{"title":"领导-成员交换(LMX)测量:共识、建构广度和判别效度的证据","authors":"Dana L Joseph, Daniel A. Newman, Hock-Peng Sin","doi":"10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – This chapter (a) summarizes leader–member exchange (LMX) measurement practices since the influential reviews by Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999) and Gerstner and Day (1997), (b) clarifies the status of LMX as a broad construct from a hierarchical factor model, (c) conducts multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analyses on leader and follower reports of multidimensional LMX, and (d) investigates discriminant validity between Member LMX and satisfaction with supervisor. \n \nMethodology/Approach – We used (a) a literature search of LMX measurement practices, (b) a combination of meta-analysis and factor analysis to specify the broad LMX construct underlying Liden and Maslyn's (1998) (LMX-MDM) multidimensional instrument, (c) MTMM analyses of leader and member ratings of the LMX-MDM, and (d) a combination of meta-analysis and multiple regression to assess incremental validity of Member LMX beyond satisfaction with supervisor. \n \nFindings – Since 1999, 85% of LMX studies now use one of two dominant LMX scales (LMX-7, Scandura, & Graen, 1984; LMX-MDM, Liden & Maslyn, 1998). These two measures are correlated (rcorrected=.9), suggesting the LMX-7 and the LMX-MDM are alternate forms of the same instrument. 94% of studies that used these two measures treat LMX as a single, broad construct rather than as a multidimensional set of constructs. MTMM analyses suggest Leader LMX and Member LMX are two, separate-but-related constructs (i.e., confirming two source factors and no lower-order trait factors). Last, Member LMX meta-analytically correlates with satisfaction with supervisor at rcorrected=.8. There is some incremental validity of LMX, but the pattern is inconsistent across samples. \n \nSocial Implications – We point out that LMX researchers have now moved toward standard measurement of LMX – as a broad, higher-order factor that varies between leader and follower. By doing so, we reveal that the stage is set for cumulative and replicable research on leadership as a dyadic, follower-specific phenomenon. \n \nOriginality/Value of Paper – Our chapter is the first to reveal consensus in LMX measurement across studies; to summarize the standard treatment of LMX as a single, broad factor; and to apply MTMM analyses to demonstrate separate Leader LMX and Member LMX source factors.","PeriodicalId":207420,"journal":{"name":"Research Methodology in Strategy and Management","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Measurement: Evidence for Consensus, Construct Breadth, and Discriminant Validity\",\"authors\":\"Dana L Joseph, Daniel A. Newman, Hock-Peng Sin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose – This chapter (a) summarizes leader–member exchange (LMX) measurement practices since the influential reviews by Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999) and Gerstner and Day (1997), (b) clarifies the status of LMX as a broad construct from a hierarchical factor model, (c) conducts multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analyses on leader and follower reports of multidimensional LMX, and (d) investigates discriminant validity between Member LMX and satisfaction with supervisor. \\n \\nMethodology/Approach – We used (a) a literature search of LMX measurement practices, (b) a combination of meta-analysis and factor analysis to specify the broad LMX construct underlying Liden and Maslyn's (1998) (LMX-MDM) multidimensional instrument, (c) MTMM analyses of leader and member ratings of the LMX-MDM, and (d) a combination of meta-analysis and multiple regression to assess incremental validity of Member LMX beyond satisfaction with supervisor. \\n \\nFindings – Since 1999, 85% of LMX studies now use one of two dominant LMX scales (LMX-7, Scandura, & Graen, 1984; LMX-MDM, Liden & Maslyn, 1998). These two measures are correlated (rcorrected=.9), suggesting the LMX-7 and the LMX-MDM are alternate forms of the same instrument. 94% of studies that used these two measures treat LMX as a single, broad construct rather than as a multidimensional set of constructs. MTMM analyses suggest Leader LMX and Member LMX are two, separate-but-related constructs (i.e., confirming two source factors and no lower-order trait factors). Last, Member LMX meta-analytically correlates with satisfaction with supervisor at rcorrected=.8. There is some incremental validity of LMX, but the pattern is inconsistent across samples. \\n \\nSocial Implications – We point out that LMX researchers have now moved toward standard measurement of LMX – as a broad, higher-order factor that varies between leader and follower. By doing so, we reveal that the stage is set for cumulative and replicable research on leadership as a dyadic, follower-specific phenomenon. \\n \\nOriginality/Value of Paper – Our chapter is the first to reveal consensus in LMX measurement across studies; to summarize the standard treatment of LMX as a single, broad factor; and to apply MTMM analyses to demonstrate separate Leader LMX and Member LMX source factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":207420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Methodology in Strategy and Management\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"43\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Methodology in Strategy and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Methodology in Strategy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43
摘要
目的-本章(a)总结了自Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser(1999)和Gerstner and Day(1997)有影响力的评论以来的领导-成员交换(LMX)测量实践,(b)从层次因素模型阐明了LMX作为一个广泛结构的地位,(c)对多维LMX的领导者和追随者报告进行了多特征-多方法(MTMM)分析,(d)调查了成员LMX与主管满意度之间的区别效度。方法/方法-我们使用(a) LMX测量实践的文献检索,(b)元分析和因素分析相结合,以指定Liden和Maslyn (1998) (LMX- mdm)多维工具基础上的广泛LMX结构,(c) LMX- mdm的领导和成员评级的MTMM分析,以及(d)元分析和多元回归相结合,以评估成员LMX的增量有效性,超出对主管的满意度。自1999年以来,85%的LMX研究现在使用两种主要的LMX量表之一(LMX-7, Scandura, & Graen, 1984;LMX-MDM, Liden & Maslyn, 1998)。这两个度量是相关的(rcorrected=.9),这表明LMX-7和LMX-MDM是同一工具的替代形式。使用这两种测量方法的94%的研究将LMX视为一个单一的、广泛的结构,而不是一个多维的结构集。MTMM分析表明,领导型LMX和成员型LMX是两个独立但相关的构式(即确认了两个源因素而没有低阶特质因素)。最后,成员LMX与主管满意度在rcorrected=.8时呈元分析相关。LMX有一些增量有效性,但样本之间的模式不一致。社会影响——我们指出,LMX研究人员现在已经转向了对LMX的标准测量——作为一个广泛的、高阶的因素,在领导者和追随者之间有所不同。通过这样做,我们揭示了将领导力作为一种二元的、特定于追随者的现象进行累积性和可复制性研究的阶段。论文的原创性/价值-本章是第一个揭示跨研究LMX测量的共识;将LMX的标准治疗总结为一个单一的、广泛的因素;并应用MTMM分析来证明单独的领导者LMX和成员LMX源因素。
Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Measurement: Evidence for Consensus, Construct Breadth, and Discriminant Validity
Purpose – This chapter (a) summarizes leader–member exchange (LMX) measurement practices since the influential reviews by Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999) and Gerstner and Day (1997), (b) clarifies the status of LMX as a broad construct from a hierarchical factor model, (c) conducts multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analyses on leader and follower reports of multidimensional LMX, and (d) investigates discriminant validity between Member LMX and satisfaction with supervisor.
Methodology/Approach – We used (a) a literature search of LMX measurement practices, (b) a combination of meta-analysis and factor analysis to specify the broad LMX construct underlying Liden and Maslyn's (1998) (LMX-MDM) multidimensional instrument, (c) MTMM analyses of leader and member ratings of the LMX-MDM, and (d) a combination of meta-analysis and multiple regression to assess incremental validity of Member LMX beyond satisfaction with supervisor.
Findings – Since 1999, 85% of LMX studies now use one of two dominant LMX scales (LMX-7, Scandura, & Graen, 1984; LMX-MDM, Liden & Maslyn, 1998). These two measures are correlated (rcorrected=.9), suggesting the LMX-7 and the LMX-MDM are alternate forms of the same instrument. 94% of studies that used these two measures treat LMX as a single, broad construct rather than as a multidimensional set of constructs. MTMM analyses suggest Leader LMX and Member LMX are two, separate-but-related constructs (i.e., confirming two source factors and no lower-order trait factors). Last, Member LMX meta-analytically correlates with satisfaction with supervisor at rcorrected=.8. There is some incremental validity of LMX, but the pattern is inconsistent across samples.
Social Implications – We point out that LMX researchers have now moved toward standard measurement of LMX – as a broad, higher-order factor that varies between leader and follower. By doing so, we reveal that the stage is set for cumulative and replicable research on leadership as a dyadic, follower-specific phenomenon.
Originality/Value of Paper – Our chapter is the first to reveal consensus in LMX measurement across studies; to summarize the standard treatment of LMX as a single, broad factor; and to apply MTMM analyses to demonstrate separate Leader LMX and Member LMX source factors.