criteria to determine

high or low effectiveness. Scores above the midpoint represented high effectiveness and

scores below represented low effectiveness.

The reliability for each domain as presented by Pounder (1999) is as follows;

productivity-efficiency (r = 0.89,p<0.05), quality (r = 0.88,p<0.05), cohesion

(r = 0.90,p<0.05), adaptability-readiness (r = 0.89,p<0.05), information management-

communication (r = 0.92,p<0.05), growth (r = 0.90,p<0.05), planning – goal-setting

lxi

(r = 0.9515), human resources development (r = 0.69,p<0.05), and stability control

(r = 0.59,p<0.05). With reference to scalability, the above results led to the decision to

eliminate the human resources development and stability-control scale on the basis of the

considerably lower correlation coefficients for these two. It was on this ground that the

present study included the first seven dimensions for evaluating effectiveness in

organization.

The present study recorded a total test-re-test reliability (over two weeks) level of

(r = 0.92,p<0.05). In the writings of Pounder, (1999) he stated that “ the refinement of the

behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) method of scale development employed in the

Hong Kong study resulted in scales conducive to convergent and discriminated valid

ratings in four of the nine effectiveness dimensions contained in the competing values

model (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981, 1993) namely information management –

communication, planning goal setting productivity – efficiency and cohesion.

3.2 c Perception of change scale

Turning to the third questionnaire used in the present study, the researcher developed a

15-item questionnaire based on employees’ perception of change in the work place. The

items included both internal and external forces of change in the work place with a rating

scale beginning from 1-7. One (1) indicated the minimum rating score and seven

(7) represented the maximum rating score an individual filling the questionnaire could

obtain. The researcher in a pilot study of 29 participants pre-tested all 15 items and

reported a total item reliability of (r = 0.81,p<0.05) and validity of (r = 0.56,p<0.05). The

lxii

present study recorded a total item reliability of (r = 0.92,p<0.05). In this questionnaire

the minimum rating score a participant could obtain is 15 and the maximum rating score

105.The increase in the coefficient alphas was as a result of the large sample size used in

the present study.

3.3 Procedure

The researcher worked with Human resource Directors /Managers and Heads of the

production departments of the selected organizations. First, an introductory letter from

the Department of Psychology, University of Ghana was sent to the five organizations.

The relevance and objectives of the study was then communicated to the Human resource

Directors and managers in each of the organizations and to seek informed consent. A

copy of the research questionnaire was given to the Human Resource Departments for

consideration after which a human resource/Personnel officer was asked by the Human

resource manger/Director to assist the researcher with employee population list. The

officers also assisted in introducing the researcher to the production managers for easy

identification of selected employee, administration and retrieval of the questionnaires.

Each participant selected was given three questionnaires (LMX, Effectiveness and

Perception of Change) to complete in a maximum time period of two weeks. This

duration of time was given to help participants have time to respond to the questions at

home in the face of heavy work schedules.

lxiii

Completed questionnaires were received through the production mangers. This was done

on a weekly basis for all five organizations. Gradually a total of one hundred and eighty

six completed questionnaires were collected. However, thirty-six were taken out due to

insufficient information. This resulted in a total of one hundred and fifty questionnaires,

which were used for the analysis.

The approach used to gather the data considered confidentiality by using the following

procedure. Each of the five manufacturing organizations that participated in the study

received a number of questionnaires, which bore no numbers and values to identify

respondent. Assurance of strict confidentiality was indicated on each of the questionnaire

respondents received.

lxiv

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0 Introduction

Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), three statistical methods were

applied to the data collected for the study. First, Pearson’s inter-correlations were used to

determine the Inter-correlations among the four factors of LMX and Organizational

effectiveness, LMX and Perception of change. These inter-correlation tested hypotheses

one to four and six to nine. These are found in table one and three.

Second, the Pearson product-moment correlation was used to analyze hypotheses five

and ten. These tested for positive significant relationships between LMX and

Effectiveness, LMX and Perception of change. These are also found in table two and

four.

Third, the two-way ANOVA was used to analyze hypotheses eleven and twelve, which

tested for gender differences in predicting the rate of effectiveness and also perception of

change. The analyses have been presented in table 4.1 to 4.15 below.

lxv

Table 4.1

Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four factors of LMX and

Organizational Effectiveness

Measures 1 2 3 4 5

1.Organisational Effectiveness

2.Affect .59**

3.Loyalty .39**

4.Contribution .20**

5.Professional respect .43**

N = 150 ** p < .01

Table 4.1 shows the inter-correlations among the four factors of the independent variable

(LMX) and Organizational effectiveness. The results indicate strong positive and

significant correlation between affect and Organizational effectiveness (r = .59, p<. 01).

In other words, as affect increases so also employee effectiveness increases in

organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.35) means that 35% of the differences in the

effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by affect. The outcome of the analysis

therefore supports the hypothesis (H1) that Affect is positively and significantly

correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

lxvi

The analysis in table 4.1 revealed moderate positive and significant correlation between

loyalty and Organizational effectiveness (r = .39, p<. 01). In other words, the higher the

level of loyalty, the higher employee effectiveness in organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.15) reveals that 15% of the differences in the

effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by loyalty. The outcome of the analysis

therefore supports the hypothesis (H2) that loyalty is positively and significantly

correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

However, in the same table the results revealed low positive and significant correlation

between contribution and Organizational effectiveness (r = .20, p<. 01). In other

words, the lower the level of contribution, the lower employee effectiveness in

organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.04) means that 4% of the differences in the

effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by contribution. The outcome of the

analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H3) that contribution is positively and

significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

Meanwhile results from the above table revealed moderate positive and significant

correlation between Professional respect and Organizational effectiveness

lxvii

(r = .43, p<. 01). This means that, the higher the level of professional respect, the higher

employee effectiveness in organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.18) indicates that 18% of the differences in the

effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by professional respect. The outcome

of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H4) that professional respect is

positively and significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work

organisations.

Table 4.2

Summary of Pearson Product –Moment Correlation between LMX and Organizational

Effectiveness

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

r

N

df

p

Leader-

member

Exchange

(LMX)

Organizational

Effectiveness

.391

150

148

< .01

The relationship between LMX and organisational effectiveness was determined using

the Pearson Product - Moment correlation coefficient. There was a moderate positive

correlation between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .39, P <. 01], with higher levels of

LMX associated with higher levels of employee effectiveness towards the organisation. .

lxviii

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = .15) further revealed that 15% of the differences

in the effectiveness level of employees could be predicted by the LMX in their

organisation. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H5) that

LMX is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work

organisations.

Table 4.3

Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four Components of LMX and

Perception of Change

Measures 1 2 3 4 5

1.Perception of Change

2.Affect .114ns

3.Loyalty .066ns

4.Contribution .40**

5.Professional respect .29**

N = 150 ** p < .01 ns

Table 4.3 shows the inter-correlations among the four factors of the independent variable

(LMX) and Perception of change. The results indicate very low, positive but non-

significant correlation between affect and Perception of change (r = .114, p<. ns).

lxix

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = .013) means that 1.30% of the differences in the

perception of change of employees can be predicted by affect. The outcome of the

analysis therefore partially supports the hypothesis (H6) that Affect is positively and

significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change at work.

The analysis in table 4.3 again revealed very low, positive but non-significant correlation

between loyalty and perception of change (r = .066, p<. ns). In other words, employees’

loyalty has no consequence for their perception of change at work. The fact that

somebody is loyal does not mean he/she will be positive about reforms at work.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.0044) means that 0.44% of the differences in

the perception of change of employees can be predicted by loyalty. The outcome of the

analysis therefore partially supports the hypothesis (H7) that loyalty is positively and

significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change in work organisations.

Meanwhile results in Table 4.3 indicated moderate positive and significant correlation

between contribution and perception of change (r = .40, p<. 01). In other words, the

higher the level of contribution, the more positive employees perception of change in

organizations. While the lower employees contribute to work the more negative their

perceptions become of change at the work place.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.16) means that 16% of the differences in

perception of change of employees can be predicted by contribution. The outcome of the

lxx

analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H8) that contribution is positively and

significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change.

However, analysis in Table 4.3 revealed low positive and significant correlation between

Professional respect and perception of change (r = .29, p<. 01). This means that, the

lower the level of professional respect, the lower perception of change of employees in

organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.084) means that 8.4% of the differences in

perception of change of employees can be predicted by professional respect. The

outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H9) that professional respect is

positively and significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change.

Table 4.4

Summary of Pearson Product –Moment Correlation between LMX and Perception of

change

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

r

N

df

p

Leader-

member

Exchange

(LMX)

Perception

of Change

.21

150

148

< .05

lxxi

The relationship between LMX and perception of change was investigated using the

Pearson Product - Moment correlation coefficient. There was a low positive correlation

between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .21, p <. 01], with higher levels of LMX

associated with higher levels of employee perception of change towards the

organisations. The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.044) means that 4% of the

differences in the effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by the LMX in their

organisations. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H10) that

LMX is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change in

work organisations.

lxxii

Table 4.5

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the Impact of Sex and Level of

LMX on employees Effectiveness

SexLevel of

LMXMean Std. Deviation N

Male

Low LMX 21.5455 9.91911 32

High LMX 14.0094 6.46234 47

Total 17.4278 9.01222 79

Female

Low LMX 26.4348 10.72270 20

High LMX 15.9149 6.98704 51

Total 22.1724 11.92241 71

Total

Low LMX 23.6943 10.46101 52

High LMX 14.5948 6.66337 98

Total 19.2032 10.43646 150

lxxiii

The mean scores on the extent to which sex and level of LMX influence employees’

effectiveness in organisation was investigated using a two way analysis of variance. The

results and its corresponding interpretation are shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6

Summary of Two–way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Sex and Level

of LMX Predict effectiveness of Employees

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Sex 726.186 1 7266.186 7.423 <. 005

LMX 5703.361 1 5703.361 56.319 <. 001

Sex * LMX 124.397 1 124.397 1.008 ns

Error 26197.425 146 85.612 - -

Total 33656.197 149 - - -

lxxiv

The two-way between group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of

sex and LMX on effectiveness of participants. The result as shown in Table 6 revealed

that sex had significant effect on effectiveness [F (1,146) = 7.423, p<. 005]. The mean

scores on the effectiveness for males and females 17.43 and 22.17 respectively meant that

females show higher effectiveness in organisations compared to males. The outcome is in

consonance with the hypothesis (H11) that female employees will exhibit a higher rate of

effectiveness compared to their male counterparts.

It was also found that LMX had significant effect on employees’ effectiveness

[F (1,146) = 56.319, p <. 001], with a large effect size of .15. There was, however no

significant interaction between sex and LMX in predicting employees’ effectiveness.

Table 4.7

Summary of Means and Standard Deviation Scores on the Influence of Sex and LMX on

Perception of change among Employees

Sex Level LMX Mean Std. Deviation N

Male

Low LMX 61.6250 15.03659 32

High LMX 79.3868 9.32643 47

Total 71.3299 15.09433 79

Female

Low LMX 39.9855 21.34416 20

High LMX 77.0213 11.49762 51

Total 54.9914 25.60689 71

lxxv

Total

Low LMX 52.1146 20.99450 52

High LMX 78.6601 10.06437 98

Total 65.2161 21.19096 150

The standard deviation scores in Table 4.7 showed some amount of deviation of

individual scores around their population means. Individuals within the various

categories differed on perception of change. The two –way Analysis of variance was

performed to identify the source of the variation. The results are presented in Table 4.8

below.

Table 4.8

Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Sex and LMX

Influence Perception of change

Source Sum of Squares dfMean

SquareF p

Sex 10186.875 1 10186.875 42.328 <. 001

LMX 53083.521 1 53083.521 216.624 <. 001

Sex* LMX 6567.195 1 6567.195 28.501 <. 001

Error 65863.731 146 215.241 - -

Total 138758.519 149 - - -

lxxvi

The two-way analysis of variance showed a significant main effect of sex on perception

of change of employees [F (1,146) = 42.328, p <. 001]. This means that employees’

perception of change is dependent on their sex. The mean scores on perception of change

for males and females as shown in Table 8 above revealed that males perception of

change are more favorable. The outcome supports the hypothesis (H12) that females’

perception of change is less favorable than their male counterparts in work organizations.

A significant interaction was also observed between sex and LMX in predicting

perception of change among employees [F (1,146) = 28.501, p <. 001], however the

effect size was moderate (eta square =. 091). Multiple comparisons were done to find out

which of the sexes performed well under LMX. The result is shown in Table 4.9 below.

Table 4.9

Summary of Newman Kuel’s Multiple Comparisons following 2-way ANOVA to

determine which Two Means Precisely Interact in Predicting Perception of change

Variables Male Low

LMX

Male high

LMX

Female low

LMX

Female high

LMX

Male Low

LMX

- 17.76 21.64 15.39

Male high

LMX

- - 39.40* 2.37

lxxvii

Female low

LMX

- - - 38.04*

Female high

LMX

- - - -

*P <. 05 level of significance

The multiple comparisons between groups using Newman Keuls (this is comparatively

sensitive/conservative to other post hoc test like Fisher’s LSD) showed that female

workers who enjoy low LMX and male workers with high LMX differ significantly on

the perception of change scale with the latter group being high on perception of change.

The analysis also showed that females with high LMX and females with low LMX differ

significantly when it comes to perception of change (p<. 05 level in all cases). With a

moderate level of eta, it can still be said that sex moderate LMX in predicting perception

of change of employees.

Table 4.10

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of Job Status and LMX on Effectiveness

Job status Level of LMX Mean Std.Deviation N

Factory Hand

Low LMX

High LMX

Total

65.7283

81.8922

62.7155

12.45661

10.78586

14.12528

17

20

37Assembly line Low LMX

High LMX

Total

50.9143

80.6739

74.2268

19.91412

6.86393

21.68302

25

26

51Assistant supervisor

Low LMX

High LMX

66.2243

87.8022

7.45661

8.78586

27

35

lxxviii

Total 14.23441 62Total Low LMX

High LMX

Total

59.3272

81.5135

69.9194

17.65924

9.73002

18.18593

69

81

150

A two-way analysis of variance was carried out to ascertain the impact of job status and

LMX on Effectiveness. The median score on the measures LMX was used to segment the

respondents into two independent groups (Low and high levels of LMX). The summary

of the ANOVA analysis is shown in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11

Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Influence of Employee Job Status and LMX on Effectiveness

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Job Status 4623.305 1 4623.305 23.420 <. 001

LMX 38440.213 1 38440.213 197.552 <. 001

Job Status * LMX 3354.160 1 3354.160 18.022 <. 001

Error 55353.615 146 180.894 - -

Total 102194.984 149 - - -

The two-way analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of job status on

effectiveness [F (1,146) = 23.420, p <. 001]. This means that employees’ effectiveness is

also influenced by their position. The mean scores on effectiveness as shown in Table

lxxix

4.10 indicated that assistant supervisors were more effective than assembly line worker.

Similarly, assembly line workers were found to be effective than the factory hand

workers.

It was also observed that LMX had significant effect on employees’ effectiveness

[F (1,146) = 197.552, p<. 001]. Similar to this finding, there was a significant interaction

between job status and LMX in predicting effectiveness [F (1,146) = 18.022, p <. 001]. In

other words, one’s position and the quality of relationship between leader and follower

was a determinant in one’s effectiveness at work.

Table 4.12

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of Education and LMX on Effectiveness

Education Level of LMX Mean Std.Deviation N

MSLC/JSS Low LMX

High LMX

Total

68.0227

79.3774

64.4265

13.73139

12.30753

15.10549

7

11

18

O&A LEVELS

SSS/DIPOLMA/

Low LMX

High LMX

Total

51.0435

79.8511

71.4432

20.55225

8.86799

19.46307

41

45

86

HND/DEGREE Low LMX 43.5475 16.32221 17

lxxx

High LMX

Total

55.6531

59.2115

5.96891

19.42317 29

46

Total Low LMX

High LMX

Total

60.5605

79.5229

77.9194

12.99543

10.89765

15.18478

65

85

150

The standard deviation scores showed some amount of deviation of individual scores

around their population means. Individuals within the various categories differed on the

degree of deviation around their population means. The mean scores on employees’

educational background were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance. The result is

shown in Table 4.13 below.

Table 4.13

Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Education and LMX impact on Effectiveness

Source Sum of Squares dfMean Square

F p

Education 4816.116 1 4816.116 23.328 <. 001

LMX 28514.949 1 28514.949 138.116 <. 001

Education* LMX

5384.869 1 5384.869 26.082 <. 001

Error 63175.687 146 206.456 - -

Total 102194.984 149 - - -

lxxxi

From the two-way analysis of variance in Table 4.13, education had significant impact on

effectiveness [F (1,146) = 23.328, p <. 001]. This means that employees’ effectiveness is

also dependent on one’s level of education. The mean scores on effectiveness as shown in

Table 4.12 indicated that those in the second category (O, A, SSS and Diploma level)

were more effective than those with MSLC and JSS and HND and Degree holders.

It was also observed that LMX had significant effect on employees’ effectiveness

[F (1,146) = 138.116, p <. 001]. Similarly it was found that a significant interaction exists

between education and LMX in predicting effectiveness [F (1,146) = 26.082, p <. 001].

In other words, one’s level of education and quality of relationship between leader and

follower was key to effectiveness at work.

Table 4.14

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of age and LMX on

Effectiveness

Age LMX MeanStd.

DeviationN

Young

Low LMX 21.0924 10.67390 25

High LMX 18.6610 10.62465 19

Total 20.2865 10.68934 44

Old

Low LMX 26.9167 7.35414 12

High LMX 16.8250 9.71671 29

Total 17.7424 9.93922 41

lxxxii

Total

Low LMX 21.6260 10.52786 37

High LMX 17.4302 10.03250 48

Total 19.2032 10.43646 85

Table 4.14 shows the means and standard deviation scores of age and LMX in relation to

effectiveness. The median score on LMX and ages for the employees were used to split

employees into high LMX and low LMX respectively. The mean scores for the groups

were subjected to a two – way analysis of variance. The result is shown in Table 4.15

below.

Table 4.15

Summary of Two – way Analysis of Variance showing the extent to which Age and LMX impact on Effectiveness

SourceSum of Squares

df Mean Square F p

Age 135.925 1 135.925 1.307 ns

LMX 1340.188 1 1340.188 12.887 <. 001

Age* LMX 501.451 1 501.451 4.822 <. 05

Error 31821.445 81 103.992 - -

Total 33656.197 84 - - -

lxxxiii

The results revealed that age of employees had no significant effect on Effectiveness

[F (1, 81) = 1.307, p = ns]. This means that differences in age of employees is not a factor

in predicting effectiveness. However, It was observed that LMX had significant effect on

employees’ effectiveness [F (1,146) = 12.887, p <. 001]. Similarly, there was a

significant interaction between age and LMX in predicting effectiveness

[F (1,146) = 4.822, p <. 05]. In other words, a combination of one’s age and the quality of

relationship between leader and follower influenced one’s effectiveness at work.

Summary of Results

The multiple correlations in Table 4.1 and 4.3 indicated positive relationship among the

four factors of LMX (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) and

effectiveness. The same positive relationship was found among the four factors of the

LMX and perception of change. The maximum coefficient values were observed between

affect and effectiveness in organisations(r = .59, r2 = .35). The minimum coefficient value

was found between loyalty and perception of change(r = .066, r2 = .044) .The correlation

between LMX and effectiveness revealed that LMX explains 15% of the variance in

effectiveness. Deducing from the positive relationship of LMX with all the effectiveness

and perception of change, it is no doubt that LMX contributes to the effectiveness and

perception of change of the individual employee.

The Pearson’s Product Moment correlations were carried out to investigate the

relationship among the selected variables. These are shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.4. The

first analysis was to ascertain the relationship between LMX and effectiveness in this

lxxxiv

study. It was observed that LMX correlated positively and moderately with effectiveness

(r = .39). However, LMX had a positive and low correlation with perception of change (r

= .165).

Though relatively moderate coefficient values were observed among the four factors of

LMX, effectiveness and perception of change using the multiple correlations, the

variables could not be solely attributed to the LMX. The coefficient of non-determinants

for the variables indicates that other factors could account for the effectiveness and

perception of change of employees. The two-way analysis was therefore used to ascertain

the interaction between LMX and other demographic variables such as sex, education,

job status and age. All three except age impacted on effectiveness.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.0 Discussion

The study investigated the relationship among the LMX, Effectiveness and Perception of

Change at work. In line with this, four aims were put forward: To establish a positive and

significant relationship among the four factors of LMX (affect, loyalty, contribution,

professional respect) and effectiveness in work organizations. To establish a positive and

significant relationship among the four factors of LMX (affect, loyalty, contribution,

lxxxv

professional respect) and perception of change in work organizations. To determine the

strength and explain how much each factor of LMX predict effectiveness and perception

of change in work organizations. Finally, to investigate the impact of sex or gender on the

leader-member exchange.

The first hypothesis stated that there would be a positive and significant relationship

between affect and effectiveness in work organizations. The results indicate strong

positive and significant correlation between affect and Organizational effectiveness

(r = .59, p<. 01). In other words, as affect increases so employee effectiveness increases

in organizations. This outcome supports the hypothesis and is consistent with Dionne’s

studies on the LMX. Dionne (2000) studying the four factors of LMX, found that a

positive relationship exist between affect and job satisfaction. It has also been found that

supervisor liking of a subordinate positively influence the expected leader-member

exchange treatment of the subordinate and evaluations of subordinate performance. From

the leader’s perspective, liking for members and ability of members were the variables

most consistently related to quality of leader-member exchange (Turban, Jones

&Rozzelle, 1990). Members placed more importance on the emotional or interactive

aspects of their relationships with leaders during the initial interaction, while leaders

tended to focus more on considerations such as work group productivity and member

ability. From the member’s perspective all variables except self assessed ability were

related to quality of leader-member interaction, while leaders tended to focus more on

consideration such as work-group Dockery & Steiner (1980).

lxxxvi

These findings are consistent with the findings of the present study. However, the

present findings have established a significant relationship and (based on Cohen’s

statistical power) demonstrated a strong power of the relationship .It was found that

affect contributed 35% in the prediction of effectiveness in work organizations. This

outcome is an improvement over previous findings. The implication here is that the LMX

is still relevant in the study of leadership in work organizations. Organizations and

managers who want to enhance employee performance and organizational effectiveness

should pay attention to developing a strong LMX (supervisor-subordinate interaction) by

providing affection to subordinates.

It was hypothesized that there will be a positive and significant relationship between

loyalty and effectiveness in work organizations. The analysis in Table 4.1 revealed

moderate positive and significant correlation between loyalty and Organizational

effectiveness(r = .39, p<. 01). In other words, the higher the level of loyalty, the higher

employee effectiveness in organizations .The outcome supports hypothesis two. This is

in consonance with previous studies. For example, research shows mutual trust, positive

support, informal interdependence, greater job latititude, common bond, open

communication, high referee and autonomy, satisfaction and shared loyalty are related to

LMX (Dansereau, Graen & Haga 1975;Dienesch & Liden 1986;Graen & Uhl-Bien

1995). Dionne (2000) also found that a positive relationship exist between loyalty and job

satisfaction. Furthermore, the finding established a significant relationship, determined a

moderate strength of the relationship and contributed 15% in the prediction of

effectiveness in work organizations.

lxxxvii

This finding is indicative of the growing need of some organizations and leaders now

sharing the same canteen, parking space, engage in keep fit activities with employees and

even participate in the actual work with subordinates. A sense of being part of the

organization is generated hence employees willing to stay and put in extra effort to ensure

organizational goals are achieved.

The implication is that using the LMX, as a multidimensional tool is still important in

the study of leadership in work organizations. Organizations looking for employee

loyalty should show keen interest in improving the interaction between supervisor and

subordinates.

The third hypothesis posited that there would be a positive and significant relationship

between contribution and effectiveness in work organizations. The results revealed low

positive and significant correlation between contribution and Organizational effectiveness

(r = .20, p<. 01). In other words, the lower the level of contribution, the lower employee

effectiveness in organizations. This hypothesis was supported. Similar studies have found

the same outcome. For example, it has been found that a positive relationship exists

between contribution and job satisfaction (Dionne 2000). The relevance of this outcome

is that the study established a positive and significant relationship.

The implication is that employees’ contribution as a result of the interaction might not be

a very good way to influence effectiveness. Organizations and managers who want to

lxxxviii

enhance employee performance and organizational effectiveness should focus more on

developing affection, professional respect and loyalty.

The fourth hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between

professional respect and effectiveness in work organizations. The analysis in table 4.1

revealed moderate positive and significant correlation between Professional respect and

Organizational effectiveness (r = .43, p<. 01). This means that, the higher the level of

professional respect, the higher employee effectiveness in organizations. The results

supported the fourth hypothesis.

The finding is consistent with that of previous literature. For instance, Dionne (2000)

research on LMX revealed a positive relationship between professional respect and job

satisfaction.

The explanation is that members in the dyad, both leaders and followers were conscious

of the fact that for people to perform due cognizance should be given to members ability

and reputation, within and/or outside the organization. Further, excellence at members’

line of work remains important in ensuring that effectiveness was achieved.

The implication is that professional respect as a factor of the LMX is still relevant in

organizations. Leaders and managers who want to achieve high effectiveness should

focus on improving interaction with special attention on recognizing members as

professionals who also have a stake in making the goals of the organization achievable.

lxxxix

Hypothesis five tested for a positive and significant relationship between LMX and

effectiveness in work organizations. It is important to note that LMX is a summation of

the four factors (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect). There was a

moderate positive correlation between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .39, P <. 01], with

higher levels of LMX associated with higher levels of employee effectiveness in

organisations. The outcome of the analysis therefore supported the hypothesis as

indicated in Table 4.2.

Previous studies using the LMX have found similar results. Trunkenbrodt (2000) in

studying the LMX, commitment and citizenship behavior, found that a positive

relationship exist between LMX and commitment. The same outcome was established

between LMX and citizenship behavior. Dionne (2000) has also reported a positive

relationship between LMX and job satisfaction. These findings are consistent with the

findings of the present study.

However, the present findings have established a significant relationship, determined a

moderate strength of the relationship and found that LMX represented 15% in the

prediction of effectiveness in work organizations. The rest could be explained by other

variables such as age and sex of participants. Other studies have found that demographic

factors explained 17% of the variance in LMX. Previous studies provide strong support

for the LMX theory. For example, LMX with job satisfaction, commitment, citizenship

behavior, productivity, performance, perception of organizational climate and now

xc

effectiveness. Comparing forecasts on turnover based on leader-member interactions with

those based on manager’s overall styles, the dyadic approach resulted in better prediction

(Graen, Novak&Sommerkamp, 1982). This is indicative of the fact that the LMX theory

is empirically supported and thus remains relevant in the present interpretations of

effective leadership in organizations.

The sixth hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between affect and

perception of change in work organizations. The results indicate very low, positive but

not-significant correlation between affect and Perception of change(r = .114, p<. ns).

The outcome of the analysis therefore supported the hypothesis partially. Though the

result was positive it was not significant. Previous studies using the LMX have found

positive relationships among affect and other organizational variables. For example

Dionne (2000) found that a positive relationship exist between affect and job satisfaction.

Even the present study has also found similar relationship between affect and

effectiveness. Although affect is highly related to effectiveness it was different with

perception of change. Even though organizations accept that change has come to stay,

employees view it to be undesirable and detrimental to their survival. Infact, to them

change have always suggested downsizing or retrenchment. Thus employees often have

resisted change bearing such perception. This could have influenced the outcome.

The seventh hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between loyalty

and perception of change in work organizations. The analysis in Table two again revealed

xci

very low, positive but non-significant correlation between loyalty and perception of

change (r = .066, p<. ns). This hypothesis was partially supported. Though the result was

positive it was not significant. Previous studies using the LMX have found positive

relationships among affect and other organizational variables. For example Dionne

(2000) found that a positive relationship exist between affect and job satisfaction.

The findings suggest that a positive relationship exist between the two variables. In other

words, when loyalty is low, effectiveness is also low and the reverse is true. The other

argument is that the impact of loyalty on effectiveness was negligible. This outcome

failed to improve on previous findings. While loyalty improved employee effectiveness

as indicated in hypothesis two it was not important to employees when it came to their

perception of change. For these employees, loyalty to their supervisors was not a function

or automatic in the way they perceived change in organizations. In other words, loyalty

was not a good predictor of employees’ perception of change. However, it is likely that

some demographic factors could explain this outcome.

The eighth hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between

contribution and perception of change in work organizations. Results in Table 4.3

revealed moderate positive and significant correlation between contribution and

perception of change (r = .40, p<. 01). In other words, the higher the level of

contribution, the higher employees’ perception of change in organizations

xcii

Hypothesis eight was supported. This outcome is consistent with Dionne’s findings.

Dionne (2000) found that a positive relationship exists between contribution and job

satisfaction (The present findings established a positive and significant relationship.

However, a low relationship was revealed by the analysis and 4% of contribution

explained the prediction of effectiveness in work organizations.

Even though two of the four factors of LMX (affect and loyalty) were low, on the

contrary contribution was high in predicting perception of change. This could be that

employees putting a lot into their work have a better understanding of events and as such

are in a better position to view things differently.

The implication is that employees’ contribution as a result of the interaction might not be

a good way to influence effectiveness. However, it is a solid way of improving

employees’ perception about change.

Hypothesis nine tested for a positive and significant relationship between professional

respect and perception of change in work organizations. The analysis revealed low

positive and significant correlation between Professional respect and perception of

change (r = .29, p<. 01). This means that, the lower the level of professional respect, the

lower perception of change of employees in organizations. This supported hypothesis

nine which states that there will be a positive significant relationship between leader-

member exchange and organizational effectiveness.

xciii

The outcome is similar with the findings of previous studies. Dionne (2000) found that a

positive relationship between professional respect and job satisfaction. The present

findings established a positive and significant relationship. A moderate power of the

relationship was revealed by the analysis and 16% of professional respect explained the

prediction of perception of change in work organizations. Thus the finding suggests that

these organizations recognized the abilities and capabilities of their employees thereby

encouraged favorable perception of change. The implication is that Organizations should

focus more on contribution and professional respect when using the LMX as the basis

for improving interaction and perception of change.

Hypothesis ten tested for a positive and significant relationship between LMX and

perception of change in work organizations. There was a low positive correlation

between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .21, p <. 01], with low levels of LMX

associated with low levels of employee perception of change in work organisations.

The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis, which states that there will

be a positive significant relationship between LMX and perception of change. This

finding is also congruent with previous studies using the LMX.Trunkenbrodt (2000) in

studying the LMX, commitment and citizenship behavior, found that a positive

relationship exist between LMX and commitment. In the same study it was established

that LMX was related to citizenship behavior. Deluga & Perry (1994) using the LMX

theory found that subordinate performance was positively associated with higher

exchanges. The same researchers found that subordinates ingratiating activity, including

xciv

opinion conformity, other enhancement, and self-presentation augmented performance in

the prediction of higher quality exchanges.

Dionne (2000) has also reported a positive relationship between LMX and job

satisfaction. These findings are consistent with the findings of the present study.

However, the present findings have established a significant relationship, determined a

moderate strength of the relationship and found that LMX represented 8.4% in the

prediction of perception of change in work organizations. The rest could be explained by

other variables such as age and sex of participants. Other studies have found that

demographic factors explained 17% of the variance in LMX. Previous studies provide

strong support for the LMX theory. Perceptions of organizational climate were related to

the quality of leader-member relations (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989).

Given its recent emergence on the leadership landscape, LMX has proved to be

empirically supported by numerous researches. For example, LMX with job satisfaction,

commitment, citizenship behavior, productivity, performance, perception of

organizational climate and now perception of change. Organizations embarking on

change are entreated to help develop a strong leader-member interaction particularly

focusing on employees’ contribution and professional respect as evidenced in hypotheses

eight and nine. This improves our understanding of LMX and form part of the basis for

providing a new model for LMX.

xcv

Hypothesis eleven tested that female employees (under the exchange) will exhibit a

higher rate of effectiveness compared to their male counterparts. The result as shown in

Table 4.6 revealed that sex had significant effect on effectiveness

[F (1,146) = 7.423, p<. 005]. The mean scores on the effectiveness for males and females

17.43 and 22.17 respectively meant that females show higher effectiveness in

organisations compared to males. The outcome supported this hypothesis.

Though gender has been reported to account for 17% of the variance in LMX, a previous

study indicates that Females may be at a disadvantage in terms of developing high, LMX

Wayne, Liden & Sparrowe (1994). With these contrasting findings it still remains that

females are the preferred group when using LMX at least by the present outcome.

However, further research could help explain the impact of sex or gender on the LMX.

The twelfth hypothesis tested that female employee (under the exchange) perception of

change is less favorable than their male counterparts in work organizations. The result

showed a significant main effect of sex on perception of change of employees

[F (1,146) = 42.328, p <. 001]. This means that employees’ perception of change is

dependent on their sex or gender.

The mean scores on perception of change for males (71.33) and females (54.99) indicate

that females’ perception of change is less favorable than their male counterparts. The

outcome-supported hypothesis eleven. Meanwhile a previous study indicates that

Females may be at a disadvantage in terms of developing high LMX, Wayne, Liden

xcvi

&Sparrowe (1994). Females in work organizations though seen to improve effectiveness

are usually not found in influential positions like their male counterparts. Males who

form the majority of the work force especially in the manufacturing sector are better

placed in areas that could influence their views and perspectives favorably. The

implication is that organization may have less difficulty with males in the pursuit of

potential changes.

Apart from the sex of employees the alternative explanations of the variance in the LMX

could be found in the level of education and job status of employees. However, the

impact of employees’ age on LMX was not significant and thus fails to explain the

variance. Tables ten and eleven, show that significant differences exist between one’s job

status and the quality of the exchange. In the same regard, Tables 4.12 and 4.13 indicate

that significant differences exist between one’s educational level and the quality of the

exchange. On the other hand, one’s age was not important to the prediction of the quality

of the exchange. This is shown in Tables 4.14 and 4.15. The number of completed

questionnaires (85), which bore the age of employees, explains this outcome .It is the

opinion of the researcher that a larger group will improve the present outcome.

The implication is that organizations that intend improving the quality of exchange or

interaction at work should consider focusing on improving the educational backgrounds

of employees since people with high education tend to exhibit high quality of exchange.

The same should also be considered for the individual’s job status or position when

managers are looking out to improve high quality interaction in organizations.

xcvii

5.1 Conclusion

Hitherto the uni-dimensional approach has been used and has produced some positive and

moderate relationships. However, from the analysis so far, it is clear that the LMX theory

is empirically supported. The four factors of LMX (multidimensional) had major effect

on the theory producing significant relationships with effectiveness.

These factors suggest good exchanges between supervisors and subordinates as

prerequisite for employees’ effectiveness and perception of change in work

organizations. As demonstrated in the study, previous studies have also had similar

outcome. However, this study is a major improvement over the previous findings .The

study found significant relationships among the four aspects of leader-member

relationship and organizational effectiveness. These findings provide a new model of

LMX and contribute to the theoretical knowledge in the area.

In the long run, the interaction between leader and member could be improved when

organizations focus on helping leaders/managers/supervisors and members/subordinates

develop positive and high quality relationships. Developing this high quality relationship

(means focusing on affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect as they may

apply) is key to improving employee effectiveness and favorable perception of change.

This is empirically evidenced by the findings of the present study.

xcviii

5.2 Limitations of the study

The majority of participants failed to fill in their age. This made it difficult in finding out

the full impact of age on the LMX. Only manufacturing organizations were used. This

makes it difficult to generalize findings to all organizations. However, the outcome is a

sample of what could be a better understanding of the way organizations work and how

to improve them.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the outcome of the present study it is recommended that the LMX theory is still

relevant to the study of leader and member behavior in work organizations. Thus,

researchers are encouraged to explore this emerging area in leadership for theoretical and

practical application. Emphasis should be put on the four (affect, loyalty, contribution

and professional respect) factors of the LMX in further research.

In essence organizations and mangers who want to improve performance, productivity,

efficiency and effectiveness are charged to focus more on encouraging relationships that

develop affection, professional respect, contribution and loyalty among leaders and

members.

xcix

REFERENCES

Baggozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y., &Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in

Organizational research. Administrative science quarterly, 36, 421-458

Barnard, C. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B .M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, Research and

Managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free press.

Bedeian, A.G. (1986a). Management.Hinsdale.IL: Dryden Press

Bedeian, A.G. (1986b). Contemporary challenges in the study of organizations. Yearly

Review Journal of Management, 12,185-201

Bernard, L.L. (1986). An introduction to social psychology. New York:

Brockner, J., Grover, S., O’Malley, M.N., Reed, T.F., &Glynn, M.A. (1993). Threat of

c

future layoffs, self-esteem and survivors’ reactions: Evidence from the

laboratory and the field. Strategic Management Journal, 14,153-166.

Cameron, K.S. (1980). Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness.

Organizational Dynamics, 9, 66-80

Cameron, K.S. (1981). Domains of organizational effectiveness in Colleges and

Universities. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 25-47

Carnall, C.A. (1986). Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change.

Human Relations, 39,745-765.

Chao, G.T., &Kozlowski, S.W.J (1986). Employee perceptions on the implementation

of robotic manufacturing technology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 70-76.

Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale NJ:

Erlbaum

Connally, T., Conlon, E.J., & Deutsch, S.J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness. A

multiple-constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211-217.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership within formal organizations. A longitudinal investigation of the

role making process. Organization behavior and human performance, 13, 46 – 78

Dienesch, R .M, & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of

leadership. A critique and further development. Academy of Management

Review. Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Management.

Deluga, R.J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The

role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and

Organizational Management Journal, 23,189-216

ci

Deluga, R. J. & Perry, J.T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and

ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management

Journal. Bryant College.

Dionne, L. (2000). Leader-member Exchange (LMX): Level of Negotiating Latitude

and Job satisfaction. Universite Moncton, shippagan.

Dockery, T. M., &Steiner, D.D. (1980). The role of the initial interaction in leader-

member exchange. Group and Organization Studies. Louisiana State

University.

Dunegan, K.J., Duchon, D. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between

leader-member exchange and subordinates performance: The role of task

analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management. Cleveland

State University

Fairhurst, G.T., &Chandler, T.A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member

interaction. Communication Monograph, 56 (3) 215-239.University of

Cincinnati.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

French.J.R.P, &Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D.Cartwright (Ed.),

Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: Institute for social Research, University

of Michigan.

Graen G.B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal

organizations: A developmental approach: J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds):

cii

Leadership frontiers, 143-165, Kent State University press.

Graen, G (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In

M.D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.

Chicago: Rand McNally.

Graen, G & Schriesheim, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: vertical dyad linkage

approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,206-212

Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leadership

exchange and job design, productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual

attachment model. Organizational behavior and human performance, 20,109-131

Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. (1987). Toward a psychology of Dyadic Organizing.

Research in organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208

Graen, G.B & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based approach to leadership.

Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. Leadership Quarterly,

6, 219-247.

Hemphill, J.K. (1949). The leader and his group. Journal of Educational Research,

28,225-229,245-246

Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D.B., & Anonyuo, C. (1989). Attributions and

exchanges: the effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee

performance. Academy of Management journal. Ohio State University.

House, R.J., &Baetz, M.L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and

new research directions. In B.M Staw (Ed), Research in Organizational

behavior. Greenwich, CT.JAI Press.

ciii

Howat, G., & London. (1980). Attributions of conflict management strategies in

supervisor-subordinate dyads. Journal of Applied Psychology.65, 172-175

Jenkins, W.O. (1947). A review of leadership studies with particular reference to

military problems. Psychological bulletin, 44, 54-79.

Katerberg.R. & Hom, P.W. (1981). Effects of within group and between groups

variation in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,218-223

Keating, B.P., & Keating, M.O. (1981), Goal Setting and efficiency in social service

agencies. Long range planning, 14, (1), 39-48.

Kleiner, B H, & Corrigan A.W (1989). Understanding organizational change.

Leadership &Organizational Development Journal, 3, 25-31

Kozlowski, S.W & Doherty, M.L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership:

Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology.74,

546-553

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social exchange in E.E. Maccoby, T.M.

Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

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-member exchange:

An Empirical Assessment through scale Development. Journal of Management

24 (1): 43-72

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early

development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology.

civ

University of Illinois, Chicago.

Maloney, J.P, Bartz C, & Allanach B.C (1991): Staff perception of their work

environment before and six months after an organizational change. Journal

of military medicine, 2, 86-92

Mark, M.W., & Shortland, R. I (1985). Stakeholder-based evaluations and value

judgments. Evaluation Review, 9, 605 – 626

Mc Clane, W. E. (1991). Implication of member’s role Differentiation: Analysis

of a key Concept in the LMX model of Leadership. Group & Organization

Studies, 16,102 133.

Meyer, M.W. (1985). Limits to Bureaucratic Growth. Berlin Gruyter.

Nutt, P.C., (1986). Organizational change: Tactics of implementation. Academy of

Management Journal, 29, 230-261.

Pounder, J.S. (1997). Measuring the performance of institutions of Higher Education in

Hong Kong: an organizational effectiveness approach, Ph.D. Dissertation,

Brunel University/Henley Management College.

Pounder, S.J. (1999) organizational self-assessment in Higher Education:

Experimenting with the Competing Values model and Behaviorally

Anchored Rating scales. Research in Post-compulsory Education, 4.

Lingnan University, Juen Mun, Hong Kong.

Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational

effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5, 122 – 140.

Quinn, R. E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:

Towards a Competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management

cv

Science, 29,363 – 377

Rahim, M.A., & Magner, N. (1995). Confirmatory factor analyses of the styles of

handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance

across groups: Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,122-132

Scandura, R.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

Schriesheim, C. A. Scandura, T. A., Eisenbach, R. J., Neider, L.L. (1992). Validation

of a new leader-member exchange scale (LMX-6) using hierarchically

nested maximum likelihood confirmatory factors analysis. Journal of

Educational & Psychological measurement. University of Miami, School

of Business Administration, Coral Gables.

Schriesheim, C.A., Neider L.L., & Scandura, T.A. (1998) Delegation and leader-

member exchange: Main Effects, Moderators and measurement issues.

Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298 – 318

Schmidt, N.W& Klimoski, R.J (1991). Research methods in human resources

management.Cincinnati.South Western Publishing

Shipper, & White, C.S. (1983). Linking organizational effectiveness and

environmental change, Long Range planning, 16, 99 – 106

Sparrowe, R.T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospital industry: an exploration of

cvi

antecedents and outcomes. Hospitality Research Journal, 17, 51 – 73

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: survey of the

literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71

Trunkenbrodt, Y.B (2000). The relationship between leader-member exchanges,

commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Acquisition Review

Quarterly.

Turban, D.B. Jones, A.P., & Rozelle, R.M. (1990). Journal of Motivation and

Emotion. University of Missouri.

Vecchio, R.P & Norris, W.K. (1996). Predicting employee turnover from performance,

satisfaction and leader-Member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology,

11, 113-125

Vecchio, R.P & Kinicki, A.J. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor-

subordinate Relations: The role of Time pressure, organization commitment,

and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behaviour.15, 75-82.

Vecchio, R.P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange:

A failure to replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28,478-485

Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving Communication goals in Superior-Subordinate

relationship; the multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics.

University of Kentucky.

Warr, P., Cook J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes

and aspects of psychological well being. Journal of occupational psychology,

cvii

52,129-148

Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., & Sparrowe, R.T. (1994). Developing leader-member

exchanges: The influence of gender and ingratiation. Special issues:

impression management and diversity: issues for organizational behavior.

American Behavioral Scientist. University of Illinois.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed) Prentice Hall, upper saddle

River, NJ. 7,149 174

Zammuto, R.F. (1984). A comparison of multiple constituency models of

organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 9, 606 – 619

APPENDIX I

LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE QUESTIONNAIRE (LMX)

INSTRUCTIONS: The following are descriptive items about leadership. Please circle the response that best fits your belief about your relationship with your supervisor. Make only one mark for each question. Please answer all items.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1. I like my supervisor very much as a person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. My supervisor is the kind of person one wouldlike to have as a friend……………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issues in question……………………….... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

cviii

5. My supervisor would come to my defense if I

were “attacked” by others…………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. My supervisor would defend me to others in

the organization if I made an honest mistake 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond

what is specified in my job description……… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond

those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s

work goals…………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. I do not mind working my hardest for my

Supervisor……………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I am impressed with my superior’s knowledge

of his/her job………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I respect my superior’s knowledge of and

Competence on the job……………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. I admire my superior’s professional skills… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

cix

APPENDIX II

PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGE QUESTIONAIRE

INTRUCTIONS: The following are descriptive items about members (employees) perception of change in the work place. Please circle the response that best describes your perception with regard to changes that are likely to occur at where you work. Make only one mark for each question. Please answer all items. Respondents are to rate each question on a Seven point scale, where:

1 Represent very poor

2 Represent poor

3 Represent below average

4 Represent average

5 Represent above average

6 Represent good

7 Represent very good

Demographic Characteristics

cx

Age……………………………… Sex (M/F)………………………

Education……………………….. Job status………………………

1. How well will you describe change with regard to workload at the workplace? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How will you rate the reduction of the workforce as a result of the introduction of a new technology? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. To what degree will you describe change with regard to the organization’s structure that may reduce the workforce? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. How would you characterize your organization’s response to conflicts as a means to ensuring good social interaction at the workplace? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. How would you describe a move that allows employee participation in decisions that affect their job? 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. As part of your organization’s new arrangements in ensuring effectiveness, how are you likely to describe a change that offers employee career advancement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Again change that gives opportunity for promotion at the workplace. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Also change concerning demotion with regards to no performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Also change that calls for employee transfer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. How would you describe a workforce reduction exercise carried out by your organization, which could affect a co-worker? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. how would you describe change with regard to the

cxi

transfer of a co-worker? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. how would you characterize change with respect to established work schedule that are compatible with demands outside the job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. how well do you describe a change that advocates regular rotation of supervisors? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. again, how do you characterize change that advocates a reward system (salaries), which is compatible with productivity (output)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. how well do you respond to a cash induced means (this is huge money given to employee to retire prematurely to workforce reduction? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 1-15 ( )

APPENDIX III

ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS:

The Organizational Effectiveness questionnaire consists of a number of s that describes the effectiveness of organizations as contained in the 9 dimensions of the “Competing values” framework. When completing the questionnaire respondents should please observe the following the following instructions:

1) Questions are segmented into 9 dimensions (Productivity, Quality, Cohesion, Adaptability-Readiness, Information management-Communication, Growth, Planning-Goal setting, Human resource development, and stability-control).

2) Each dimension has series of generated questions that represent the behavior under consideration.

cxii

3) Respondents are requested to Circle the option (Very Low – Very High) that best describes effectiveness in their organization.

4) Respondents are to rate each question on a Seven point scale, where:

1 Represent Very Low2 Represent Low3 Represent Below Average4 Represent Average5 Represent Above Average6 Represent High7 Represent Very High

DIMENSION ONE

(A) Productivity :

1. How well do you describe the volume or quantity of goods produced? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How do you characterize your organizations production cost? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 1-2 ( )

DIMENSION TWO

(B) Quality :

3. Which of the options best describe your organization’s quality control unit performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. In allotting any of the options, how will you describe the quality of your organization’s product (s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. To what extent do you consider consumer concerns inproduct manufacturing? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 3-5 ( )

DIMENSION THREE

(C) Cohesion :

cxiii

6. How well are members of staff loyal to the organization? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. How well is staff motivated intrinsically with regards to their job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. What is the extent of interpersonal relationships in yourorganization? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. How well do staff in group/team get along on their work (Cooperative behavior)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. How well do you describe staff sense of belongingness? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 6-10 ( )DIMENSION FOUR

(D) Adaptability-Readiness :

11. Could you describe your organization’s ability to readily alter its structure in response to changing demands? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. How well do you characterize your organization’s readiness to adapt to change regarding its programmes? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 11-12 ( )

DIMENSION FIVE

(E) Information Management-Communication

13. How well do you describe your organization’s ability to accurately distribute information needed by your staff in the conduct of their duties? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. What is the extent of your organization’s ability to timely distribute information needed by staff in the conduct jobs? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 13-14 ( )DIMENSION SIX

(F) Growth :

15. How well do you describe your organization’s ability to

cxiv

secure external support? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. What is the extent of the organization’s ability to resource acquisition? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. How well have you been able to increase the capabilities of your organization? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 15-17 ( )DIMESNION SEVEN

(G)Planning-Goal setting :

18. What is the extent of the organization’s ability to set its goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. What is the extent of the organization’s ability to ssystematically plan for the future? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Add items 18-19 ( )

Total for all seven dimensions ( )

cxv