Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues

Transcription

1 Journal of Applied Psychology 1997, Vol. 82. No. 6, Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc /97/S3.00 Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues Charlotte R. Gerstner and David V. Day The Pennsylvania State University The leader-member exchange (LMX) literature is reviewed using meta-analysis. Relationships between LMX and its correlates are examined, as are issues related to the LMX construct, including measurement and leader-member agreement. Results suggest significant relationships between LMX and job performance, satisfaction with supervision, overall satisfaction, commitment, role conflict, role clarity, member competence, and turnover intentions. The relationship between LMX and actual turnover was not significant. Leader and member LMX perceptions were only moderately related. Partial support was found for measurement instrument and perspective (i.e., leader vs. member) as moderators of the relationships between LMX and its correlates. Meta-analysis showed that the (7-item LMX) measure has the soundest psychometric properties of all instruments and that LMX is congruent with numerous empirical relationships associated with transformational leadership. Within the broad area of organizational leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has evolved into one of the more interesting and useful approaches for studying hypothesized linkages between leadership processes and outcomes. First proposed by Graeri and colleagues (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman, 1975), LMX is distinguished from other leadership theories by its focus on the dyadic relationship between a leader and a member. Unlike traditional theories that seek to explain leadership as a function of personal characteristics of the leader, features of the situation, or an interaction between the two, LMX is unique in its adoption of the dyadic relationship as the level of analysis. Although the theory has been modified and expanded Charlotte R. Gerstner and David V. Day, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by Dan Brass, Jim Farr, John Mathieu, Janet Swim, and Francis Yammarino on earlier versions of this article. We also thank Stephanie Klein for coding all the studies used in these analyses and Chuck Pierce for assisting us with data analysis. This article is based on Charlotte R. Gerstner's master's thesis. An earlier version was presented at the 10th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, May 1995, Orlando, Florida. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charlotte R. Gerstner, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 429 Bruce V. Moore Building, University Park, Pennsylvania, since first proposed, this basic unit of analysis has remained unchanged. According to LMX, the quality of the relationship that develops between a leader and a follower is predictive of outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. Dyadic relationship development is grounded in role and exchange theories (see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Uhl- Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 1997, for more detailed discussions of the theoretical background and development of LMX). After more than 25 years of empirical research and theoretical development, LMX continues to provide an operable alternative to the traditional leadership approaches focused on leader traits and behaviors (e.g., Bass, 1990; Mintzberg, 1973; Stogdill, 1948). Although researchers remain enthusiastic about LMX, there is unresolved ambiguity about the nature of the construct, its measurement, and its relationships with other organizational variables. This ambiguity may be due in part to the evolving nature of LMX theory. In a recent review, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) classified the evolution of LMX theory into four stages: (a) work socialization and vertical dyad linkage where the focus was on the discovery of differentiated dyads (i.e., in-groups and outgroups), (b) LMX where the focus was on the relationship quality and its outcomes, (c) a prescriptive approach to dyadic partnership building, and (d) LMX as a systems-level perspective (i.e., moving beyond the dyad to group and network levels). The latter two stages are fairly recent developments, and most of the work associated with them is theoretical. The majority of empirical research 827

2 828 GERSTNER AND DAY evaluating factors thought to contribute to high-quality exchanges and analyzing the connection between LMX and work-related outcomes occurred during the second stage of LMX theory development. It could be argued that the last two stages show the most potential for describing leadership behaviors in complex organizations. Clearly, more research is needed to understand these extensions of LMX theory. The goal of this article is to quantitatively summarize and evaluate the existing LMX research base to build a foundation for future empirical work. More specifically, we consider issues related to the LMX construct, including measurement scale properties and leader-member agreement, as well as the correlates of LMX. We use the results of these quantitative summaries to draw conclusions about LMX and identify opportunities for future theoretical development and empirical research. An Analysis of LMX Issues Measurement and Dimensionality Instruments. Despite claims of an apparently robust phenomenon (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), there is surprisingly little agreement on what LMX is or how it should best be measured. The theoretical progression of LMX described above is illustrated by the changes in LMX measurement instruments over the years. The construct of LMX has evolved from the two-item measure of negotiating latitude (NL) to more elaborate, multidimensional scales (e.g., Liden & Maslyn, in press; Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992). Because different studies use different LMX scales, it is unclear whether conflicting results are due to deficiencies in the theory or in the operationalization of the core construct. Through the use of meta-analytic techniques, it was possible to examine the type of measurement instrument as a potential between-study moderator of outcomes. On the basis of the amount of research that has gone into its development and refinement, and the recent recommendation provided by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) that it be adopted as the standard measure of LMX, we expected that the sevenitem LMX measure (; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982) would demonstrate the highest reliability (i.e., internal consistency) and largest correlations with other variables, as compared with other LMX measures. Internal consistency and unidimensionality. An issue that has been raised by numerous researchers (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, in press; Liden et al., 1997; Schriesheim et al., 1992) concerns the potential multidimensionality of LMX. For example, Dienesch and Liden proposed that LMX is comprised of the dimensions of perceived contribution, loyalty, and affect. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argued that LMX is comprised of the interrelated dimensions of respect, trust, and mutual obligation. We addressed the possibility of multiple dimensions underpinning the LMX scales by examining aggregated internal consistency (i.e., coefficient alpha) estimates of LMX. 1 Graen and Uhl-Bien noted that Cronbach alphas for multidimensional LMX measures were consistently in the range. Therefore, they concluded that LMX may comprise several dimensions, but they are al] highly related and can be adequately measured with a unidimensional measure of LMX. Thus, we expected that averaged alphas would be generally large (i.e., above.80), indicating the likelihood of one underlying LMX dimension summarized by the centroid item of the scale (i.e., "How effective is your working relationship with your leader [follower]?"; Graen & Uhl-Bien, p. 236). Perspective. LMX can be measured from both leader and member perspectives, but is it the same construct when measured from different perspectives? Empirical support for the relationship between leader LMX and member LMX has been equivocal. Graen and Cashman (1975) found a correlation of.50 between leader LMX and member LMX; however, others have reported much lower correlations (e.g., Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986, reported a correlation of only.24 between perspectives). The low correlation between leader and member exchange is consistent with meta-analytic research on self-supervisor agreement on performance ratings, which has demonstrated relatively low agreement (r =.35, corrected; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Graen and Uhl- Bien (1995) suggested that the degree of leader-member agreement can be used as an index of the quality of data. They implied that an aggregate, sample-weighted correlation assessing the level of agreement between leader and member reports would be positive and strong. We tested this proposition by estimating the sample-weighted correlation between corresponding leader and member LMX ratings. We also examined measurement perspective as a potential between-study moderator of the relationship between LMX and its correlates. Correlates LMX is generally found to be associated with positive performance-related and attitudinal variables, especially 1 Although a large alpha (e.g., >.80) cannot always be interpreted as evidence of scale unidimensionality (Cortina, 1993), it does provide information regarding the average interitem correlation. Thus, if the number of items is reasonably small (e.g., < 10), a large coefficient alpha estimate can be construed as meaning that the average item intercorrelation is also relatively large. It is possible that a scale with a relatively high alpha may represent a multidimensional construct; however, the dimensions are probably highly intercorrelated.

3 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 829 for members. These include (a) higher performance ratings (e.g., Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), (b) better objective performance (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), (c) higher overall satisfaction (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982), (d) greater satisfaction with supervisor (e.g., Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986), (e) stronger organizational commitment (e.g., Nystrom, 1990), and (f) more positive role perceptions (e.g., Snyder & Binning, 1985). Support for other relationships, such as member competence (cf. Kim & Organ, 1982; Liden et al., 1993) and turnover (cf. Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982; Vecchio, 1985), has been equivocal. Our meta-analysis provided overall effect estimates for previously investigated correlates of LMX. 2 In general, we expected that correlations between LMX and member performance and attitudinal variables would be positive and strong (the exceptions being turnover processes and role conflict, in which cases the direction was expected to be negative). We expected LMX scale reliability to be generally acceptable and leader and member LMX ratings to be only moderately correlated. We proposed and tested specific moderating variables. In particular, we hypothesized that the scale would demonstrate the best general predictive validity, although measures from the different perspectives (leader vs. member) might demonstrate divergent relationships due to variability in the construct's meaning inherent in these perspectives. Literature Search Method The studies included for analysis consisted of published articles, conference papers, doctoral dissertations, and unpublished manuscripts. We identified relevant published articles primarily through computer-based searches of the Psyclnfo ( ), PsycLit ( ), and ABI/INFORM ( ) databases using the keywords leadermember exchange, vertical dyad linkage, exchange quality, and dyadic leadership. We used the Social Sciences Citations Index to identify articles that referenced either of the seminal LMX articles (i.e., Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). The reference lists of identified empirical studies and theoretical reviews were also crosschecked for additional references. Finally, we conducted a manual search of Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Group and Organization Management, Human Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (later Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes), and Personnel Psychology from 1975 to 1996 to identify studies that measured LMX, although it may not have been the primary variable of interest. We identified conference papers presented during the period from 1990 to 1994 by manually searching the programs for the annual Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Academy of Management meetings. We identified dissertations using the Dissertations Abstracts International ( ) computer database. Although unpublished manuscripts were not actively solicited, some authors sent unpublished manuscripts when communicating about other published studies. These unpublished studies were also included in the analyses. We identified a population of 164 studies using these procedures. The criteria for inclusion in the analyses were (a) dyadic exchange quality was measured in the study; (b) the reported results were sufficient to calculate an effect size for the relationship between exchange quality and a correlate, or between leader and member LMX perceptions; and (c) the relationship reported was also reported in at least five other studies. The last criterion was necessary to ensure that the number of studies for each meta-analysis was adequate for drawing generalizable conclusions about the proposed relationships. Although it has been suggested that a meta-analysis can be conducted with as few as two studies (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982), second-order sampling error poses a distinct threat to the validity of results when only a small number of studies are included (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). There is no strict rule about the minimum number of studies to include in a meta-analysis, but we chose six as the cutoff for our study because of concerns about Type I and Type II errors in the moderator analyses (Sackett, Harris, & Orr, 1986; Spector & Levine, 1987). On the basis of these criteria, we retained 79 studies for the analyses. 3 Six studies contained two samples; therefore, we worked with a total of 85 independent samples. The relationships analyzed are described in the following section. Constructs Included in the Meta-Analyses LMX. Although this term is commonly found in the literature to refer to the dyadic relationship between a leader and a member, construct operationalization is far from consistent. We identified seven different versions of the LMX scales developed by Graen and colleagues, two additional LMX measures (Liden & Maslyn, in press; Schriesheim et al., 1992), and several modified versions of these scales. The scale (Qraen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982) is by far the most frequently used LMX measure. differs from the earlier VDL measures in that it does not focus on the amount of negotiating latitude a leader allows a member but rather on the nature of their general working relationship. To be included in the analyses, the study had to measure dyadic exchange quality in a manner consistent with the general themes found in the scale. Because of the variability ^ From a conceptual standpoint, it makes sense to divide the literature on LMX correlates into two categories: antecedents (i.e., those variables hypothesized to affect the development of leader-member relationships) and outcomes (i.e., those variables hypothesized to result from LMX). Because most of the empirical research reviewed in this article is correlational and cross-sectional, we avoid discussing them in terms of causal inferences regarding the direction of these relationships. For purposes of the present analyses, we treat them all as correlates. 3 A list of the reasons for study exclusion is available on request from Charlotte R. Gerstner.

4 830 GERSTNER AND DAY found in scales explicitly labeled "LMX," we also included a few other measures that were used to assess the LMX construct (e.g., Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire; LBDQ). We included the LBDQ because it was used in the early empirical research before the specific LMX scales were developed (e.g., Graen, Dansereau, Minami, & Cashman, 1973). However, we included studies using the LBDQ only if the item referents were changed to reflect a dyadic perspective. We did not include studies that used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1985) because these relationships are not consistently dyadic in nature and have recently been reviewed by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996). We evaluated studies on a case-by-case basis to determine if the constructs used could be classified as LMX. In cases of uncertainty, we contacted the author(s) to determine if they would classify their measure as LMX. Performance ratings. This construct was operationalized as subjective, supervisory ratings of a member's job performance. We excluded global measures of competence (i.e., not related to performance in a specific job) from this analysis but analyzed them separately in the relationship between competence and LMX. Objective performance. Objective performance referred to all measures of performance that did not rely on a subjective rating, which typically meant indexes of the quantity or quality of work, such as the total number of cases processed or the total sales in dollars (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Tanner & Castleberry, 1990). Satisfaction. We examined two constructs related to work satisfaction in the meta-analysis: overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with the supervisor. Overall satisfaction referred to how satisfied a member was with the job in general or the organization, whereas satisfaction with the supervisor referred more explicitly to how satisfied a member was with his or her working relationship with a supervisor. Several different scales were used to measure satisfaction, including the Job Description Survey, Hoppock Scale, and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Satisfaction with supervisor was usually measured using one of the facet scales associated with these general measures of satisfaction. Organizational commitment. Although there are many different types of commitment discussed in the literature, our analysis included only measures of members' commitment to the employing organization. Measures of both attitudinal and calculated (or behavioral) commitment were included. With two exceptions, all studies in this analysis used a version of the commitment scales developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). Role perceptions. Many different aspects of role perceptions have been linked to LMX; however, there was an insufficient number of studies available to meta-analyze all role perceptions. We conducted meta-analyses to assess the relationships between LMX and role conflict and role clarity. The analysis for role clarity also included studies that measured role ambiguity (reverse coded). The most common measure of role perceptions was a version of the scale developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman(1970). Turnover processes. We examined the relationship between LMX and turnover in two separate analyses. One analysis was conducted using actual turnover data whereas the second analysis included member self-reports of intentions to leave the organization. Member competence. Measures of competence included both self- and supervisor ratings of general ability or expertise, cognitive ability tests, and experimental manipulations of competence. Because competence was conceptualized as a more global measure of ability, we did not use specific performance ratings in this analysis. Leader-member agreement. This analysis did not refer specifically to a correlate of LMX but rather to the agreement between leader and member regarding LMX quality. All studies that reported a correlation between leader LMX and member LMX were included in this analysis. Coded Variables In addition to the correlations between LMX and the constructs described above, the following information was coded for each study: (a) date of publication, (b) publication form (i.e., article, conference paper, dissertation, book chapter, or unpublished manuscript), (c) type of sample (lab versus field, type of field sample), (d) sample size, (e) demographic information regarding leaders and members, (f) LMX measurement instrument, (g) LMX measurement perspective (i.e., leader or member), (h) scale properties of LMX measure (i.e., reliability and range), and (i) measurement information for criterion variables (i.e., measurement instrument and reliability). All studies were coded independently by two raters (Charlotte R. Gerstner and a psychology doctoral student). A total of 1,075 coding decisions were made, with 86% agreement between the two raters. All disagreements were resolved through discussion with David V. Day. Computation and Analysis of Effect Sizes We used correlation coefficients in the computation of all effect sizes. If a correlation coefficient could not be calculated from the reported statistics, the study was dropped from further analyses. In order to preserve the independence of samples, we included only one effect size from each sample in each meta-analysis. We computed estimates of overall effect sizes and homogeneity of effect sizes according to the formulas set forth by Hedges and Olkin (1985). Before combining effect sizes, we converted rs to ds and corrected for sampling error. We then averaged the rfs to obtain an estimate of the overall effect size, d+. When measurement reliability information was available for at least 75% of the effect sizes in a given analysis, we also corrected the corresponding sample-weighted correlations for measurement error. Although the application of corrections is traditionally associated with the Hunter and Schmidt (1990) approach to meta-analysis, Hedges and Olkin (1985) stated that this is an acceptable procedure provided that sufficient reliability information is available. In such instances, a closer estimate of the true population correlation can be attained by applying correction formulas to the study-level correlations, given that statistical artifacts such as measurement error can attenuate wilhin-study correlations (Huffcutt, Arthur, & Bennet, 1993; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). In the present meta-analyses, we

5 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 831 calculated summary effect sizes with both uncorrected and corrected correlations. In addition to the estimates of overall effect size, we also calculated a homogeneity statistic (Q) for each analysis. A significant Q statistic indicates that the overall mean effect size does not adequately describe all the effect sizes and further moderator analyses are warranted. Because the formulas for homogeneity of effect sizes are inappropriate for disattenuated effect sizes, we did not interpret the Q statistics associated with the correlations corrected for measurement unreliability. We used the corrected correlations only to estimate a mean weighted effect size. Tt is fairly common for overall effect sizes to be heterogeneous (Hedges, 1987). Although Hunter and Schmidt (1990) argued that nearly all heterogeneity can be attributed to statistical artifacts, heterogeneity may also result from other factors, such as between-study moderators and statistical outliers. Some researchers have advocated the removal of statistical outliers in an attempt to achieve homogeneity of effect sizes, as well as a more reliable estimate of the true population effect size (Hedges, 1987; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1995). In the present meta-analyses, we conducted both categorical moderator analyses and statistical outlier analyses to examine potential sources of heterogeneity. On the basis of our review of the literature, we identified two a priori categorical moderators of overall effect sizes: (a) the LMX measurement instrument (i.e., vs. all others), and (b) LMX perspective (i.e., leader vs. member), which we used to examine the impact of these two variables on the homogeneity of the overall effect sizes. These analyses are analogous to a one-way analysis of variance that compares effect sizes by a specified class variable determined on the basis of study characteristics. If a categorical moderator model completely fits the data, the between-class effect will be significant whereas the within-class effect will be nonsignificant (indicating homogeneity within classes; Johnson & Turco, 1992). In addition to the categorical moderator analyses, we conducted outlier analyses to attain homogeneity of effect sizes. This was accomplished by ordering the effect sizes in each meta-analysis with regard to their deviations from the mean effect size and then sequentially eliminating the largest outlier until the overall Q statistic was nonsignificant (indicating homogeneity of effect sizes), or until 20% of the original studies were removed (see Hedges & Olkin, 1985, pp ). On the basis of the work of many statisticians, Hedges (1987) suggested a 20% cutoff as a rule of thumb for concluding whether the heterogeneity of effect sizes could be attributed to a few aberrant values. According to Hedges, when homogeneity can be achieved by removing fewer than 20% of the outliers, the overall effect size that is calculated from the remaining studies may better represent the population distribution of effects, as compared with the mean effect size based on all studies. Results and Discussion A summary of the relationships included in our study is reported in Table 1. 4 We calculated overall effect sizes for the 10 LMX correlates, the relationship between leader and member reports of LMX, and the internal consistency estimates (i.e., coefficient alpha) of leader and member LMX reports. Overall effect sizes for all relationships are summarized and reported in Table 2. Moderator and outlier analyses are summarized in Tables 3-5. The results are organized into the following subsections: (a) reliability analysis, (b) leader-member agreement, and (c) LMX correlates. Reliability We analyzed the internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach's alpha) reliabilities of member LMX and leader LMX. For the members, the mean sample-weighted alpha was.85, with the average number of scale items estimated at This estimated effect size was significantly heterogeneous and could not be rendered homogeneous with the removal of fewer than 20% of the effects. Thus, there appears to be sufficient variability in effects to pursue an analysis of potential moderators. The categorical moderator analysis for measurement instrument indicated a generally higher alpha for the category (.89) than for the mean of all other instruments (.83). Overall, however, these results indicate generally acceptable internal consistency estimates from the members' perspective regardless of the type of measurement instrument. For leaders' LMX reports, the average number of items was slightly greater (M = 8.36) than the average item number for members, although the average sampleweighted alpha was smaller (.77). As with the member reports, this effect was heterogeneous and could not be explained by outliers. Unlike the member results, however, there was no statistically significant difference between internal consistency (.78) and the alpha estimated for the category of other measures (.76). Overall, results of these analyses suggest somewhat better reliability for members' (as compared with leaders') reports of LMX. Potential implications of this finding are examined along with recommendations for better LMX measurement in the final section, which addresses conclusions and future directions. Leader-Member Agreement The mean sample-weighted correlation between leader and member reports of LMX was.29 (.37 corrected for leader and member LMX unreliability). The moderating effect of measurement instrument was not supported for this relationship. It was necessary to remove nine outliers (38%) before a homogeneous effect size was obtained. Although the overall effect size was significant, the mag- 4 A detailed summary table describing individual study characteristics is available on request from Charlotte R. Gerstner.

6 832 GERSTNER AND DAY Table 1 Number of Samples, Aggregate Sample Sizes, and Reliability Estimates far All Relationships Relationship Samples Aggregate sample size (*) (AO LMX a Correlate a Correlate Performance ratings (leader LMX)' Performance ratings (member LMX) a Objective performance Satisfaction with supervision Overall satisfaction Organizational commitment Role conflict Role clarity Turnover Turnover intentions Member competence Construct issues Leader -member agreement Leader LMX reliability Member LMX reliability ,909 4, ,302 6,887 3,006 3,728 4, ,074 3,880 3,460 3,329 13, b Note. Dashes indicate that the statistic could not be computed, k number of studies that included the relationship of interest; A' = total number of individuals across the k samples; a ~ average reliability coefficient; LMX = leader-member exchange. " In both cases, the performance measure was a supervisor's rating of the member's performance. The difference between me two analyses is the source of the LMX measure. * Member LMX reliability. " Leader LMX reliability. nitude was relatively small for a relationship that is purportedly dyadic. LMX Correlates Overall effect sizes for the analyses between LMX and its correlates are summarized in Table 2. Moderator and outlier analyses are summarized in Tables 3-5. Because they are somewhat unique compared with the other analyses, the results for the performance ratings analysis is described in more detail in the following paragraphs. Performance ratings. We conducted two separate analyses to assess the relationship between LMX and member performance ratings, one for member-reported LMX and one for leader-reported LMX. It was necessary to do separate analyses for this relationship because many of the studies included both leader and member reports of LMX. Therefore, to preserve sample independence, we included only one effect size from each study in each analysis. (In both cases, however, the performance measure was a supervisor's rating of the member's performance.) The mean sample-weighted correlation between leader reports of LMX and member performance ratings was.41 (.55 corrected for LMX unreliability). The moderator analysis for measurement instrument resulted in a significant between-class effect for measurement instrument. The within-class effect sizes for both classes were also heterogeneous, indicating that unexplained variance remained between study outcomes after accounting for the measurement instrument. It would be necessary to remove four (33%) of the effect sizes to achieve homogeneity. The mean sample-weighted correlation between member reports of LMX and member performance ratings was.28 (.30 corrected for LMX unreliability). These results demonstrate that member LMX perceptions are also correlated with leader performance ratings, although the relationship is not as strong as the correlation between leader LMX and performance ratings. It should be noted that the leader LMX-performance correlation may be confounded by same-source bias and the resulting effect size estimate may be artificially inflated. However, this bias is potentially of theoretical interest. Supervisory ratings may be influenced by many factors, but the perceptions of a supervisor regarding an employee's performance become criteria on which important decisions are made. A tendency for a supervisor to rate someone favorably as a result of a positive LMX relationship can translate into favorable outcomes for the employee. Furthermore, creating positive or negative expectations about an employee through the development of LMX perceptions may change the actual performance level of employees (i.e., self-fulfilling prophecy) and not just affect performance ratings (Feldman, 1986). Although the correlation between leader LMX and ratings of member performance was high, our results also indicate they are empirically distinct constructs. The moderating effect of measurement instrument for the correlations between member LMX and corresponding performance ratings was very similar to that estimated

7 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 833 Table 2 Summary of Effect Sizes 95% CI d + Relationship Lower Upper Corrected r Correlate Performance ratings (leader LMX) Performance ratings (member LMX) Objective performance Satisfaction with supervision Overall satisfaction Organizational commitment Role conflict Role clarity Turnover Turnover intentions Member competence Construct issues Leader-member agreement Leader LMX reliability Member LMX reliability '.30*.11" 71'.50".42" -.31".43' -.04" -.31".28".37" Note. Significant effect sizes are indicated by confidence intervals that do not include 0. Dashes indicate that the statistic could not be computed. d+ - mean sample-weighted effect size; CI = confidence interval; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; Corrected r = mean weighted correlation corrected for measurement unreliability; LMX = leader-member exchange. " Correlations were corrected for unreliability of both LMX and criterion measures. b Correlations were corrected for only unreliability of LMX measure. from the leader's perspective. Although there was a significant between-class difference, the effect sizes within each of the measurement classes remained heterogeneous. With regard to outliers, it was necessary to remove six studies (20%) to achieve homogeneity of effect sizes. When these studies were excluded, the mean sampleweighted correlation based on 22 studies was.27 (p <.01), thus suggesting that the outliers were symmetrically distributed around the mean. We adopted two different approaches to test whether the difference between correlations of LMX with performance varied significantly as a function of measurement perspective. First, we conducted a categorical moderator Table 3 Categorical Moderator Models for Perspective Variable and class Qb k Performance ratings (combined) Member LMX Leader LMX Member competence Member LMX Leader LMX 55.10** *» ** ** 37.68** ** Note. Significance of Q statistics indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity, k = number of studies in each analysis; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; Q, = between-classes goodness-of-fit statistic; Q v = homogeneity of effect sizes within each class; LMX = leader-member exchange.»*p <.01. analysis using the two categories of member and leader LMX. In order to do this, it was necessary to combine the two analyses for leader and member LMX and performance ratings. Although this violates the assumption of independence of effect sizes, some researchers have argued that this is an acceptable procedure when testing moderators of theoretical interest (e.g., Rosenthal, 1991). We calculated an overall effect size (r =.32) and examined perspective as a categorical moderator. This analysis showed a significant between-class effect for perspective, with a significantly larger correlation between leader LMX and performance ratings (r =.41) than between member LMX and performance ratings (r =.28). However, this model did not completely fit the data, as indicated by the significant within-class variation. Although there may be consistent differences in effect sizes attributable to the perspective from which LMX is measured, there are probably other moderating influences that contribute to heterogeneous effect sizes within perspective'. We also examined the impact of perspective by testing the difference between leader LMX-performance and member LMX-performance correlations. We conducted a /-test for dependent correlations using sample size and the correlations between (a) leader LMX and performance, (b) member LMX and performance, and (c) leader and member LMX (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 57). With the overall sample of studies (i.e., meta-analytic correlations; N = 1,909), these correlations were.41,.28, and.29, respectively. For the subset of studies (k = 9; N

8 834 GERSTNER AND DAY Table 4 Categorical Moderator Models for Measurement Instrument Variable and class Performance ratings (LLMX) Performance ratings (MLMX) Objective performance Satisfaction with supervision Overall satisfaction Organizational commitment Role conflict Role clarity Turnover intentions Leader-member agreement Member competence Leader LMX reliability Member LMX reliability 19.49** 4.63* ** 12.94** 5.87* 29.05** 13.70** ** * ** 74.36** 70.57** 11.97* ** ** ** ** 37.51** 62.65** 14.28* 40.80** 76.71** 79.78** ** ** 59.26** ** ** ** ** 1,412.04** Note. Significance of Q statistics indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity, k = number of studies in each analysis; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; g b = between-classes goodness-of-fit statistics; Q.» = homogeneity of effect sizes within each class; LLMX = leader-reported LMX; = seven-item LMX measure; MLMX = member-reported LMX; LMX = leader-member exchange. *p<.05. **p<.01. = 1,551) that included all three necessary correlations, the correlations were.36,.24, and.24, respectively. We tested both sets of correlations as a means of determining whether a different conclusion would be reached using the overall estimates as compared with those calculated from the subset. For the overall analysis, the difference in correlations was significant, t (1,909) = 5.16,p <.01; the difference in correlations for the subset of studies that reported all three necessary correlations was also significant, ( (1,551) = 3.61, p <.01. Thus, it can be concluded that correlations between LMX and performance differ significantly depending on whether LMX is measured from the leader's or member's perspective. The association is stronger when measured from the leader's point of view. In summary, it seems that LMX is positively related to performance ratings. This is consistent with recent work by Borman and colleagues demonstrating that the inclusion of interpersonal factors can increase the variance explained in performance ratings by as much as two times that explained by ability, job knowledge, and technical factors alone (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995). LMX is one example of such an interpersonal factor. However, the relationship between LMX and performance ratings may not be as straightforward as was first proposed. Our results indicate that the strength of this relationship depends on the perspective from which LMX is measured, as well as the type of measurement instrument used. Even after accounting for these moderators, there is considerable variability across effect sizes, suggesting the possibil-

9 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 835 Table 5 Summary of Attempts to Reduce Heterogeneity Relationship Q Support for measurement instrument moderator Number of outliers (%K) Overall r (after removing outliers) Performance ratings (leader LMX) Performance ratings (member LMX) Objective performance Satisfaction with supervision Overall satisfaction Organizational commitment Role conflict Role clarity Turnover Turnover intentions Member competence Leader-member agreement Leader LMX reliability Member LMX reliability ** »* 15.80* 1,110.37** ** ** 84.13** ** 31.83** 14.95* ** ** ** 2,281.94** Partial Partial None Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial None None None None Partial 4 (33%) 6(20%) 1 (13%) 1 8 (67%) 14 (42%) 4 (24%) 4 (33%) 6 (43%) 1 (14%) 1 (13%) 7 (47%) 9 (38%) 16 (68%) 45 (65%) Note. Q = homogeneity statistic; significance of the Q statistic indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity. Partial support for the moderator analyses means that the between-class effect (Q h) was significant, but the within-class effects (Q w) were also significant. Number of outliers refers to the number of extreme cases that had to be removed before a homogeneous effect size was achieved. Overall rs after removing outliers were calculated only for analyses in which 20% or fewer outliers had to be removed to achieve a homogeneous effect size. Dashes indicate that the statistic could not be computed. LMX = leadermember exchange. *p <.05. **p <.01. ity of additional contingencies. Overall, our results suggest that LMX is related to supervisory performance evaluations. correlates. We found significant positive correlations between LMX and objective performance, satisfaction with supervision, overall satisfaction, organizational commitment, and role clarity. We found significant negative correlations between LMX and role conflict and turnover intentions. Overall, the results suggest that having a high-quality relationship with one's supervisor can affect the entire work experience in a positive manner, including performance and affective outcomes. Our results also suggest that LMX is more strongly related to subjective performance ratings and member affective outcomes than to objective measures, such as productivity and turnover. The two smallest overall effect sizes were for objective performance (r =.10,p <.05) and actual turnover (r =.03, ns). Although the effect size for objective performance was statistically significant, its practical meaningfulness is questionable. Furthermore, both overall effect sizes could be rendered homogeneous by the removal of one outlier (objective performance: Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; actual turnover: Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982). When these studies were removed from the analyses, the overall correlations were adjusted to.07 (p <.05) for objective performance and -.01 (n s) for turnover. Although there is not enough evidence at present to support strong correlations between LMX and the objective outcomes of performance and turnover, we believe that these relationships are worthy of further examination. More complex models may be necessary to specify the nature of the relationships between LMX and objective outcomes. For example, actual turnover is a complex process that depends on numerous variables, such as employee attitudes and labor market conditions. As Vecchio, Griffeth, and Horn (1986) suggested, the relationship between LMX and turnover should not be abandoned but rather should be examined more closely by searching for variables that mediate and moderate this process. Given our results, it is reasonable to propose that LMX affects turnover through other attitudes, such as satisfaction and commitment. There may also be methodological explanations for the differences in magnitude between subjective and objective outcome measures. Whereas the challenges inherent in the study of subjective phenomena (e.g., same-source bias) may serve to artificially inflate the correlations, those associated with objective phenomena may serve to attenuate the correlations. For example, many turnover studies are plagued by range restriction and low power to detect significant relationships. The design of the study may also impact the outcomes. The Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) study consisted of a field experiment in which leaders were trained to maintain high-quality relationships with their members. In this case, the LMX intervention was very successful at increasing performance

10 836 GERSTNER AND DAY (and satisfaction); however, there have been few subsequent attempts to replicate this field experiment. 5 More research is necessary to determine whether these effects will persist after the intervention and whether it is crucial to have an intervention in order to impact objective performance indices. Summary of Results Arguably, one of the most provocative findings from these analyses concerns leader-member agreement on ratings of LMX qualityor lack of it. The average sampleweighted correlation was estimated to be.29, which is only slightly higher than the correlation noted between self- and supervisor performance ratings (mean r =.22), corrected for measurement error only (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Our finding regarding leader-member agreement suggests a couple of directions for future research. First, as suggested by other researchers (e.g., Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994), LMX should always be measured from both leader and member perspectives. Second, leader-member agreement should be examined as a relevant independent or dependent variable. Finally, leader-member agreement should be assessed using longitudinal designs. Graen and Scandura (1987) argued that range restriction in leader LMX may attenuate agreement between perspectives; however, leader reports should become less restricted over time and therefore demonstrate higher levels of agreement with member reports. Our results also noted a systematic difference between leaders' and members' reports of LMX and the correlation with performance ratings. As stated above, the higher correlation between leader (as compared with member) LMX and ratings of members' performance may not be entirely attributable to same-source bias. A leader's expectations are likely shaped by the quality of LMX that is developed with a member, which can influence actual performance levels (Feldman, 1986). More research is certainly needed, however, to understand the degree to which same-source bias inflates the correlation between LMX and performance ratings. An interesting approach would be to compare the LMX-performance correlations for dyads in which LMX agreement (i.e., correlation between leader and member LMX) is high with dyads in which agreement is low. High agreement should reduce the difference in correlations between leader and member LMX reports and performance. In other words, member LMX correlations with performance may be attenuated as a result of disagreement with a leader's LMX rating. There is an additional aspect to our results that should be considered. All overall effect sizes were heterogeneous, suggesting that mean correlations do not adequately describe all corresponding correlations. We conducted moderator and outlier analyses for the reported relationships in an attempt to reduce the heterogeneity of effect sizes. Although these analyses did explain some of the variation in effects, complete homogeneity was achieved for only a few of the relationships. 6 Uhl-Bien et al. (1997) suggested several situational moderators of LMX-outcome relationships, such as task characteristics, time constraints, resources, physical setting, organizational climate, and culture. Unfortunately, there were not enough studies that reported on these variables to examine them as betweenstudy moderators in our analyses. Conclusions and Future Directions The results of the present meta-analyses suggest that LMX contributes both theoretically and empirically to the organizational leadership literature. LMX is consistently correlated with member job performance, satisfaction (overall and supervisory), commitment, role perceptions, and turnover intentions. In addition to summarizing the extant literature, one purpose of the present meta-analysis was to identify issues that guide further theory development and empirical testing. Thus, the final section presents areas identified for additional theoretical and research attention, as well as our recommendations. Measurement and Dimensionality The lack of consistency with which the LMX construct is operationalized makes it difficult to argue that all measures are associated with an identical core construct. In particular, more work is needed to determine whether LMX is best considered to be multidimensional, or whether it can be adequately defined with a unidimensional scale. There are two conclusions from the aggregate reliability results that have relevance to this discussion. First, we found higher average alphas for the measure as compared with the average reliability for all other LMX measures. In addition to its higher average alpha, 5 Two notable exceptions are the LMX intervention studies reported by Scandura and Graen (1984) and Graen, Scandura, and Graen (1986) in which LMX was significantly related to objective performance. Bivariate correlations between LMX and performance could not be calculated from the results reported in these studies; therefore, it was not possible to include them in the present analysis. 6 We also conducted an exploratory analysis to examine publication status as a source of heterogeneity in study results. This analysis did not result in overall homogeneity; however, we found that effect sizes were generally larger in unpublished studies (as compared with those published in refereed journals). Although we cannot offer a compelling reason for this result, future research should consider both methodological and theoretical moderators of the relationships between LMX and outcomes.

11 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 837 studies using the measure also tended to obtain higher correlations with outcomes than those using other measures (see Table 4). This difference may be partly due to smaller estimated measurement error for. Thus, one implication of these findings is that appears to provide the soundest psychometric properties of all available LMX measures. As such, the measure is recommended to researchers interested in assessing an overall (i.e., unidimensional) exchange quality. Second, our results suggest that LMX is more reliably assessed from a member's perspective than from a leader's perspective. An implication of this finding is that leaders may have a somewhat more complex, multidimensional construction of exchange quality than members, as indicated by the lower overall LMX alpha estimate from a leader's perspective. Future attempts to revise and develop alternative LMX measures should examine this notion of exchange quality separately from leaders' and members' perspectives. In addition to better measurement properties, separate leader and member LMX measures might also be able to improve overall agreement. It is conceivable that if leaders' LMX is multidimensional whereas members' LMX is unidimensional, then correlating the facet of leader LMX that best matches member LMX would likely improve resulting agreement correlations. Agreement It is unlikely that problems of low agreement between leaders and members will be completely eliminated with the development of new measures. Instead, we believe that leader-member LMX agreement is an interesting and potentially valuable outcome variable in its own right. Although they did not explicitly address agreement on LMX perceptions, Graen and Schiemann (1978) found that agreement between leaders and members on mutually experienced events (e.g., member job problems, leader support to member) varied as a function of LMX quality. More specifically, agreement with leaders was stronger for members reporting higher LMX. More research is needed to understand the complexities of leader-member agreement. Interventions directed at improving agreement could be developed and tested. Fahr and Dobbins (1989) found that self-evaluations tended to be more strongly correlated with supervisor ratings when comparative performance information was made available prior to the self-evaluations. Correspondingly, Mabe and West (1982) found in a meta-analysis of 55 studies that self-ratings were more highly correlated with performance when self-evaluation scale anchors used social comparison terminology such as "better than average" or "as compared with fellow workers" than when phrased in absolute terms. Thus, encouraging both leaders and members to think of exchange quality in relative terms might enhance rating agreement Although such agreement may not be expected to translate directly into performance and affective outcomes, it could serve to open a dialogue on how to build a better working relationship, thus providing a catalyst for developing a stronger partnership, and moving to a more mature stage of the leadership relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Antecedents of LMX Quality Researchers have only recently begun to devote attention to the development of LMX. Therefore, there is very little cumulative knowledge currently available regarding the antecedents of LMX. Of those relationships we reviewed, only member competence was examined as an antecedent of LMX in the literature. Although some studies have examined demographic variables as antecedents of LMX (e.g., Duchon et al., 1986), there appears to be little theoretical or empirical justification for the development of LMX based on simple demographics. 7 Theoretically, it makes more sense to consider demographic similarity (i.e., relational demography) as an antecedent of LMX, but empirical support for the role of relational demography in predicting LMX quality has been mixed (cf. Bauer & Green, 1996; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Liden et al., 1993). More research is needed in order to clarify the contributions of relational demography, as well as other variables that have been examined as antecedents of LMX, such as leader and member personality traits, upward influence behavior, leader delegation, and leader-member similarity (see Liden et al., 1997, for a review of LMX antecedents). Our results for the moderating effect of perspective on the relationship between LMX and competence show preliminary evidence for differential weighting of predictors for leaders and members. In other words, the antecedents of LMX may be different (or at least differentially important) for leaders and members. Further examination of the antecedents of LMX is clearly an area of opportunity for future empirical research. Development Over Time Another way to better understand the full range of LMX, and possibly isolate LMX antecedents, is to carefully examine its longitudinal development. According to 7 We computed overall effect sizes for the relationships between LMX and member education, sex, and age but did not find meaningful results. This finding is consistent with several of Graen and colleagues' longitudinal field studies in which leader and member demographics have never shown consistent patterns with LMX (G. B. Graen, personal communication, 1997).

12 838 GERSTNER AND DAY Graen's (1976) model, the LMX relationship develops as a result of negotiation between the two parlies, but which factors affect this negotiation process? It could be that some people are more likely to maintain high-quality relationships with their leaders across jobs and situations. Additional research investigating robust dispositional characteristics that are theoretically associated with LMX development (e.g., member conscientiousness) is recommended. There may also be leader characteristics associated with LMX. For example, leaders who can appreciate multiple points of view may initiate high-quality relationships with all members, regardless of demographics, personality, or ability. One proposition is that the more transformational the dyadic relationship, the more it depends on leader characteristics, whereas transactional relationships depend on both leader and member (i.e., relational) characteristics, given the inherent exchange process that is proposed in the latter. These possibilities should be studied using longitudinal designs. Much of the original theoretical work on LMX proposed that exchange quality is determined early in the dyadic relationship and remains relatively stable over time. This assumption, however, has received little empirical attention. Dansereau et al. (1975) reported fairly consistent NL means for both in- and out-group members over a 9-month time period. Three years into the Japanese Career Progress Study, Wakabayashi, Graen, Graen, and Graen (1988) reported a median LMX stability of.60, representing the average of all possible test-retest correlations over six time periods. In a recent longitudinal field study, Liden et al. (1993) studied the development of LMX from 2 weeks to 6 months into the leadermember relationship. Results demonstrated general stability over time, although the consistency of LMX (for both leaders and members) decreased with greater time intervals. Initial impressions may be difficult to overcome, but results suggest that LMX can change over the course of a relationship. With the exception of the Japanese Career Progress Study, the few existing longitudinal studies have been conducted over relatively short time spans. Many working relationships may last several years; therefore, a measure of LMX taken at 6 months may still be relatively early in the development of a dyadic relationship. As leaders and members have new and different experiences together and learn more about each other, it seems likely that this relationship will evolve and grow. It is unlikely that the LMX relationship changes in a simple linear fashion. Change patterns may differ according to the perspective (i.e., leader or member) or the nature of the dyadic relationship (i.e., transactional or transformational). Investigating models of LMX change is an interesting area for future research. Integration With Transformational Leadership In addition to addressing criticisms regarding the nature of LMX and its relationships with other variables, a goal of our synthesis was to clarify the role of LMX in the larger context of leadership theory and to provide direction for future research. One of the more popular emerging frameworks for studying organizational leadership has been the transactional-transformational distinction proposed by Burns (1978), and further refined by Bass and his colleagues (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transactional leaders exchange highly valued rewards (e.g., promotions, good assignments) for greater quality or quantity of work, or higher levels of loyalty and commitment from members. They are motivated primarily to satisfy their own self-interests rather than to develop members or bring about meaningful change. In contrast, transformational leaders have been described as "selfdefining" (Kuhnert, 1994) in that they are motivated by higher order values and beliefs and strive to develop followers. Transformational leaders are other directed to the extent that they "continually adjust their behavior to the level to which the follower has been developed" (Avolio & Bass, 1995, p. 207), which seems conceptually similar to the process of developing a unique exchange relationship that is central to LMX. If the transactional-transformational framework proposed by Bass and Avolio (1994) encompasses the full range of leadership behaviors, then where does LMX fit in the model? Our review supports the suggestion made by others (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994) that LMX should incorporate both transactional and transformational processes. We identified several factors that support this suggestion, including measurement issues, the content of LMX training interventions, and the effects on followers. LMX is conceptually described as an exchange process, but it is not usually measured this way (Liden et al., 1997; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Members are seldom asked what is expected in return for the rewards they are given as part of a high-quality exchange. Therefore, the exchange process is inferred but not directly measured. If leaders do not make explicit demands on members in the form of harder work or greater commitment for these rewards, then the relationship might be better characterized as transformational (Kuhnert, 1994). To the extent that most LMX measures tap mutual respect, trust, and the overall quality of the working relationship, LMX is more oriented toward transformational leadership. Another indication of the transformational potential of LMX can be found in the content of a training intervention designed by Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982). In this field experiment, leaders were taught to maintain high-quality LMX with all members by (a) spending time

13 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 839 talking about each person's problems, concerns, and expectations; (b) using "active" listening skills and being sensitive to the particular issues raised by each member; (c) refraining from imposing the leader's or management's frame of reference on issues discussed; and (d) sharing some of the leader's expectations about his or her own job, the member's job, and their working relationship. These training directives were aimed at producing highquality exchanges, a purportedly transactional process; however, such efforts might be better conceptualized as transformational in nature in that they encourage leaders to adopt the viewpoints of their subordinates. The ability to adopt and appreciate multiple points of viewreferred to as perspective takingis a recently introduced construct to the transformational leadership literature (Kuhnert, 1994; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Russell & Kuhnert, 1992). To the extent that leaders with high perspectivetaking abilities initiate high LMX relationships with all members, the predictive power of LMX may expand to outcomes beyond the individual or dyad level, such as work group and organizational performance. In terms of the effects on members, the results of the present meta-analyses highlight a number of positive outcomes for members associated with high-quality LMX. These outcomes (e.g., job performance, organizational commitment, satisfaction with supervision) are also those traditionally associated with transformational and charismatic leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; House, 1977). In addition, LMX has been linked to outcomes associated with member development, such as increased delegation (Leana, 1986), empowerment (Keller & Dansereau, 1995), mentoring (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994), and career progression (Wakabayashi et al., 1988). Deluga (1992) explicitly tested the hypothesis that high LMX was associated with transformational leadership. He found support for individualized consideration and charisma as predictors of LMX quality. Basu (1992) also found a strong positive correlation between LMX and transformational leadership (r =.87). In addition, Basu factor analyzed LMX and the four transformational leadership scales and found no support for the distinction between LMX and transformational leadership. Thus, there is emerging support for the notion that LMX may be transformational, at least at certain times and under certain conditions. A Comprehensive LMX Model In order to continue to expand the nomological network of LMX and demonstrate empirical support for the integrated theoretical model proposed by Uhl-Bien et al. (1997), additional antecedents and consequences should be investigated. We have discussed some possible future research directions in terms of antecedents. Researchers have also begun to study additional consequences of LMX, including climate perceptions (e.g., Graen et al., 1973; Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989), organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Manogran & Conlon, 1993; Wayne & Green, 1993), decision influence (e.g., Scandura et al., 1986), leader effectiveness (e.g., Graen et al., 1973; Deluga & Perry, 1991), member empowerment (Keller & Dansereau, 1995), and creativity (Tierney, 1992). These outcomes could not be included in the present analyses because of an insufficient number of studies but are important to the continued development of a comprehensive LMX model. Researchers should also continue to examine the role of organizational context in the LMX model. In their complete model of relationship-based leadership, Uhl- Bien et al. (1997) illustrated how situational moderators can affect both the development of the dyadic leadership relationship and the linkage between LMX and organizational outcomes. Finally, much empirical research is needed to understand how the LMX model operates at different levels of analysis (Graen'& Uhl-Bien, 1995). One promising avenue for increasing our understanding of levels issues is to examine the patterns of LMX and the relationship between LMX and relevant outcomes in work groups and teams. Many organizations have adopted team-based structures, yet we know very little about the dynamics of leadership relationships within teams and their impact on team and organizational level outcomes. Toward a Prescriptive Model of LMX One of the most interesting challenges for future research on LMX is to move beyond a descriptive leadership approach to a more prescriptive foundation (Yukl, 1989). Given that high-quality exchanges are consistently related to favorable individual outcomes, it may prove beneficial to devote greater attention to developing and evaluating LMX training models. Using an organizational case study, Graen (1989) described a model for conducting leadership training that focuses on the dyadic relationship. Howell and Frost (1989) have also shown that it is possible to train individuals to exhibit aspects of transformational leadership. Focusing on the development of high-quality dyadic relationships may be valuable both as an addition to current models of leadership training and as an alternative to these methods. More work is needed to specify the content of such training programs and the boundary conditions for their effectiveness. The demonstrated efficacy of Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp's (1982) intervention makes that approach worth considering as a prototype in moving toward a prescriptive model of LMX. This is an important study in demonstrating that the underlying perspective-taking ability addressed in their intervention can be trained. Such

14 840 GERSTNER AND DAY efforts are especially important under present economic pressures to cut organizational costs while maximizing human-resource potential. In light of the demonstrated benefits of transformational leadership in organizations (e.g., Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993), this is a promising area for future research. On the basis of our review of the literature, we view the relationship with one's supervisor as a lens through which the entire work experience is viewed. LMX is consistently linked to favorable outcomes for members and should continue to play a major role in models of dyadic perceptions and individual performance. Building from these results, we propose that LMX has the potential to play an even larger role in the context of organization theory if expanded and refined in several recommended ways. Construct specification is crucial. Researchers must agree on the meaning of LMX, the proper unit of measurement (i.e., dyad), and how it should be measured. Additional longitudinal field research is needed to explore the dynamics of leader-member relationships over time and their consequences for individuals, groups, and organizations. Aspects of transformational leadership should be formally integrated into LMX so that a comprehensive model of dyadic leadership may be developed and tested. Finally, LMX should be incorporated into leadership training programs and the success of these programs evaluated in terms of leader effectiveness, acceptance, and member development. These suggestions will enhance both the descriptive and prescriptive value of LMX as a theory of leadership. References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass.B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New >rk: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Basu, R. (1992). An empirical examination of LMX and transformational leadership as predictors of innovative behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, *Bauer, T. N., & Green, S.G. (1996). The development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, *Baugh, G. (1992). Interpersonal influences in a project organization: A role set analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, *Blau, G. (1988). An investigation of the apprenticeship organizational socialization strategy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, *Bumpus, M. A., & Ravlin, E. C. (1994). The roles of similarity and task competence in the development of LMX relationships. Manuscript submitted for publication. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New 'Vbrk: Free Press. "Carter, M. L., & Foti, R. J. (1994, April). Manager-subordinate exchange relationships: Investigation of a manager behavior model. Paper presented at the 9th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN. *Castleberry, S. B., & Tanner, J. F. (1989). Salesperson's commitment to the organization: Associations with performance, motivation, conflict, satisfaction, and relationship with the manager. Journal of Applied Business Research, 5, Cohen, I., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, Dansereau, E, Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, Dansereau, E, Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, *Day, D. V., & Grain, E. (1992). The role of affect and ability in initial exchange quality perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 17, *Deluga, R. J. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership in naval environments. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp ). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. *Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67, *Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behavior, satisfaction, and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, *Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19, *Dienesch, R. M. (1985). A test of the dimensionality of leader-member exchange. Unpublished manuscript. *Dienesch, R. M. (1988). An empirical investigation of the relationship between quality of leader-member exchange and subordinate performance and satisfaction (Doctoral disserta-

15 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 841 tion, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, *Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal characteristics. Journal of Management, 16, *Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group and Organization Studies, 15, *Duarte, N. T, Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, *Duchon, D., Green, S. G., &Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, *Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader-member exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, *Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Duchon, D. (1994, August). Task-level climate (TLC) and leader-member exchange (LMX) as interactive predictors of subordinate performance. Paper presented at the 54th Academy of Management meeting, Dallas, TX. Fahr, J.-L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Effects of comparative performance information on the accuracy of self-ratings and agreement between self- and supervisor ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Feldman, J. M. (1986). A note on the statistical correction of halo error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, * Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, *Rikami, C. V, & Larson, E. W. (1984). Commitment to company and union: Parallel models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, *Gast, I. (1987). Leader cognitive complexity and its effects on the quality of exchange relationships with subordinates (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, *Gerras, S. (1993). The effect of cognitive busyness and nonverbal behaviors on trait inferences and LMX judgments (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, *Gessner, J. (1993). An interpersonal attraction approach to leader-member exchange: Predicting the predictor (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp ). Chicago: Rand McNally. Graen, G. B. (1989). Unwritten rules for your career. New York: Wiley. *Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp ). Kent, OH: Kent State University. *Graen, G. B., Dansereau, E, Minanii, T., & Cashman, J. (1973). Leadership behaviors as cues to performance evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 16, *Graen,G. B., Liden, R., &Hoel,W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, *Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, Graen, G. B., Scandura, T. A., & Graen, M. R. (1986). A field experiment test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, Graen, G. B., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, *Graen, G. B., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. (1990). International generalizability of American hypotheses about Japanese management progress: A strong inference investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 1, *Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, *Green, S. G., Blank, W, & Liden, R. C. (1983). Market and organizational influences on bank employees' work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, Hedges, L. V. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? The empirical cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist, 42, Hedges, L. V, & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for metaanalysis. New \brk: Academic Press. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp ). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support

16 842 GERSTNER AND DAY for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, Huffcutt, A. I., Arthur, W., Jr., & Bennet, W. (1993). Conducting meta-analysis using the proc means procedure in SAS. Educational and Psychological Measurement, S3, Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Metaanalysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. *James, L. R., Gent, M. J., Hater, J. J., & Coray, K. E. (1979). Correlates of psychological influence: An illustration of the psychological climate approach to work environment perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 32, *James, L. R., Hater, J. J., & Jones, A. (1981). Perceptions of psychological influence: A cognitive information processing approach for explaining moderated relationships. Personnel Psychology, 34, Johnson, B. T., & Tbrco, R. M. (1992). The value of goodnessof-fit indices in meta-analysis: A comment on Hall and Rosenthai. Communication Monographs, 59, * Jones, A. P., Glaman, J. M., & Johnson, D. S. (1993). Perceptions of a quality program and relationships with work perceptions and job attitudes. Psychological Reports, 72, *Katerberg, R., & Horn, P. W. (1981). Effects of within-group and between-group variation in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, "Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 48, *Kim, K. I., & Organ, D. W. (1982). Determinants of leadersubordinate exchange relationships. Group and Organization Studies, 7, *Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisorsubordinate relations: The role of timepressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, *K'Obonyo, P. O. (1989). A dyadic upward influence process: A laboratory investigation of the effect of a subordinate's ingratiation (praise & performance) on the superior-subordinate exchange relationship (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Kuhnert, K. W. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through delegation. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, *Lagace, R. R. (1988). An investigation into the impact of interpersonal trust on the quality of the relationship and outcome variables in the sales manager/salesperson dyad (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, *Lagace, R. R. (1990). Leader-member exchange: Antecedents and consequences of the cadre and hired hand. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10, *Lagace, R. R., Castlebeny, S. B., & Ridnour, R. E. (1993). An exploratory salesforce study of the relationship between leader-member exchange and motivation, role stress, and manager evaluation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 9, *Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management Journal, 2, *Liden, R., & Maslyn, J. M. (in press). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T, & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leadermember exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 15, pp ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. *Liden, R., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, *Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). Newcomer expectations and early socialization outcomes: The moderating effect of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, Manogran, P., & Conlon, E. J. (1993). A leader-member exchange approach to explaining organizational citizenship behavior. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Academy of Management (pp ). Atlanta, GA: Academy of Management. *Manogran, P., Stauffer, J., & Conlon, E. J. (1994, August). Leader-member exchange as a key mediating variable between employees' perceptions of fairness and organizational citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the 54th Academy of Management meeting, Dallas, TX. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, *Murry, W. D. (1993). Leader-member exchange and work value congruence: A multiple levels approach (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, *Murry, W. D., & Markham, S. E. (1994, April). Leader-mem-

17 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE META-ANALYSIS 843 her exchange relationships: A social exchange perspective. Paper presented at the 9th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN. *Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American business managers. Group and Organization Studies, IS, *Peck, M. (1989). Head nurse fit with staff, administration, and situation: Impact on unit performance and staff satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, *Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37, Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. E. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. *Rosse, J. G., & Kraut, A. I. (1983). Reconsidering the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, Russell, C. J., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). Integrating skill acquisition and perspective taking capacity in the development of leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 3, Sackett, P. R., Harris, M. M., & Orr, J. M. (1986). On seeking moderator variables in the meta-analysis of correlational data: A Monte Carlo investigation of statistical power and resistance to type I error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, *Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, *Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, *Schiemann, W. A. (1977). The nature and prediction of organizational communication: A review of the literature and an empirical investigation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1977), Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, *Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, *Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., & Tepper, B. J. (1992). Development and preliminary validation of a new scale (LMX-6) to measure leader-member exchange in organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, *Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, *Seers, A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, *Sidhu, K. (1989). The role of a leader-member exchange and work experience in the early career development of professionals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, *Snyder, R. A., & Bruning, N. S. (1985). Quality of vertical dyad linkages: Congruence of supervisor and subordinate competence and role stress as explanatory variables. Group and Organization Studies, 10, *Snyder, R. A., Williams, R., & Cashman, J. F. (1984). Age, tenure, and work perceptions as predictors of reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Psychology, 116, Sparrowe, R. T, & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, Spector, P. E., & Levine, E. L. (1987). Meta-analysis for integrating study outcomes: A Monte Carlo study of its susceptibility to type I and type II errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 3-9. *Stepina, L. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C.R.(1991).A comparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, and reward domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, "Tanner, J. F., Jr., & Castleberry, S. B. (1990). Vertical exchange quality and performance: Studying the role of the sales manager. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10, "Tanner, J. F., Dunn, M. G., & Chonko, L. B. (1993). Vertical exchange and salesperson stress. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13, *Tansky, J. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 6, Tierney, P. (1992). The contribution of leadership, supportive environment, and individual attributes to creative performance: A quantitative field study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 246. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1997). Relational leadership theory: A role-making approach. Unpublished manuscript. *Uhl-Bien, M., Tiemey, P. S., Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Company paternalism and the hidden-investment process: Identification of the "right type" for line managers in leading Japanese organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 15, *Vecchio, R. P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange: A failure to replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28, *Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, *Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B.C. (1984). The vertical dyad

18 844 GERSTNER AND DAY linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, *Vecchio, R. P., Griffeth, R. W., & Horn, P. W. (1986). The predictive utility of the vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., Graen, M., & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, *Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, *Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leadermember exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, *Weitzel, J. R., & Graen, G. B. (1990), System development project effectiveness: Problem-solving competence as a moderator variable. Decision Sciences, 20, *Wilhelm C. C, Herd, A. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1993). Attributional conflict between managers and subordinates: An investigation of leader-member exchange effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, *Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. *Zalesny, M. D., & Kirsch, M. P. (1989). The effect of similarity on performance ratings and interrater agreement. Human Relations, 42, Received June 25, 1996 Revision received May 29, 1997 Accepted May 30, 1997 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTION CLAIMS INFORMATION Today's Date:_ We provide this form to assist members, institutions, and nonmember individuals with any subscription problems. With the appropriate information we can begin a resolution. If you use the services of an agent, please do NOT duplicate claims through them and directly to us. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY AND IN INK IF POSSIBLE. RUNT FULL NAME OR KEY NAME OF INSTITUTION MEMBER OR CU5TOMERNUMBER (MAY BE FOUND ON ANY PAST ISSUE LABEL) ADDRESS CITY STATE/COUNTRY YOUR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER DATE YOUR ORDER WAS MAILED (OR PHONED) PREPAID. _CHECK CHAROE CHECK/CARD CLEARED DATE: (If possible, send a copy, front and back, of your cancelled check to help us in our research of your claim.) ISSUES: MISSING DAMAGED TITLE VOLUME OR YEAK NUMBER OR MONTH Thank you. Once a claim w received and resolved, delivery of replacement issues routinely takes 46 weeks. (TO BE FILLED OUT BY APA STAFF) ^ DATE RECEIVED:. ACTION TAKEN: _ STAFF NAME: DATE OF ACTION: _ INV. NO. & DATE: LABEL NO. & DATE: Send this form to APA Subscription Claims, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE. A PHOTOCOPY MAY BE USED.