View/Open

In addition, the research used two sources of information (supervisor and subordinate),
which reduced the effect of common method variance. Academics understand that
common method variance is a problem that needs to be addressed (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Further,
previous studies have analysed LMX either on the leader perspective or on the
follower perspective. By analysing the results from two different sources, this research
greatly minimises the problem of common method variance and establishes reliable
findings.
This research is the first to present LMX study in an Indian hospitality industry
context. Indian industries are found to follow a paternalistic management approach,
where greater power distance between the different hierarchies is exercised (Aycan et
al., 2000; Mathur, Aycan, & Kanungo, 1996; Pellegrini, Scandura, & Jayaraman,
2010).Further, Sinha (1990) believes that supervisors in Indian industries are
benevolent and authoritative, similar to a traditional Indian father, who is caring yet
demanding and disciplinarian. A paternalistic leadership approach is harmonious with
collectivistic cultures where individuals accommodate into strong in-groups that
protect them in exchange for their loyalty. Though such an approach is appreciated in
India, it is perceived as a violation of privacy in individualistic cultures like the United
States (Aycan, 2006). Furthermore, paternalistic relationships are based on power
inequality between the leader and the subordinates. Evidences to support power
inequality among Indian employees can be found in Hofstede (2001), who established
differences between Western cultures and Indian cultures. The study theorised Indian
cultures to be similar to Latin-American organisations, where greater power distance is
100