View/Open

On the other hand, supervisor LMX is not significantly related to staff organisation
commitment and turnover intent. This implies that supervisor-perceived LMX does not
have much influence on the staff’s commitment to the organisation and intention to
quit the organisation. Further, there was only a small correlation between supervisor
LMX and staff LMX (r = .154, significant at less than the 0.01 level). Therefore, it is
clear that employee-LMX is different from supervisor-LMX and both shouldn’t be
used interchangeably. .
When computing the LMX difference variable, two situations developed. They were
supervisor’s LMX scores higher than the respective subordinate LMX scores, and
subordinate’s LMX scores higher than the respective supervisor LMX scores.
Therefore, the research conducted further correlation analysis by separating and
examining the data under the above mentioned situations. This further analysis was
carried out to find if there are any differences in the results. Table 26 and Table 27
show the bivariate correlation results of LMX difference with the organisational
outcomes among the two separate groups. Though the results are not substantial but
low, it is significant at less than 0.01. Further, the direction of correlation of these
scores is similar to the overall correlation scores mentioned in Table 25.
However data in Table 26 and Table 27 show significant differences in the results of
the staff and the supervisor LMX scores and their correlation with the organisational
outcomes. In the situation when subordinates rate higher than the supervisor, the level
of correlation between the staff LMX and the LMX difference reduces and that
between the supervisor LMX and the LMX difference increases. Further in this
situation, the significant level of correlation between supervisor LMX and organisation
82