Content area
Full Text
Contents
- Abstract
- Development of Exchange Quality
- Potential Determinants of Exchange Quality
- Study 1
- Method
- Experimental Design
- Subjects
- Procedure
- Manipulations
- Impression management
- Objective performance
- Measures
- Liking for subordinate
- Performance ratings
- Exchange quality
- Results
- Manipulation Check
- Test of the Model
- Study 2
- Method
- Sample
- Procedure
- Measures
- Influence tactics
- Liking for subordinate
- Performance ratings
- Exchange quality
- Results
- Influence Tactics
- Test of the Model
- Discussion
Figures and Tables
Abstract
The hypothesis was tested that subordinates' impression-management tactics and performance affect supervisor–subordinate exchange quality by influencing supervisors' liking for and performance ratings of their subordinates. In Study 1, 96 undergraduates completed measures of liking, performance, and exchange quality after interacting with a subordinate who engaged in a high or low level of impression management and performed at a high, average, or low level of competence.
The leader–member exchange model (formerly referred to as the vertical dyad linkage model) describes the process by which organizational members evolve their roles through interactions with their supervisors (Graen & Scandura, 1987). As a result of this process, a quality of exchange ranging from low to high develops between a supervisor and subordinate (Graen, 1976). Early research examining the model indicated that a supervisor develops different quality exchange relationships with subordinates and that those relationships are relatively stable over time (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). Later studies have been focused on the relationship between exchange quality and supervisor and subordinate attitudes and behaviors. Results suggested that, in comparison with a low-quality exchange relationship, a high-quality exchange relationship is related to more supervisor support and guidance, higher subordinate satisfaction and performance, greater subordinate influence in decisions, and lower subordinate turnover (e.g., Liden & Graen, 1980; Rosse & Kraut, 1983