View/Open

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Although there has been evidence in the literature that a high quality LMX is related to desirable organisational outcomes (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Kim & George, 2005; Schyns & Paul, 2005; Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1993), there have been only few studies to predict LMX agreement (e.g. Cogliser et al., 1999; Minsky, 2002; Sin et al., 2009). The following discussion therefore addresses some of the widely discussed factors that are considered to be theoretical explanations for poor LMX agreement. 2.5.1.1 Relationship tenure Graen and Scandura (1987) proposed that the LMX relationship moves from a continuum of low to high through a progressive series of steps. When subordinates join the organisation, they enter the “role taking phase” where organisational tasks are assigned to them by their supervisors. This is the first contact between these individuals. Miller (2011) believe that formal social exchanges between subordinates and supervisors are established in the second phase called the “role making phase”. Social exchange theory states that individuals give approval to something only when they expect to get certain benefits from it (e.g. Ap & Crompton, 1998; Pearce, Moscardo, & Ross, 1996; Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez, 2002). Therefore, Miller (2011) believes that during the “role making phase” supervisors and subordinates mutually assess their relationship, and if favourable, build a high LMX relationship. Sin et al. (2009) propose that the opportunity to engage in positive exchanges is related to the time supervisors and subordinates spend together. The study found that the LMX agreement is positively related to the length of the relationship tenure. 2.5.1.2 Relationship schemas Based on the cognitive leadership studies and the research on interpersonal exchanges in cognitive psychology (e.g. Baldwin, 1992; Baldwin & Baccus, 2003; Epitropaki & 19
Martin, 2004; Kenney, Blascovich, & Shaver, 1994; Lord & Emrich, 2001; Lord & Maher, 1991; Walsh, 1995; Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998), it is clear that subordinates and supervisors develop structures or assumptions based on their previous relational experiences. In a recent management study, Ritter and Lord (2007) found that subordinates characterised their present supervisor based on their relational incidents and experiences with their previous supervisor. This situation is further enhanced by supervisors creating assumptions based on subordinates’ work, whereas subordinates focus on emotional criteria(Huang, Wright, Chiu, & Wang, 2008). Baldwin (1992) further observes that certain LMX assumptions be shared among the individuals as they pose similar experiences. Huang et al. (2008) found that LMX agreement was high when supervisors and subordinates both present similar levels of schematic assessments of their relationship. 2.5.1.3 Effective communication Minky (2002) believed that subordinates group themselves with those who have similar work patterns. This belief is developed from the similarity-attraction paradigm, where individuals group themselves with those who tend to work in patterns similar to them(Bryne, 1971; Ritzer, 2003). Increase in supervisor-subordinate interactions increases the probability of getting captivated to similar work patterns. This is because increased interactions permit the individuals to investigate and validate the similarity in work patterns between the individuals (Minsky, 2002; Simpson & Harris, 1994). Furthermore, communication is different among the different levels of the dyad and develops as the dyad develops from a lower to a higher level LMX (Kacmar, Zivnuska, Witt, & Gully, 2003). Effective communication also assists in better organisational outcomes among the LMX members (Kacmar et al., 2003). The study proved that 20
Page 1 and 2: An examination of the relationship
Page 3 and 4: 3.2 Research Paradigms ............
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Measures of
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conceptua
Page 9 and 10: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I take this opport
Page 11 and 12: employees and help human resource d
Page 13 and 14: Several leadership theories can be
Page 15 and 16: 1.2 Research Objective This study d
Page 17 and 18: 1.5 Definitions of Key Terms Leader
Page 19 and 20: 2.2 Characteristics of the Hospital
Page 21 and 22: satisfaction, as employees have a v
Page 23 and 24: The theories that focus on follower
Page 25 and 26: Colquitt, Lepine and Wesson (2011)
Page 27 and 28: elationships with the organisation.
Page 29: In particular, Grestner and Day (19
Page 33 and 34: 2.5.1.5 Egocentric bias Egocentric
Page 35 and 36: The foregoing sections reviewed the
Page 37 and 38: (1993)analysed the relationship bet
Page 39 and 40: etter organisational commitment whe
Page 41 and 42: Turnover is a topic of intense rese
Page 43 and 44: poor working conditions and unsatis
Page 45 and 46: group, they will regard themselves
Page 47 and 48: 3.1 Introduction CHAPTER 3 - METHOD
Page 49 and 50: present study is consistent with a
Page 51 and 52: hospitality literature have been co
Page 53 and 54: Table 1: Measures of Subordinate LM
Page 55 and 56: Table 3: Measures of Turnover Inten
Page 57 and 58: English (Manjunath & Kurian, 2009).
Page 59 and 60: and a Participant Information Sheet
Page 61 and 62: 3.8.1.2 Support for the Difference
Page 63 and 64: dependent or independent (Székely
Page 65 and 66: CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS The research in
Page 67 and 68: 1. Gender: Lodging: All of the 161
Page 69 and 70: are marginally more experienced wit
Page 71 and 72: Table 9: Industry Experience of Sub
Page 73 and 74: Table 10: Job Function of Subordina
Page 75 and 76: Table 11: Hospitality Education of
Page 77 and 78: 4.1.2 Supervisors The supervisors w
Page 79 and 80: 3. Tenure: All supervisors from bot
Page 81 and 82:
Table 16: Industrial Experience of
Page 83 and 84:
experience among the supervisors in
Page 85 and 86:
among these supervisors ranged from
Page 87 and 88:
This hypothetical supervisor will h
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 2: Scree Plot 78
Page 91 and 92:
supervisor LMX score of each partic
Page 93 and 94:
On the other hand, supervisor LMX i
Page 95 and 96:
Table 26: Correlation Results when
Page 97 and 98:
Table 29: Subordinate Tenure Fewer
Page 99 and 100:
a moderate correlation (.322) betwe
Page 101 and 102:
Table 33: Supervisor Industry Exper
Page 103 and 104:
From the results presented in Table
Page 105 and 106:
5.1 Introduction CHAPTER 5 - DISCUS
Page 107 and 108:
findings suggest that behaviours re
Page 109 and 110:
agreement with the organisational c
Page 111 and 112:
In addition, the research used two
Page 113 and 114:
commitment. It is evident that comm
Page 115 and 116:
science study, where perceptions of
Page 117 and 118:
REFERENCES Adler-Milstein, J., Sing
Page 119 and 120:
BLS. (2011). Job openings and labor
Page 121 and 122:
De Matos, C. A., Henrique, J. L., &
Page 123 and 124:
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1
Page 125 and 126:
Kara, D. (2012). Organisational com
Page 127 and 128:
Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001)
Page 129 and 130:
Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A.,
Page 131 and 132:
Sin, H. P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morg
Page 133 and 134:
Vecchio, R. P. (1998). Leader-membe
Page 135 and 136:
Kindly complete the following quest
Page 137 and 138:
Appendix 2: Supervisor Questionnair
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 3: Participant Information
Page 141 and 142:
The only cost to you is your time:
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix 5: Participant Information
Page 145 and 146:
How do I agree to participate in th
show all

View/Open

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?