Li Den Jap Article 805

Running head: LMX TO PERFORMANCE AND TURNOVER

In press, Journal of Applied Psychology

A Longitudinal Study of the Moderating Role of Extraversion:

LMX, Performance, and Turnover during New Executive Development

Talya N. Bauer

Berrin Erdogan

Portland State University

Robert C. Liden

Sandy J. Wayne

University of Illinois at Chicago

Author Notes

We want to thank Murray Barrick, Jeanne Enders, Carl Maertz, and Donald Truxillo for

their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. An earlier version of this paper

was presented at the 2004 Academy of Management meeting in New Orleans, LA. This

research was funded by a Research Grant from the Society of Human Resource

Management (SHRM) Foundation and the University of Illinois’s Center for Human

Resource Management (CHRM).

LMX to Performance and Turnover 1



Abstract

Identifying factors that help or hinder new executives to “get up to speed” quickly and

remain with the organization is vital to maximizing the effectiveness of executive

development. The current study extends past research by examining extraversion as a

moderator of leader-member exchange (LMX) to performance, turnover intentions, and

actual turnover relationships for an executive sample. The sample consisted of 116 new

executives who were surveyed prior to starting their employment as well as three months

post-entry. A total of 67 senior executives rated these new executives in terms of overall

performance at six months post-entry. Turnover data were gathered from company

records 3 1/2 years later. Hierarchical regression results showed that LMX was not

related to performance or turnover intentions for those high in extraversion, but for

individuals low in extraversion, there was a relation between LMX, performance, and

turnover intentions. Furthermore, survival analyses showed that LMX was only related to

turnover hazard rate for individuals low in extraversion.




Executives are among the highest paid workers in the United States, and they

occupy high-level jobs within organizations with over 3 million of them working at the

turn of the century (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000). Organizations spend considerable

time, money, and effort to transform executives into productive assets. Research has

shown that the cost of losing executive talent is high. For example, Overton (2001)

estimated that the direct and indirect costs of replacing an executive amount to more than

their annual salary, and has been estimated to be $500,000 per lost executive (McCall,

Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). In addition to replacement costs, losing top talent can also

result in the loss of competitive industry secrets. This is especially true for Fortune 500

organizations, which tend to hire employees from competing Fortune 500 firms

(Williamson & Cable, 2003).

Executives hold powerful and prestigious positions and are key organizational

members who have the ability to shape and influence decisions regarding a variety of

important factors. But coupled with these seemingly positive aspects of executive jobs is

the pressure put on them to perform well and to do so quickly (McCall et al., 1988).

Identifying factors such as personality characteristics and insider support that may help or

hinder new executives in “getting up to speed” is vital to maximizing the effectiveness of

new executives and retaining them (McCall et al., 1988).

The literature on new employee socialization may be useful in understanding how

executives adjust to their new roles. Research on socialization shows that establishing

effective working relationships with leaders early on is a key way that new employees


can successfully integrate into their organizations (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1998;

Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995).

Similarly, the executive development literature has established the importance of

developing relationships (Mainiero, 1994), finding mentors (Lyness & Thompson, 2000;

McCall et al., 1988), and receiving top management support (McCauley, Ruderman,

Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994) for executive success. Therefore, examining relationship

development with new executives and their superiors may increase our understanding of

new executive success in terms of enhancing performance and avoiding organizational

withdrawal.

One theory that examines the relationship quality between superiors and

subordinates is leader-member exchange (LMX). A distinctive feature of this approach

to leadership is its focus on the dyadic level of leadership. Rather than thinking about a

leader as having one set style, LMX theory proposes that leaders form unique

relationships with each of their subordinates so that high LMX employees receive greater

growth opportunities (Graen & Scandura, 1987) and higher levels of support (Kraimer,

Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001). Theorists posit that social networks are important to

organizational members (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998). More specifically to

LMX, Sparrowe and Liden contended (1997) and empirically verified (2003) that high

LMX employees are more readily integrated into the leader’s personal network. These

researchers discovered that being incorporated into the leader’s set of trusted contacts

was related to focal members being perceived by others as influential players in the

organization. Paralleling these results, Seibert, Kraimer, and Liden (2001) found that

establishing a social network (including contacts in different functional areas) was related


to the procurement of resources and information and ultimately to career success. Given

that executives tend to be charged with making high profile decisions that require access

to a wide variety of information as well as being charged with the responsibility of

executing tasks that demand access to resources, establishing oneself as an influential

member of a far-reaching social network may be especially critical for individuals

holding executive positions. Thus, we expect the relationship that new executives are able

to form with their superiors to be a salient factor in the executive development process.

To date, the executive development literature has not incorporated the findings of

LMX theory. Similarly, the LMX literature has typically not examined employees who

hold high-level positions. Therefore, our main objective in this study is to integrate these

literatures by exploring the role of LMX in the new executive development process as

measured by executive performance and withdrawal. Furthermore, we contend that the

importance of high-quality LMXs will be contingent on the personality of new

executives. We propose that introverted executives, individuals who are less inclined to

seek social attention (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002), will benefit more from forming

high-quality relationships than their more extraverted counterparts.

Our study makes three contributions to the literature. First, we contribute to the

executive development literature by examining how performance and withdrawal are

influenced by the interaction between executive personality and the unique relationships

that form between new executives and their immediate superiors. This is especially

important as the executive development literature has primarily focused on gender as a

key individual difference (e.g., Lyness & Thompson, 2000; McCauley et al., 1994), but

has not examined how executives with different personalities adjust to their new roles.


Second, we make a contribution to the LMX literature by introducing a potential

moderator of LMX to outcome relations. Several LMX researchers have expressed

concern that LMX studies have adopted a universalistic perspective that has resulted in a

dearth of knowledge on the circumstances that make LMX more or less important for

executive success (e.g., Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Schriesheim, Castro, & Yammarino,

2000; Vecchio, Griffeth, & Hom,1986).

Finally, our third contribution is a re-examination of the LMX to actual turnover

relationship while employing methodological advancements in the turnover literature.

Although a number of studies have revealed non-significant relationships between LMX

and turnover, researchers have called for additional studies that examine moderators

(Gerstner & Day, 1997), are conducted with high-level employees (Vecchio, 1995), and

employ longitudinal designs (Singer & Willett, 1991) to further test the relationship

between LMX and actual turnover. We address these calls for further examination by

using survival analysis, examining a new moderator, extraversion, and studying a high-

level executive sample across time.

Hypotheses

Executive Performance

One of the main goals for new executives is to adjust to their new jobs in order to

perform well. LMX is associated with better role adjustment in terms of performance, as

research has consistently found that LMX and performance are related across a wide-

range of jobs (Gerstner & Day, 1997). For example, in a cross-sectional study

Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, and Taylor (2000) found that, in their sample of university

employees with an average tenure of seven years, performance was related to LMX.


Similarly, Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) studied employees with at least five years of

work experience and found a positive relationship between LMX and performance.

Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) discovered that LMX and performance were related

in their sample of hospital employees with approximately six years of tenure. For their

sample of expatriates, Kraimer et al. (2001) found a similar relationship. In one of the

few studies of new employees that included performance as an outcome, Bauer and

Green (1996) studied new college graduates and found that LMX and performance were

related at two months on the job as well as nine months on the job.

LMX researchers have posited several mechanisms relating LMX to performance.

For example, new employees need information to do their jobs and to gain clarity for role

expectations (Bauer et al., 1998). Indeed, the literature shows a strong relationship

between LMX and role clarity, perhaps because individuals in high LMX relationships

interact more frequently with their leaders (Kramer, 1995). Further, high LMX members

often enjoy more challenging assignments, sponsorship, and greater access to information

relevant to the job (Graen & Scandura, 1987).

While the existing literature shows a relationship between LMX and job

performance, to date, no study has examined this relationship in an executive sample

where “who you know” can be as important as “what you know” (Burke, 1984). Having a

strong LMX relationship should help with these dimensions of executive performance,

which are often ambiguous and high profile. Research shows that developing

relationships is key to advancing to executive positions (Mainiero, 1994; Ragins,

Townsend, & Mattis, 1998). Lyness and Thompson (2000) found that mentoring was

related to executive success even after controlling for tenure, gender, age, education, and


human capital. Further, interviews with executives show that their superiors are key in

helping them to understand management values and to navigate the politics of the

organization (McCall et al., 1988). McCauley et al. (1994) found that major areas of

learning for executives experiencing job transitions included having higher responsibility

and visibility, and dealing with nonauthority relationships to get their jobs done.

Following findings from the LMX and executive development literatures, forming

high LMX relationships should help new executives deal with job transitions, garner

greater responsibility, learn insider information, and overcome obstacles. All of these

factors should enhance new executive job performance. Therefore, we first examine

whether the previously established relationship holds true with this sample of new, high-

level executives.

Hypothesis 1: LMX is positively related to new executives’ job performance as

rated by their supervisors.

Executive Turnover Intentions

Only a handful of studies have examined LMX and turnover intentions. Despite the

small number of studies of this relationship, meta-analytic results have found an overall

negative relationship between LMX and turnover intentions (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The

socialization literature has also examined interpersonal interaction and turnover

intentions. For example, relationship building was found to influence turnover intentions

across three-waves of data collection (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). This study

provides preliminary evidence for the salience of leaders as key socializing agents, but

none of these studies examined new executive employees.


Executives who are able to form high LMX relationships should become more

attached to their workplace as they feel more supported (Kacmar, Carlson, & Brymer,

1999; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000; Schriesheim et al., 2000), receive more

feedback from their superiors (Kramer, 1995), and belong to a network at work

(Sparrowe & Liden, 2003). On-the-job embeddedness refers to employees being situated

or connected in a social web at work that creates a disinclination to consider leaving as

the cost of turnover increases (Lee et al., 2004). If executives do not want to lose valued

relationships with their superiors, they are more psychologically attached to the

organization and should have lower turnover intentions (Maertz & Campion, 1988).

Hypothesis 2: LMX is negatively related to new executive turnover intentions.

Executive Turnover

Although it is clear that LMX is negatively related to turnover intentions, research

on LMX and actual turnover has tended to show mixed results, with results from a meta-

analysis indicating that no relationship exists (Gerstner & Day, 1997). However, we

propose that the same mechanisms that link turnover intentions with LMX will operate

for actual turnover as well.

We revisited the relation between LMX and actual turnover for several reasons.

First, relatively few studies of LMX have examined turnover, and none of these to our

knowledge have been conducted with a sample of executives. Indeed, we expect that

factors that relate to executive turnover will be related, at least partially, to the ability of

new executives to learn from their leaders (e.g., McCall et al., 1988; McCauley et al.,

1994). Although Ferris (1985) replicated the findings of Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982)

for LMX relating to actual turnover, Vecchio (1985) was unable to replicate these results


in his sample of bank tellers. He noted, however, that “…the leader-member exchange

approach has potentially greater predictive utility for turnover among high-level

employees than among low-level employees” (p. 483). Consistent with this speculation,

the sample in the Graen et al. (1982) research, which found a strong negative correlation

between LMX and turnover, consisted of highly educated computer and systems analysts.

Second, there are characteristics associated with executives that provide support for

the relation between LMX and turnover. In a study of the predictors of executive career

success, Judge, Cable, Boudreau, and Bretz (1995) found that higher-level executives

were more “promotion motivated” than lower-level executives, despite the more limited

prospective promotion opportunities given their high level in the organization.

Furthermore, they found job tenure negatively predicted number of promotions. These

findings suggest that high-level executives tend to be very ambitious and desiring of

promotions. As a result, they may be less likely to tolerate a low LMX relationship with

their superior as this person typically has a significant impact on promotion decisions.

Furthermore, it seems that executives may have many alternative job opportunities given

the “war” for executive talent (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001). Thus, the

LMX relationship between new executives and their immediate superiors may be

especially salient with respect to turnover.

Additionally, Gerstner and Day concluded that the relationship between LMX and

actual turnover is worthy of further examination and Vecchio et al. (1986) indicated that

the search for this relationship should not be abandoned. Finally, research since Gerstner

and Day’s meta-analysis has found some support for the importance of leadership. For

example, Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg (2003) compared different socializing


influences and found that across seven different organizations, leader influence was the

only socializing agent that was related to actual turnover.

If new executives have low LMX relationships, they may not fit into the

organization and are likely to have an unfavorable work situation that would motivate job

search behaviors and cause them to leave more rapidly. High LMX may create a sense of

patience not to “rush out the door” and an obligation to one’s manager that might

lengthen tenure. Thus, in both cases LMX would be related to duration of stay as well as

turnover.

In terms of the methods used when studying actual turnover, Singer and Willett

(1991) note that turnover research should be longitudinal, allow sufficient time for

turnover to take place, utilize survival analysis to analyze predictors of turnover, and

capture turnover in terms of days stayed rather than simply as a dichotomous

“stayed/left” variable. The use of survival analysis utilizes the information regarding

when turnover occurred in addition to whether or not it occurred. Therefore, it provides a

richer understanding of the process by which employees leave the organization. For

example, over a three-year period, all subjects could have left the organization. However,

from the organization’s perspective as well as theoretically, there is a difference between

an executive who leaves after staying for three months, and someone who leaves after

staying 2.5 years. Even if both individuals would have turned over by the end of our

study, it makes theoretical sense to utilize information regarding how long individuals

stayed. In fact, Morita, Lee, and Mowday (1993) demonstrated that survival analysis and

logistic regression may give contradictory findings and the use of survival analysis


provides a more accurate method of estimating relations between turnover and other

variables.

All of the published studies of LMX and turnover utilized logistic regression

procedures (e.g., Ferris, 1985; Graen et al., 1982; Vecchio, 1985; Vecchio et al., 1986).

Logistic regression is appropriate for examining predictors of turnover. However, it

discards information regarding how long individuals stayed before leaving. Utilizing this

information may reveal that even though LMX may not be related to whether individuals

left or stayed, those with high LMX may stay for longer periods of time before they

leave. One goal of this study was to build on past research and to examine the LMX to

actual turnover relationship following the recommendations of Singer and Willett (1991).

Hypothesis 3: LMX is negatively related to new executive actual turnover.

The Moderating Effect of Extraversion

To this point we have posited main effects for LMX relating to performance and

withdrawal. However, LMX researchers have consistently called for the examination of

moderators, and in particular individual difference moderators, of the LMX to

performance and turnover relationships (e.g., Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day,

1997; Vecchio et al., 1986). Our search of the literature for potential moderators

identified a key personality variable, extraversion. Extraversion has surfaced as an

individual difference variable that is stable and exerts an influence on a wide range of

employee behaviors. Extraversion is perhaps the dominant factor in the Five-Factor

Model (FFM) of personality (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Judge, Bono,

Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002), and of the five factors is the most theoretically and empirically

related to the constructs of interest in the current investigation. Most major personality


inventories include some form of extraversion (Watson & Clark, 1997). Research shows

that extraversion is a valid predictor across criterion types for managers (which included

foremen through top-level executives). And in their meta-analysis on the FFM, Barrick

and Mount (1991) concluded that being extraverted was helpful for managerial jobs, but

less important for other occupations such as secretaries, accountants, production workers,

engineers, and architects. They also found that extraversion was related to higher training

success. Of particular importance, given that our sample consisted of executives learning

new jobs, are the findings of Barrick and Mount indicating that extraversion is a key

personality characteristic for managers. In fact, Judge and his colleagues (2002) found

meta-analytic evidence that extraversion was the most consistent correlate of leadership

across study settings and leadership criteria.

LMX is a theory of social interaction. Therefore, its effects should be contingent on

the extent to which employees interact effectively with others. Personality theory and

research show that people high on extraversion are characterized as seeking out

interaction opportunities with others, generally liking other people, being gregarious and

talkative (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and being high in reward sensitivity. Depue and

Collins (1999) define reward sensitivity as the tendency to experience “an incentive

motivational state that facilitates and guides approach behavior to a goal” (p. 495).

Research has identified reward sensitivity which included ascendance (social dominance,

enjoyment of leadership roles, assertiveness, and goal accomplishment) as a higher-order

factor underlying extraversion (e.g., Lucas et al., 2000). Subsequently, Ashton et al.

(2002) found that a central feature of extraversion is the “drive to garner social attention”

which they define as the tendency for people to behave in ways that attract and hold


social attention, and that these individuals enjoy engaging in these behaviors. Introverts,

on the other hand, tend to be reserved, independent and prefer their own company or that

of habitual companions. In terms of job characteristics, extraverts seek out novel,

complex, challenging, and varied tasks, as well as intense stimuli, while introverts tend to

prefer predictable paths in their work (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Successful executives have reported developmental experiences associated with

their success such as networking, having developmental job assignments, and

encountering novel situations (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). Interestingly, the benefits of

high LMX relationships and the personality characteristics associated with being

extraverted are strikingly similar in terms of the extent to which they influence success as

an executive. Because extraverts are characterized as seeking situations which garner

social attention and interaction, they are likely to do well in these positions, without the

necessity of forming high-quality relations with their leader. Extraversion is a trait that

fits well with the demands of an executive position, and therefore new executives high on

extraversion seek information, engage in social networking (Bozionelos, 2003), and

behave in ways that would lead to higher levels of adjustment in their new positions. For

example, in their study of new employees, Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000)

found that extraversion was positively related to feedback seeking and interactions with

organizational insiders.

High LMX relationships are characterized by frequent interaction (e.g., Bauer &

Green, 1996; Kramer, 1995), and extraverts desire interaction. And while high LMX

relationships are characterized by challenging assignments and a wide range of job

responsibilities (e.g., Liden et al., 2000), extraverts enjoy job challenge and novel work.


In essence, the preferences and behavioral tendencies that characterize extraverts parallel

the qualities of both typical high-quality LMX relationships as well as executive success

(Lyness & Thompson, 2000). Therefore, for extraverts, LMX and performance should be

weakly related, as extraverts should be able to perform well at executive jobs regardless

of the quality of their LMX relationships.

Introverts are in a seemingly precarious situation whereby their personalities do not

fit the needs of new employees to seek information to help them adjust to their new roles.

Without a high LMX relationship, introverts may find it difficult to access needed

information and resources as well as to navigate complex social networks. Therefore, it is

possible that for introverts, LMX relationships play a critical role in their adjustment.

Without the benefits derived from establishing high LMX relationships, their tendency to

be reserved and reclusive may make it difficult for them to perform at the level of their

extraverted counterparts. We propose that for an introvert, performance will be related to

LMX, such that the higher their LMX, the higher their performance. Those introverts

who are able to successfully establish and maintain high LMX relationships should be

able to accrue benefits similar to their extraverted coworkers.

Hypothesis 4: Extraversion moderates the relationship between LMX and job

performance, such that there is a positive relationship for those low on extraversion

(introverts) whereas the relationship is not significant for individuals high on extraversion

(extraverts).

Similarly, for introverts, we propose that LMX will be crucial for their integration

into the organization, such that the higher their LMX, the lower their turnover intentions

and actual turnover. If introverts working as executives are unable to establish high LMX


relationships and subsequently are unable to become successful in terms of social

integration and/or job performance, they should be less embedded into the organization,

and more likely to want to leave the organization (Lee et al., 2004).

However, although a leader can be instrumental in supporting and motivating

employees (Eisenberger et al., 2002), subordinates are dependent upon such a leader only

to the extent that alternate forms of support, guidance, and feedback are lacking.

Extraverts are more inclined to seek out these alternative sources of support as they tend

to be more independent and likely to engage in proactive socialization behaviors such as

relationship building and feedback seeking than are introverts (Crant, 1995). Related to

their tendency to be proactive, extraverts seek out information, opportunities for social

interaction, and new activities (Bozionelos, 2003; Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997),

all behaviors that have been linked to socialization success (Jablin, 2000). Although

introverts can garnish this information and develop contacts with key individuals in the

organization through a strong relationship with the leader (Sparrowe & Liden, 2003), we

contend that extraverts can do so without relying on their leader. This argument is

consistent with substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), which suggests that

subordinate independence from others, characteristic of extraverts, serves as a substitute

for leadership.

Thus, we propose that for introverts, LMX is crucial for their successful attainment

of work-related goals, such that the higher their LMX, the lower their turnover intentions

and actual turnover. If introverts working as executives are unable to establish high

LMX relationships they will be less likely to become effectively socialized into the

organization and thus will be more likely to leave the organization. Because extraverts


are able to secure the resources and support needed to become successfully socialized

into the organization without the help of the immediate leader, for extraverts, LMX,

turnover intentions, and actual turnover should be unrelated.

Hypothesis 5: Extraversion moderates the relationship between LMX and turnover

intentions, such that there is a negative relationship for those low on extraversion


(extraverts).

Hypothesis 6: Extraversion moderates the relationship between LMX and actual

turnover, such that there is a negative relationship for those low on extraversion


(extraverts).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Our sample consisted of new employees and transferees holding executive positions

in a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical organization. Two-hundred thirty-one new employees

(new hires and transferees to executive-level positions) and their respective superiors

were invited to participate in this study. Data were collected across four points in time via

three surveys and organizational records. Research on new employee socialization shows

that it takes employees several months before they begin to feel adjusted to both the

social and task aspects of their job suggesting that entry is a key timeframe for

understanding subsequent performance and turnover (Bauer et al., 1998). Therefore, the

timing on these included: prior to entry (Time 1) and three-months post-entry (Time 2)

for the new executives, a survey completed by senior executives about the new


executives at six-months post-entry (Time 3), and data obtained from organizational

records 3 1/2 years later (Time 4).

The organization sent the Time 1 pre-entry survey via postal mail to all new hires,

along with their official job offer. Transferees completed the same survey online, after

receiving the link from the second author. This survey assessed the extraversion level of

new executives, and participants returned their completed surveys directly to the

researchers via U.S. mail in self-addressed, postage paid envelopes or online for

transferees. The Times 2 and 3 surveys were web-based, and the second author forwarded

the links for these surveys directly to new executives at three months following their start

dates and to the supervising senior executives at six months. The Time 2 employee

survey assessed the relationship quality between new executives and their senior

executives and turnover intentions from the new executive’s perspective, and the Time 3

superior survey assessed performance of new executives from the senior executives’

perspective. Time 4 turnover data were gathered from company records 3 1/2 years later.

A total of 168 new executives completed the pre-entry survey for a response rate of

73%. One hundred forty-six new executives completed the three-month survey for a

response rate of 63%. One hundred and eleven senior executives participated in the six-

month senior executive survey for a response rate of 48%. The number of employees who

responded at both pre-entry and at three months was 116, which was the sample size for

Hypotheses 2, 3, 5, and 6 (overall response rate = 50%). The number of dyads (new

executives paired with supervising senior executives) for which we had complete data

across the first three time periods was 67 (with 58 senior executives rating only one new

executive, three senior executives rating two new executives, and one senior executive


rating three new executives), a response rate of 29%. This was the sample size available

to test Hypotheses 1 and 4.

Sixty-six percent of the new executives were new hires, whereas 34% were

employees transferring within the company. However, as noted below, whether the

executive was a new hire or transferee did not affect the results. According to company

records, the average age of new executives was 41 (SD = 7). Fifty-nine percent of the

respondents were male. Seventy-seven percent of the sample was identified as Caucasian,

11.5% as Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.3% as Hispanic, 1.8% as African American, and .9%

as Puerto Rican. The respondents had high levels of education, as 37% of the sample

held a bachelor’s degree, 33% had a masters degree, and 30% held a doctoral degree. The

job titles held by the new executives included 81 Directors and Associate Directors, 24

Senior Managers, and 11 Vice Presidents.

Senior executives who rated new executives were mostly male (75%), and

Caucasian (75%) with 8.8% of the superior sample identified as Asian/Pacific Islander,

4.4% as Hispanic, and 1.5% as African American. The average age of senior executives

was 45 (SD = 6.54). In terms of education level, 22% of the managers held a bachelor’s

degree, 30% had a masters degree, and 48% held a doctoral degree. The job titles held by

the senior executives included 5 Presidents, 34 Vice Presidents, and 44 Senior Directors.

Measures

Control Variables. We identified several potentially relevant control variables. For

example, gender and age have been shown to relate to executive relationship formation

(Lyness & Thompson, 2000). Research has shown that transferees and new hires may

differ (e.g., Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995). Therefore, age, gender, and new


executive status (i.e., new hire or transferee) were all gathered from company records.

New hires were coded as “1” and transferees as “0.” Gender was coded “1” for men and

“0” for women. In addition, research has shown that the amount of interaction between

subordinates and superiors is sometimes related to LMX (Schiemann, 1977). Therefore,

we asked new executives to report on the number of hours per week (on average) they

interacted with their superior at Time 2.

Extraversion. At pre-entry, we measured extraversion using 8 adjectives developed

by Saucier (1994) as part of his measure of the five factor model of personality. New

executives reported the extent to which these adjectives were accurate in describing their

personality, using a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inaccurate to 9= extremely accurate).

Example adjectives include “bold,” “energetic,” “extroverted,” and “talkative” ( = .82).

Leader-member exchange. Three months (Time 2) after the new executives started

their new positions, we measured LMX from their perspective, using the 12-item LMX-

MDM scale developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998). Although the LMX-MDM can be

used as a multidimensional scale, Liden and Maslyn (1998) found support for a higher-

order factor, allowing for a composite of all items to be used as a measure of global

LMX. New executives reported their level of agreement using a 7-point scale, ranging

between 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. An example item is “My

supervisor would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others.” We averaged all

items to create the LMX score ( = .90).

Job Performance. At six months post-entry, we measured job performance from the

superior’s perspective, using four items developed by Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez

(1998). Managers used a 5-point scale (1 = needs much improvement to 5 = excellent) to


rate new executive job performance ( = .91). Sample items included ratings of new

executive “quality of work output” and “quantity of work output.”

Turnover intentions. Three months (Time 2) after the new executives started their

new positions, they reported turnover intentions using a 5-item scale used by Wayne et al.

(1997). Employees reported their level of agreement using a 7-point scale, ranging

between 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. An example item is “I am seriously

thinking of quitting my job” ( = .87).

Turnover. Three and one half years following organizational entry (Time 4),

information regarding new executive turnover was gathered from company records. Of

the 168 executives who participated in this study at Time 1, 68 left the organization by

Time 4 (40%). In addition to turnover, we gathered the dates of separation to examine

the length of stay in the organization.

The methods relating to the measurement and analysis of turnover have garnered

considerable attention (e.g., Dickter et al., 1996; Huselid & Day, 1991; Morita et al.,

1993; Singer & Willett, 1991). The general consensus is that OLS regression is

inappropriate when dealing with binary dependent variables (e.g., Huselid & Day, 1991;

Morita et al., 1993). As Morita et al. (1993) noted, examining when an event such as

turnover happens as well as whether it happens is more informative than what logistic

and probit regression can test. Therefore, researchers recommend using survival analysis

when examining actual turnover. Survival analysis examines both when and if turnover

occurs. Singer and Willett (1991) offer guidelines for survival analyses. Of these, we

followed several suggestions such as gathering longitudinal data, having a specific “start”

time such as entry, gathering data over a meaningful period of time so that the event has a


chance to occur, comparing respondents and non-respondents to ensure no major

differences exist, reporting the survivor function, examining interactions, and examining

the shape of the hazard profile.

We calculated days stayed as the number of days between the day each new

executive completed a Time 2 survey and the day they quit or Time 4. We did not

operationalize the number of days stayed starting from their date of entry, because this

would involve using LMX (a Time 2 variable) to predict survival before Time 2.

However, because Time 2 was exactly three months after the start date for each

individual, calculating the days stayed starting from the day executives start their new

positions did not change the results. Those who eventually left the organization had been

with the organization for an average of 643 days (SD = 357). The average number of

days remaining for the entire sample (both leavers and those who remained) was 1,017

(SD = 403). The earliest time anyone in our sample left was 20 days after completing the

Time 2 survey.

Replication Sample. In addition to this executive sample, we wanted to gather

additional data in order to address the concern that our interaction results might not

generalize to other populations. Therefore, we gathered data from 102 working adults at a

University located in the Northwest using a snowball sampling technique. Jobs of the

participants were diverse and included financial analysts, test engineers, and sales.

Participants were an average of 28 years old (SD = 6.83), had an average of 10 years of

work experience (SD = 6.04), and 60% of the respondents were male.

All of the measures collected were parallel to the executive sample to examine

Hypothesis 5 (LMX, extraversion, turnover intentions, and the control variables of


gender, age, and part-time/full-time work status). Because manager ratings and actual

turnover were not available for this sample, we did not test hypotheses involving

performance or actual turnover (Hypotheses 4 and 6).

Results

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. Before

testing our hypotheses, we examined the relationships between respondents and non-

respondents for the main sample as well as between the variables of interest, and several

demographic control variables to make sure significant differences did not affect our

results. Based on t-test results, new executives who responded at both Times 1 and 2 did

not differ from Time 2 non-respondents in terms of age, gender, new executive status,

hours of interaction, or extraversion. Further, new executives who had superiors

complete a Time 3 performance survey did not differ from those who did not in terms of

age, gender, new executive status, hours of interaction, extraversion, LMX, or turnover

intentions. And finally, there were no differences among those who participated in our

study and those who did not in terms of number of days remaining on the job or actual

turnover rate.

In order to examine the potential influence of control variables, we examined the

correlation matrix. As seen in Table 1, age and gender were correlated with extraversion.

In addition, gender was positively related to LMX quality and negatively correlated with

turnover intentions. Finally, number of hours of interaction was positively correlated

with LMX. Therefore, we controlled for age, gender, and hours of interaction in all

analyses but not for employee status, as it was unrelated to our variables of interest.


In order to test hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 5, we performed two separate moderated

hierarchical regression analyses. In the first step, we regressed job performance and

turnover intentions on employee age, gender, and hours of interaction, as well as

extraversion after it was centered. In the second step, we entered LMX after it was

centered. The coefficient estimate at this step provided tests of Hypotheses 1 and 2. Then,

in the third step we entered the product of the centered LMX and extraversion to the

equation (Aiken & West, 1991), providing tests of Hypotheses 4 and 5.

We tested Hypotheses 3 and 6 via survival analysis. Because there were several

individuals who remained with the organization at the conclusion of the study, the

turnover data were right censored (meaning that a majority of the sample did not leave

the organization during our data collection). Therefore, following Singer and Willett

(1991) we utilized survival analysis via Cox’s proportional hazard model. The dependent

variable in these analyses was the number of days before turnover occurred.

The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Our analyses suggested that LMX was significantly related to both job performance

(= .31, t = 2.64, p < .05) and turnover intentions (= -.35, t = -4.01, p < .01),

providing support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. LMX explained 10% of the variance in job

performance and 11% of the variance in turnover intentions, after controlling for

employee age, gender, hours of interaction, and extraversion.

In order to test Hypothesis 3, we first plotted the sample survivor profile as

recommended by Singer and Willett (1991). Specifically, we examined the probability of

remaining with the organization (the survival function) for individuals high and low in

LMX. Figure 1 depicts the survival functions for low LMX (below mean) and high LMX


(above mean) levels. These curves suggest that the survival rate was higher for

individuals high in LMX.

Survival curves provide preliminary information about the differences between

groups, but because our interest was in examining the more complex relationship of the

interaction between LMX and extraversion, this plot does not provide an actual test of

our hypotheses. Therefore, we used the results from the Cox proportional hazard model,

which is able to test more complex models (Singer & Willett, 1991). The results from the

second step of the Cox regression suggested that the coefficient for LMX was significant

( = -.44, Wald = 4.44, p < .05) and that the coefficient was in the expected direction. In

addition, the change in 2 when LMX was added to the equation was significant (2 (1)

= 4.14, p < .05). LMX was negatively related to the hazard ratio such that, one standard

deviation increase in LMX was associated with a 36% decrease in the odds of leaving.

These results provided support for Hypothesis 3.

Hierarchical regression results presented in Tables 2 and 3 provided preliminary

support for Hypotheses 4 and 5, as the interaction terms of LMX and extraversion were

significantly related to performance and turnover intentions. In order to examine the

pattern of relationships, we plotted the significant interactions following the procedure

described by Cohen and Cohen (1983).

Figure 2 depicts the relation between LMX and performance at high and low values

of extraversion (one standard deviation above and below the mean). Post-hoc analyses

(Aiken & West, 1991) demonstrated that, as expected, there was a positive relationship

between LMX and job performance only for individuals low in extraversion (introverts)

(= .58, t = 4.12, p < .01), but the relationship was not significant for individuals high in


extraversion (= -.01, t = -.06, p > .05). The interaction term explained 10% of the

variance in job performance and the entire model accounted for 19%. These results

provided support for Hypothesis 4.

Figure 3 depicts the nature of the relationship between LMX and turnover

intentions at high and low levels of extraversion. Supporting Hypothesis 5, there was a

negative relationship between LMX and turnover intentions for individuals low in

extraversion (introverts) (= -.53, t = -4.78, p < .01), but no relationship for individuals

high in extraversion (= -.03, t = -.26, p > .05). The interaction term accounted for 5%

of the variance in turnover intentions and the entire model accounted for 24%.

Proportional hazard model results provided support for Hypothesis 6. As presented

in Table 4, the interaction term was significantly related to the hazard rate (= .47, Wald

= 7.24, p < .01). Following Aiken and West’s (1991) technique, we found that for

individuals high in extraversion, there was no relationship between LMX and the hazard

rate ( = .06, Wald = .04, p > .05). However, for individuals low in extraversion, LMX

was negatively related to the hazard rate ( = -1.02, Wald = 11.92, p < .01), meaning

that LMX was negatively related to the probability of turnover. We also calculated the D

statistic, which is similar to the R2 used in regressions, following the formula reported in

Sheridan (1992). The interaction term explained 7% of the variance in hazard rates, and

the overall model explained 11%. These results provided support for Hypothesis 6.

We also tested the proportional hazards assumption inherent in Cox regression

(Singer & Willett, 1991). We plotted hazard functions for different levels of all

predictors, and found the hazard plots to be parallel in all cases. Furthermore, we entered

the interaction term of our variables of interest (LMX and extraversion) with time into the


equation, and found them to be nonsignificant. These analyses indicated that the

proportionality assumption was not violated.

Replication of results. We tested Hypothesis 5 using the replication sample of

working adults. We ran a hierarchical moderated regression in which we regressed

turnover intentions on the control variables, LMX, and extraversion in the first step and

the interaction term in the second step. The interaction term of extraversion and LMX

was significantly related to turnover intentions ( = .19, t = 2.24, p < .05). The

interaction term explained 3% of the variance in turnover intentions. The plot of the

interaction in Figure 4 shows that the relationship between LMX and turnover intentions

was stronger for introverts than for extraverts. These findings are consistent with the

findings from the executive sample. Thus, we established that the results for Hypothesis

5 replicated in our general adult working population.

Discussion

At the outset of this article we argued that organizations that are able to maximize

the effectiveness of their new executives have a competitive advantage over those that do

not. Yet, few studies have examined the socialization of senior-level executives. We

proposed that extraversion moderates the relation between LMX quality, executive

performance, and withdrawal.

Strong support was found for all the hypothesized moderating relationships, as

evidenced by R2 for the interaction terms ranging between 5% and 10% above the main

effects and control variables. We found support for the expectation that extraversion

would moderate the relationship between LMX, turnover intentions, and turnover. Our

findings also support the idea that performance is related to LMX, but that this


relationship must take into account the personality of the employee being rated such that

new executives low on extraversion need the support of organizational insiders, such as

their immediate superiors, to help them succeed and remain with the organization.

At the multivariate level, the performance of extraverts appeared unrelated to LMX

with extraverts performing at the same level regardless of their LMX relationships.

Conversely, for introverts, having a high LMX relationship was critical to high

performance. Those individuals who were introverted and who were unable to establish a

high LMX relationship had lower ratings of performance.

Our results indicated that high LMX and high extraversion provided similar

advantages to new executives, such that only for relatively introverted executives was

LMX significantly related to performance, turnover intentions, and turnover. The job of

executive-level employees requires social interaction, networking, and dealing with novel

situations. Extraverts may manage these situations via their more attention seeking

personality whereas introverts seem to need the assistance of high LMX relationships.

Thus, for an introverted executive, a high LMX relationship seems essential for success,

but extraverts’ ability to seek social interaction, resources, and support suggests that

extraversion may serve as a substitute for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).

Even though we hypothesized that extraversion would act as a moderator of LMX,

it is also possible to interpret the results in a way in which LMX is the moderator. In

other words, our results could be interpreted such that high LMX acts as a substitute for

extraversion. Our results indicate that there would be a difference in performance and

turnover between introverts and extraverts for only those with low LMX. This is an

encouraging finding, given that personality is a fairly stable construct that is not likely to


change over short periods of time. Even though extraverts seem to be at an advantage as

new executives, introverts can deal with their limitations by seeking and forming high

LMXs with their immediate managers.

Taken together, it seems apparent that personality matters to new employees, at

least at the executive level. It is interesting to note that this sample had a relatively high

level of extraversion (the average was 6.67 on a 9 point scale). Future research should be

conducted to see if these relationships hold in other samples of employees who hold

lower-level positions and/or have more variance in terms of personality, as research has

shown that different behaviors for success are needed for those above and below middle

management (e.g., McCauley et al., 1994).

Implications

In terms of turnover intentions and turnover, it is apparent that those who are

introverted and do not have high-quality LMX relationships are the most vulnerable

executives. This has important implications for organizations as they invest large sums

of money in new hires, especially at the executive level, and a loss of a high-level

employee can also cause potential problems for competitiveness. This study was

conducted in the pharmaceutical industry where industry secrets are closely held and

information is an important commodity. This underscores the need to work with new

executives, especially those who are more introverted, to enhance retention.

Extraverts were rated more highly in terms of performance at the bivariate level.

This implies that organizations may want to consider including some measures of

personality in their selection batteries. This is consistent with findings by Barrick and

Mount (1991) that show personality relating to job outcomes for managers. Conversely,


the negative effects of introversion on task performance can be ameliorated by building

effective relationships with managers. Organizations can maximize the effectiveness of

their human resources by reaching out to more introverted employees in terms of

mentoring or even providing LMX training for superiors as described in Scandura and

Graen (1984) as a way to smooth the transition for introverted employees.

It is also possible that the observed lower performance for introverts in low LMX

relationships reflects an observation bias on the part of the senior executives who were

rating performance. For example, the true performance of introverts, who are less likely

to seek out interactions, may go unnoticed. Conversely, it may be that extraverts are

better able to communicate and clarify their ideas with their superiors even given a

relatively low-quality exchange. However, it is also possible that for executives, the

ability to communicate with others is a key job performance dimension, thus the ratings

may reflect a true difference in performance levels based on personality. Therefore, it

would be helpful to extend the present study with future research that includes objective

performance ratings and/or peer performance ratings.

Another set of interesting findings revolved around the demographics of new

executive age and gender that were unrelated to superior ratings of performance.

However, men, 59% of the new executive employee sample, reported having higher-

quality LMX relationships than women while women reported having higher turnover

intentions. This pattern of findings is consistent with previous research demonstrating a

subtle difference in how men and women perceive the environment at higher levels of the

organization (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). We would characterize this Fortune 500

organization as a traditional, hierarchical organization. The superiors who participated in


this sample were primarily male (75% of the sample) and previous research on executives

has found that women and younger employees may have a harder time forming strong

relationships (Lyness & Thompson, 2000) and receiving developmental job experiences

(Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994). This may, in part, relate to the ‘glass ceiling’

that has been reported to exist in Fortune 500 organizations (Davies-Netzley, 1998;

Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Future research is encouraged that further examines the role

that gender and age play in the formation of strong LMX relationships for new executives

to ensure a “level playing field” and welcoming environment.

Potential Limitations

Although 168 new executives and 111 senior executives participated, the final

sample used for this study was 116 new executives (50% response rate) with 67 for the

performance analyses (29% response rate). While these response rates are consistent

with previous longitudinal, new employee studies (Bauer et al., 1998), a potential concern

exists that the lack of power somehow comprised our findings. The usual concern with

low power is typically one of inability to detect true differences (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

The concern for low power is even more evident in studies of interaction; where

problems such as small sample size, unreliability in predictor variables, and range

restriction in predictor variables are cited as some reasons interactions often go

undetected (Aguinis & Stone-Romero, 1997). These concerns are lessened here due to the

strong support garnered for all of the interaction hypotheses. Interaction effects are very

difficult to detect, and account for 1 to 3% of the variance (Aiken & West, 1991). The

interactions we examined accounted for 5-10% of the variance in our outcomes.

Therefore, the moderation effects detected seem strong in comparison, and our ability to


detect them with a modest sample size may be indicative of the magnitude of the effect

sizes in the overall population. In fact, for the R2 found here for the interaction, our

power was .84 (Borenstein, Rothstein, & Cohen, 2001).

Another potential concern regarding the sample size is generalizability. However,

our response and non-response analyses revealed no differences between respondents and

non-respondents at Times 2 or 3. Further, no differences were found between participants

and non-participants in terms of actual days on the job, or in their actual turnover rates.

This implies that our sample was not overly skewed in terms of the study variables.

Finally, we were able to replicate the interaction finding for turnover intentions with a

cross-section of lower-level jobs. This leads us to be less concerned about

generalizability. Nonetheless, future research that extends the generalizability of this

study is encouraged.

In addition, correlations between two measures may be inflated if both are obtained

from the same person at the same point in time using the same data collection technique.

We designed this study to minimize this potential limitation. Our data collection was

across three time periods over several months and then again after 3 1/2 years which

should mitigate common stimulus cues and consistent responding. Also, data were

collected from three sources: superiors, new executives, as well as from organizational

records. This eliminates the concern of common method bias for those measures. And

third, tests were run conservatively by controlling for any additional variables that were

theoretically related and which covaried with predictors and criteria (in this case age,

gender, and interaction hours). Therefore, we have confidence that the observed

relationships are not simply due to common method variance.


A final limitation is our inability to make causal inferences, a shortcoming that

plagues non-experimental research. It is difficult to address causality, even in a

longitudinal study, because we cannot know how respondent cognitions influence

behaviors occurring between data collections. For example, when performance is

measured at a later time than LMX, leaders may be thinking about the performance of

subordinates prior to that measurement, and this could influence future interactions.

Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell’s (1993), finding that LMX relationships appear to form

within the first two weeks post-entry, largely based on perceived similarity and liking and

not performance, indicates an LMX to performance causal direction. In fact, researchers

(e.g., Bauer & Green, 1996) have argued that the relationship between LMX and

performance is probably reciprocal. It would be helpful to have future research

specifically address this issue of causality.

With respect to causality between LMX and turnover, it is important to note that

none of the executives in our sample left their jobs before three months. To the extent

that Liden et al’s (1993) finding that LMX relationships formed in two weeks generalizes

to other organizations, it is unlikely that turnover intentions would determine LMX

quality. We contend that newcomers who have exerted the effort associated with

searching for and transitioning into a new position would not have decided within the

first two weeks that they wanted to leave the organization. Therefore, although we

acknowledge that it is possible for turnover intentions to drive LMX, we feel that an

LMX to turnover causal direction is much more likely.

As noted earlier, executives are key organizational members who have the ability to

shape and influence the decisions made regarding a variety of important factors. We


identified key factors that may help or hinder new executives to “get up to speed” quickly

and to remain with the organization. This study illustrates the importance of personality

as a moderator of the LMX to outcome relationship for new executives. We found that

high LMX is helpful in achieving new executive adjustment, but only for introverted

executives. Extraverted new executives are likely to be successful in their new positions,

but the same benefits can be achieved among introverts who succeed in forming high

LMX relationships with their superiors. Our results demonstrate the importance of paying

attention to both personality and relationships for executive development.


References

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple

regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 192-206.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?

Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,

245-252.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:

A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal

test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information

seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 72-83.

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review

and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,

16, 149-214.

Borenstein, M., Rothstein, H., & Cohen, J. (2001). Power and precision. Englewood, NJ: Biostat, Inc.

Bozionelos, N. (2003). Intra-organizational network resources: Relation to career success and

personality. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 41-66.

Brass, D.J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A

social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 14-31.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, (2000). US Department of Labor http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos012.htm.

http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos012.htm


Burke, R. J. (1984). Relationships in and around organizations: It’s both who you know and what

you know that counts. Psychological Reports, 55, 299-307.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral

sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R: Professional manual. Revised NEO

Personality Inventory NEO PR-R and NEO Five-Factor Inventory NEO-RRI. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective performance among real estate

agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532-537.

Davies-Netzley, S. A. (1998). Women above the glass ceiling: Perceptions on corporate mobility

and strategies for success. Gender and Society, 12, 339-355.

Depue, R. A. & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine

facilitation of incentive motivation and extraversion. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-

569.

Dickter, D. N., Roznowski, M., & Harrison, D. A. (1996). Temporal tempering: An event history

analysis of the process of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 705-716.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review

of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee

retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent

developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L.


Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65-114). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing.

Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive

replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:

Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal

process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research on

Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.

Huselid, M. A., & Day, N. E. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover:

A substantive and methodological analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 380-391.

Jablin, F. M. (2000). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin &

L. L. Putnam (Eds.) The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 732-818).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A

qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J.W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation of

the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485-519.

Judge, T. A., Martochhio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and

employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745-755.

Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Brymer, R. A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of

organizational commitment: A comparison of two scales. Educational and Psychological


Measurement, 59, 976-994.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry

process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 779-794.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R.A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate

performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54, 71-99.

Kramer, M. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of superior-subordinate communication during job

transfers. Human Communication Research, 22, 39-64.

Kramer, M. W., Callister, R. R., & Turban, D. B. (1995). Information-giving and information-

receiving during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 151-170.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). The effects of

job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and

voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711-722.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange. An

empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and

potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 15, 47-119.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of

psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and

work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407-416.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development


of leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the

fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452-468.

Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched

samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359-375.

Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male

executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101.

Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (1998). 25 years of voluntary turnover research: A review and

critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson, International review of industrial and

organizational psychology, vol. 13: 49-81. New York: Wiley.

Mainiero, L. A. (1994). Getting anointed for advancement: The case of executive women.

Academy of Management Executive, 8, 53-67.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal

investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating

effect of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and

social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.

Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.

McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How

successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the

developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544-560.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The War for Talent. Boston, MA:


Harvard Business School Publishing.

Morita, J. G., Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1993). The regression-analog to survival: A selected

application to turnover research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1430-1464.

Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences in managers’

developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 46-67.

Overton, B. (2001). Using peer group performance in executive pay. Executive Compensation, 27

(1), 1-8.

Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and

female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management Executive,

12, 28-42.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516.

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange

status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.

Schiemann, W. A. (1977). The nature and prediction of organizational communication: A review

of the literature and an empirical investigation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,

Champaign, IL.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An

examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-

member exchange using traditional and multivariate within-and between-entities analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659-677.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success.

Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219-237.


Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: The

differential effects of perceived organizational support and leader member exchange. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management

Journal, 35, 1036-1056.

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1991). Modeling the days of our lives: Using survival analysis

when designing and analyzing longitudinal studies of duration and the timing of events.

Psychological Bulletin, 110, 268-290.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange.

Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2003, August). LMX, social network structure, and outcomes: A

structural model. Paper presented as part of a symposium entitled, “Leaders and their social

networks: An alternative approach to leadership research.” National meetings of the Academy

of Management, Seattle, Washington.

Vecchio, R. P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange: A failure to

replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 478-485.

Vecchio, R. P., Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (1986). The predictive utility of the vertical dyad

linkage approach. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 517-625.

Wanberg, C.R. & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the

socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373-385.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J.

Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.


Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-

member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111.

Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale:

Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540-555.

Williamson, I. O., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Organizational hiring patterns, interfirm network ties,

and interorganizational imitation. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 349-358.


Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations among Variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age (T1) 40.97 7.03 -

2. Gender (T1) .59 .49 .06 -

3. Employee Status (T1) .66 .47 -.16 -.03 -

4. Hours of Interaction (T2) 4.56 4.93 -.15 -.03 -.02 -

5. Extraversion (T1) 6.67 1.13 -.18* -.19* .04 -.01 (.82)

6. LMX (T2) 5.84 .77 -.12 .18* .15 .18* .16 (.90)

7. Turnover Intentions (T2) 1.71 .87 -.07 -.31** -.11 .09 -.04 -.37** (.87)

8. Job Performance (T3) 4.37 .74 -.09 -.07 -.02 .11 .25* .33** -.02 (.91)

9. Days Stayed (T4) 1017.18 403.18 .03 .06 -.08 -.05 .04 .13 -.20* .25* -

Note. n = 67 – 120. Gender was coded 1 = male, 0 = female; employee status was coded 1 = new hire, 0 = transferee; T1 = Time 1

(pre-entry, new executive rated); T2 = Time 2 (3 months post-entry, new employee rated); T3 = Time 3 (6 months post-entry, superior

of new executive rated); T4 = Time 4 (3 1/2 years). Coefficient alpha reliability estimates are presented along the diagonal. Age,

gender, employee status, and days stayed in the organization were all gathered from company records.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.


Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Job Performance as the Dependent Variable

Job Performance

Variable Step 1 Step 2

(Hypothesis 1)

Step 3

(Hypothesis 4)

Age -.03 .00 .00

Gender -.01 -.03 -.03

Hours of Interaction .06 .03 .06

Extraversion .23 .21 .20

LMX .31* .25*

LMX x Extraversion -.32**

R2 .07 .10 .10

F 1.17 7.00* 8.26**

R2 .07 .17 .27

Adj. R2 .01 .10 .19

Overall F 1.17 2.42* 3.64**

Note. n = 67 for Hypotheses 1 and 4. LMX = leader member exchange. Gender was

coded 1 = Male and 0 = Female. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.

Extraversion and LMX are centered variables. Confidence intervals for the hypothesized

and supported relationships did not include zero.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.


Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Turnover Intentions as the Dependent Variable

Turnover Intentions

Variable Step 1 Step 2

(Hypothesis 2)

Step 3

(Hypothesis 5)

Age -.06 -.09 -.10

Gender -.32** -.25* -.22**

Hours of Interaction .07 .13 .12

Extraversion -.12 -.05 -.04

LMX -.35** -.31**

LMX x Extraversion .23**

R2 .12 .11 .05

F 3.79** 16.13** 7.72**

R2 .12 .23 .28

Adj. R2 .08 .19 .24

Overall F 3.79** 6.67** 7.18**

Note. n = 116 for Hypotheses 2 and 5. LMX = leader member exchange. Gender was

coded 1 = Male and 0 = Female. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.

Extraversion and LMX are centered variables. Confidence intervals for the hypothesized

and supported relationships did not include zero.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.


Table 4

Results of the Proportional Hazards Model using Cox Regression

Independent Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

SE Wald OddsRatio

SE Wald OddsRatio

SE Wald OddsRatio

Age -.01 .02 .20 .99 -.01 .02 .26 .99 -.02 .02 .54 .98

Gender -.19 .31 .36 .83 -.05 .32 .02 .95 .07 .33 .04 1.07

Hours of Interaction .01 .03 .22 1.01 .03 .03 .73 1.03 .03 .03 1.20 1.03

Extraversion -.04 .14 .09 .96 -.01 .14 .00 .99 .12 .15 .58 1.12

LMX -.44 .21 4.44* .64 -.49 .22 5.23* .61

LMX x Extraversion .47 .17 7.24** 1.61

2 .86 4.14* 6.86**

2 .87 5.30 13.32*

D .00 .04 .11

Note. n = 116 for Hypothesis 6. Gender was coded 1 = Male and 0 = Female. Extraversion and LMX are centered

variables. Confidence intervals for the hypothesized relationships did not include 1. * p < .05 ** p <.01.


Figure Captions

Figure 1. Sample survivals function at high and low levels of LMX.

Figure 2. The relationship between LMX and performance at high and low levels of

extraversion.

Figure 3. The relationship between LMX and turnover intentions at high and low levels

of extraversion.

Figure 4. The relationship between LMX and turnover intentions at high and low levels

of extraversion.





Documents

Li Den Jap Article 805