View/Open
View/Open
View/Open
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Grestner and Day (1997), while analysing the moderate correlation between<br />
supervisor-perceived LMX and subordinate-perceived LMX noted that “leader-<br />
member agreement should be examined as a relevant independent or dependent<br />
variable” (p.835). However, they did not offer any suggestion as to why agreement is<br />
expected or desired, nor why they consider agreement as a determinant for<br />
organisational outcomes. The level of LMX agreement in their study appears to be<br />
misunderstood, given that previous LMX studies mostly measured LMX quality from<br />
either the subordinate or the supervisor perspective.<br />
Minsky (2002), suggests that agreement between leaders and employees about their<br />
LMX relationship is a significant factor in arbitrating desired organisational and<br />
individual outcomes. Although some theorists value the significance of LMX<br />
agreement in determining organisational outcomes, only a few studies analysed these<br />
relationships empirically (e.g. Cogliser et al., 2009). Perhaps even more importantly,<br />
no research has investigated this relationship in the hospitality industry where the<br />
supervisor-subordinate relationship is of such critical significance to employee<br />
turnover. Furthermore, despite numerous calls for more research, India is an under-<br />
studied region for leadership research. Organisational researchers believe that there is<br />
still a dearth of academic research in the Indian hospitality and business environment<br />
generally (see Chhokar, 2007; Kirkman & Law, 2005; Pillai, Scandura, & Williams,<br />
1999). It is therefore important to examine this phenomenon in the context of the<br />
Indian hospitality industry.<br />
3