دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی تبادل رهبر-اعضا و شناسایی رهبر: مقایسه و ادغام - امرالد 2018

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare and integrate leader-member exchange (LMX) and leader identification (LID) as concurrently functioning mediators between three leadership styles (individual-focused transformational, contingent reward, and benevolent paternalistic) and two citizenship behaviors (helping and taking charge). Design/methodology/approach – Data included 395 stable, independent leader-follower dyads from numerous Chinese organizations. Partial least squares structural equation modeling and relative weight analysis were used in data analyses. Findings – In established, steady-state leader-member alliances, LMX was the dominant explanation between various leadership styles and helping; whereas LID explained leadership effects on taking charge. Three-stage indirect effects of leadership-LMX-LID-taking charge were found. Also, LMX and LID related to the three focal leadership styles in distinct ways. Research limitations/implications – Limitations include cross-sectional data. Strengths include a large, multi-source field sample. Implications include that LMX and LID provide different prosocial motivations; LMX indirectly engenders stronger other-orientation through LID; and the nature of indirect leadership effects via LID is more sensitive to the nature of the focal leadership styles. LMX and LID together provide a package of prosocial motivations. Practical implications – Leaders interested in increasing employees’ helping vs taking charge behaviors can be more effective by understanding the different motivational potentials of LMX vs LID. Leaders also need to choose appropriate behavioral styles when they activate LMX vis-à-vis LID. Originality/value – This study integrates multiple leadership theories to provide a nuanced account of how social exchange and self-concept explain leadership at the interpersonal level when leadership styles, LMX, and LID are stable.

Discussion

Scholars have called for extensive integration of leadership theories and constructs such as LMX and LID (e.g. Dinh et al., 2014; Meuser et al., 2016). This study answers this call and found that LMX and LID are very likely conduits of different motivational qualities for channeling leadership effects on helping and taking charge. Findings also revealed that the three conceptually diverse leadership styles influenced LMX and LID in distinct and previously undiscovered ways.

Theoretical implications

Our central contribution demonstrates that two conceptually distinct aspects of leader-follower role relationship work concurrently to explain how and why leaders affect two distinct OCBs. Some scholars emphasize the kinship between LMX and LID by suggesting that high LMX necessarily relates to high LID (Lavelle et al., 2007). Others argue that the important theoretical differences between LMX and LID should be adequately recognized and researched (Uhl-Bien, 2006; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). We integrate these views into a nuanced account of the mediating roles of LMX and LID. Regarding the two-stage leadership indirect effects, although LMX explained how leadership affected helping, it was unable to illuminate how leaders fostered taking charge.