View/Open

Finally, as suggested in the literature, egocentric bias may be a reason for this poor
level of LMX agreement. There is a possibility that, while subordinates attribute good
performance of the organisation to them and blame supervisors for failure, supervisors
may do it the other way around, leading to different LMX perceptions. This situation is
similar to those found in attribution theory (e.g. Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009). Since
there is a difference in LMX perceptions between supervisors and subordinates, there
are greater possibilities of differences in their LMX scores, leading to poor LMX
agreement.
5.3 Research Implications
It is expected that the results of this research will assist in further understanding the
supervisor-subordinate relationship in a hospitality industry perspective. The current
study aids in providing theoretical and practical advantages to both the hospitality
practitioners and academics.
5.3.1 Theoretical Implication
This research explicitly presents the relationship between LMX agreement,
subordinates’ organisational commitment and turnover intent. Though some previous
research (e.g. Cogliser et al., 2009; Minsky, 2002) discussed their association, there
has been little effort to meticulously assess the relationship between these theories.
Further, this research is the first to establish the relationship between the LMX
agreement and the turnover intentions of the subordinate. Therefore this research adds
to the growing literature on the relationship between LMX agreement and the
organisational outcomes.
99