A Multilevel Study of Leader-Member Exchange, Group. Performance and Organization Citizen Behavior

Transcription

1 A Multilevel Study of Leader-Member Exchange, Group Performance and Organization Citizen Behavior Kuo-Feng Wu Doctor Student Joseph S. Lee Professor Graduate Institute of Human Resource Management National Central University P.O.BOX 9-29 Jhongli Taoyuan County Taiwan (R.O.C.) TEL:(03) #66750 #66751 FAX:(03)

2 A Multilevel Study of Leader-Member Exchange, Group Performance and Organization Citizen Behavior Abstract Researcher will investigate the effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) on group performance and organization citizen behavior with a sample of about 20 work groups consisting of approximately 400 employees who represent the same organizations. LMX was defined as the degree of variability in quality of the supervisor and subordinate association within the work groups. Group performance was defined from employees who work in the same group, that aggregate for group performance. Organization citizen behavior was composed of helping, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Researcher will use Hierarchical Linear Modeling software (HLM) to test collected data. Researcher hope LMX will have a beneficial effect of the individual level, such that increases in LMX will accompany an increase in employee OCB for high LMX members. At the group level, Researcher hope the result will have a major effect for LMX on group performance. Keywords: LMX, OCB, Group performance, Multilevel

3 1. Introduction Leadership refers to the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members (House & Javidan, 2004). Leadership is considered crucial for enabling team effectiveness (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Hackman & Walton, 1986), and some researchers, have even argued that it is the most critical ingredient (Sinclair, 1992; Zaccaro, Rottman, & Marks, 2001). Yet most existing research on team leadership has focused narrowly on the influence of an individual team leader thus largely neglecting leadership provided by team members (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Stewart & Manz, 1995). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, which was developed as an extension of the vertical-dyad linkage model, is based on the differential types of relationships that form between leaders and group members. According to this theory, leader form high-quality social exchanges that are based on trust and liking with some organization members, whereas with others they form lower-quality, economic exchanges that do not extend beyond the employment contract (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997) The quality of leader-member relationships, in turn, is assumed to reflect the extent to which the leader and subordinate exchange resources and support beyond what is expected based in the formal employment contract (Danserau, Graen, & Haga, 1975).High-quality leader-member exchange relationships may give organizations a competitive advantage in training and motivating talent.(erdogan, Liden & Kraimer,2006)When leaders and members do not interact frequently, or do not work physically in the same environment, LMX is related to member behaviors (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Thus, leaders need to understand which aspects of their behaviors are more strongly related to LMX in different contexts to maximize the value of each interaction. LMX quality has been found to play an important role for individual performance (Gersner & Day, 1997).Despite extensive research on LMX and individual performance, and other individual level outcomes such as employee attitudes (Dansereau et al., 1975), substantially less attention has been paid to the implications of LMX differentiation on individual and group performance (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Scandura, 1999). LMX theory is based on the premise that leaders differentiate among their subordinates. The level of differentiation tends to differ across groups such that, in some groups there is a high level of differentiation, and the leader forms high quality exchanges with some, but not with all members. It is interesting that even though LMX theory is based on leader differentiation between group members, the implications of differentiation for individuals and - 1 -

4 groups remain largely unknown. In the current study, some researchers used a multi-level approach to examine the relationships between LMX differentiation and individual performance, as well as between LMX and group performance. Furthermore, Researcher examined the potential complexity of the relations of LMX on the group performance. Focusing leadership and motivation efforts more on teams, rather than individuals, raises important questions, such as how such efforts affect individual performance as well as the potential trade-offs that may occur when managing both individuals(chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kirkman & Rosen,1999). About OCB, Organ (1988) defined OCBs as behavior(s) of a discretionary nature that are not part of the employee s formal role requirements, but nevertheless promote the effective functioning of the organization. Karambayya(1989)examined the relationships between work unit performance and satisfaction and unit members citizenship behaviors in a sample of 18 intact work groups, comprised primarily of white-collar and professional employees from 12 different organizations. Borman & Motowidlo(1993)between OCBs and performance is typically logical and conceptual rather than empirical and rests more on its plausibility than direct empirical support. Researcher followed this recommendation by conceptualizing citizenship behavior as a latent construct that causes behaviors targeted both at LMX in a group and at the organization. The first of our study was to begin to theoretically identify and test LMX in OCB. To our knowledge, no studies have directly explored the conditions that give group performance between LMX and OCB, that use the samples from China. Reflecting a perspective on leadership in teams as a dynamic process involving interactions between team members and external team leaders (Zaccaro, S. J., Klimoski, 2002).Researcher will explore the possibilities that the effect of LMX on OCB is moderated by group performance within the group. 2. Theory and Hypotheses 2.1 LMX LMX theory is premised on notions of role making (Graen, 1976), social exchange, reciprocity, and equity (Deluga, 1994). The central premise behind LMX is that within work units, different types of relationships develop between leaders and their subordinates, or - 2 -

5 members. Consequently, over time such role-making processes generate a fairly stable and high-quality LMX that is built in trust, respect, and mutual obligation (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Graen, Wakbayashi, Graen, & Graen, 1990). Leaders convey role expectations to their followers and provide tangible and intangible rewards to followers who satisfy these expectations. In the role-making process (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), each party in a dyad has expectations about how he or she can benefit from the other party and what must be given in return.likewise, followers hold role expectations of their leaders, with respect to how they are to be treated and the rewards they are to receive for meeting leader expectations. Followers are not passive role recipients ; they may reject, embrace, or renegotiate roles prescribed by their leaders. Although both parties may test one another to see whether or not the expectations of the other are met (e.g., Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997), often neither party knows what the other s expectations are (London, 2003).But there is a reciprocal process in the dyadic exchanges between leader and follower, wherein each party brings to the relationship different kinds of resources for exchange. Role negotiation occurs over time, defining the quality and maturity of a leader-member exchange, and leaders develop relationships of varying quality with different followers over time (Graen, 1976; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Accordingly, LMX is characterized as a discretionary stimulus (Hackman, 1992) that exerts a direct influence on individual motivation in teams (Chen & Kanfer, 2006)Because LMX relationships are based in a social exchange, there is a perceived obligation on the part of subordinates to reciprocate high-quality relationships (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). Managers and supervisors are thought to develop close relationships with only a few subordinates and have high-quality exchanges with them. In the context of these high-lmx relationships, managers show influence and support beyond what is specified in formal descriptions, and the subordinate is given more autonomy and responsibility. In high-quality relationships, the leader and subordinate engage in collaborative problem solving, eventually resulting in a set of interlocking role behaviors that are mutually reinforcing. Low-LMX relationships, on the other hand, are thought to be limited to the exchanges that take place according to the employment contract. According to Sparrowe and Liden (1997), LMX can further be viewed as a sponsorship process through which subordinates in high-quality exchanges are assimilated into the leader s inner circle, or network of trusted relationships, in low-quality relationships, however, this role-making stage fails to develop in the same way or ends early in the process. Thus, when there is a high-quality relationship and a fully developed role-making process, a richer and more elaborate set of role behaviors emerge. These results in significantly different enacted roles between high- and low-quality leader member relationships (Hofmann, Morgeson, Gerras, 2003).Those who feel that they - 3 -

6 are benefiting from a relationship will try to reciprocate by fulfilling the expectations of the other party. This exchange process facilitates high-quality relationship between leaders and members. Note that our study focuses on team leaders rating of members performance. Team-level portions of our model suggest that group performance helps explain the relationship between LMX and OCB. Researcher argues that between LMX and OCB, group performance may help both parties understand the role expectations of their partners and supervisors. In other words, if Researcher have clear understanding of the role expectations between leaders and subordinates, may help employees to do more OCB within organization. 2.2 OCB One way in which subordinates can reciprocate these relationships is by enlarging their roles so that they extend beyond normal role requirements. An organizational theory useful for conceptualizing person and situation influences on citizenship behaviors is affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie(1997)point out helping, sportsmanship, and civic virtue three conceptual. Conceptually, employees citizenship behaviors at work can be distinguished by their target, which may be individual or organizational (Organ & Konovsky, 1989). Helping was mean employees helping behavior would increase group cohesiveness, make the organization a more attractive place to work, reduce voluntary turnover, and thereby enhance organizational productively (George & Betten-hausen, 1990). The sportsmanship was the second dimension, it mean the more willing employees are to be good sports and go along with necessary changes in their work environment, the less time and energy a manager wastes in getting their cooperation. Thus, sportsmanship allows managers to devote a greater proportion of their time to productive activities like planning, scheduling, problem solving, and organizational analysis. The final dimension was civic virtue, it involves making constructive suggestion about how the work group can improve its effectiveness, and this may either free up resources or make co-workers more effective, depending on the nature of the suggestion. Also, because meetings are a way that organizations attempt to coordinate activities between team members and across groups, civic virtue in the form of attending and actively participating in those meetings may contribute to work group performance. Such citizenship behaviors are likely avenues for reciprocation because they reflect discretionary individual behavior that is not explicitly recognized by job - 4 -

7 descriptions or formal reward systems (Organ, 1988). In essence, subordinates in high-quality LMX relationships pay back their leaders by engaging in citizenship behaviors that benefit the leader and others in the work setting ( Liden et al., 1997; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Therefore, it is likely that high-quality LMX relationships will prompt subordinates to expand their roles beyond what is formally expected and to engage in increased citizenship behaviors oriented around safety. According to this theory, events that unfold at work influence certain episodic behaviors through the affective states that these events generate. Hypothesis1: LMX is positively related to OCB 2.3 Moderator-Group Performance Role theory suggests that group performance should be enhanced by role differentiation. A critical manifestation of LMX differentiation is a division of labor that occurs as the result of role differentiation during the formation of LMX relationship. The success of organizations today depends on employee s continuously improving their work performance (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Group performance is perhaps the most critical group-level variable in the leadership literature (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002).Employees may want to gauge their work performance by taking the initiative to seek feedback from their supervisors (Ashford, 1986; Ashford, Blatt, & Vandewalle, 2003). Given that group performance is arguably the key criterion for evaluating leader effectiveness, it is surprising that group performance has been ignored in LMX research. It is generally believed that subordinates feedback seeking facilitates the establishment of good working relationships with supervisors (London, 2003)In sum, Researcher propose that leaders should benefit from selectively investing in their relationships with subordinates, resulting in high and low-quality exchanges represented in the work group. Role differentiation also serves to clarify goals for all members, which further facilitates group performance (Slater, 1965; Stogdill, 1959). In fact, organizational citizenship behavior, as an aspect of job performance, was thought to reflect the job satisfaction job performance relationship that had eluded researchers until the start of the 21st century (see Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001), because voluntary behavior is less likely to be constrained by non attitudinal factors (e.g., skill, resources) than task performance (Organ & Lingl, 1995).Ashford and Cummings(1983)argued that performance-related motives involve a rational desire to obtain useful information in order to accomplish tasks effectively and enhance performance. This kind of motive includes an important element: information gathering about one s work role (Ashford et al., 2003) - 5 -

8 Previous research has consistently found a positive relationship between LMX and general organizational citizenship behavior, such as helping coworkers or doing favors for the leader (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997), In high-quality LMX relationships, obligations are often diffuse and unspecified, and no standard or value against which gifts, favors, or contributions can be measured is present (Blau, 1964).LMX if subordinate want to let leader and subordinate relationship stronger, may rely on impression management refer to supervisors deeper his image with the result that relationship between leader and subordinate stronger. A positive association between LMX and OCB is expected because OCB helps fulfill the reciprocity obligations of followers, and represents an exchange currency that is diffuse, unspecified, and weakly time-bound. Moreover, in high-quality exchange, leaders appeal to the higher-order social needs of followers by getting them to place collective interests over short-term personal gratification (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).An individual s being a good citizen promotes the welfare of the larger collective. Accordingly, LMX is expected to correlate positively with OCB. Hypothesis2: group performance is positively related to OCB after controlling for LMX Hypothesis3: group performance moderates the LMX-OCB relationship (relationship between LMX and OCB is stringer situations where members are in closer group performance to one another) 3. Methods 3.1 Sample The data will be collected in January 2010 from a large manufacturing plant in China. Two sets of questionnaires will be used in this study: one for subordinates (they are all frontline staff) and another for their immediate supervisors. Questionnaires will be handed to employees and their supervisors separately. I will visit all of the respondents in person, to brief them on the purpose of the study and to explain the procedures for implementing the survey. The respondents will receive a cover letter explaining the study, a questionnaire, and a return envelope. I will encode each questionnaire with a researcher-assigned identification number in order to match employee s responses with their immediate supervisor s evaluation

9 To ensure confidentiality the respondents will be instructed to seal the completed questionnaires in the envelopes and return them directly to us on site. Researcher will collect data from about 400 employees, representing 20 groups. Team leaders have had to have been in their position with the current team for at least 6 consecutive months to be included in the study. Team leaders were selected for their position by the company based on test results from an assessment center plus input from managers and team members. Due to reasons such as employee absence on the date of the data collection, Researcher hope most groups had a response rate close to 100 per cent. For this reason, Researcher will check with the supervisors to ensure all employees complete the questionnaires. The procedure in all groups will entail the researchers collecting the data on site during working hours. All members of the selected groups, as well as the formal leaders of the groups were invited to participate. Members will complete the surveys in their groups in company time, and the leaders will complete their surveys individually. Group members (subordinates) will supply data on LMX and OCB, and the group leaders will provide the information on individual performance, and group size. Hypothesis1: LMX is positively related to OCB. Hypothesis2: group performance is positively related to OCB after controlling for LMX Hypothesis3: group performance moderates the LMX-OCB relationship (relationship between LMX and OCB is stringer situations where members are in closer group performance to one another) Group performance H2 H3 LMX OCB H1 Figure 1: Research framework - 7 -

10 3.2 Measures LMX. LMX was measured from the group member s (subordinate s) perspective. Across the research sites, two different measures of LMX were used, but for both measures of LMX, 5-point (1Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree) response scales were used. Example items are: I admire my manager s professional skills, My manager is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend, I can trust my manager to look out for my best interest, My manager is very loyal to me, and My manager would come to my defense if I were attacked by others. LMX was measured with the LMX-13 scale (Settoon et al., 1996). OCB.A Chinese version of the OCB scale originally developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used Podsakoff et al (1997).The scale measures the three OCB dimensions: helping(seven items), civic virtue(three items), and sportsmanship(three items). The items on the appendix A. Group performance. For group performance Researcher will adopt Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe(2006)suggested questionnaire, which is measured with five performance dimensions: quality of work, quantity of work, overall group performance, completing work on time, and responding quickly to problems. Researcher will use a 5-points scale (1very poor to 5 outstanding).individual performance, and Researcher will aggregate individual s performance for group performance unit. Control variables. Because of the potential effects of various demographic variables on the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden et al., 1993; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001),Information on demographic and background variables such as gender, age, organizational position (shop-floor vs. non-shop-floor employees), manager employee (measured in years), and the duration of manager employee relation (in months) was collected. Researcher will use data control for gender, age, education level, manager employee, and length of relationships. The frequency of manager employee contact was also used as a control variable, given empirical evidence (Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003) that the frequency of manager employee communication amplifies the quality of the LMX relationship. The frequency of manager employee contact was measured with a 5-point scale with response options ranging from not at all to always. Measures of these demographic variables will be obtained from both the supervisors and subordinates. Age and organizational tenure will self-report in years. Gender will be a dummy-code (0= female, 1= male ).A dummy variable will also used to measure the - 8 -

11 education levels of the respondents (0= below college, 1= college or above ).Subordinates will report the length of the supervisor-subordinate relationship in years. IN addition, Researcher will follow the procedures used by Turban and Jones (1988) to control for demographic similarity between supervisors and subordinates. Since all the respondents will be of Taiwan origin, Researcher will exclude the subscale of race discrepancy. First, gender and education discrepancies will code as the same (0) or different (1).Age discrepancy will the absolute difference between the supervisor and subordinate responses. Researcher will divide discrepancy scores by their respective standard deviations, sum them, and then reverse-score them. The larger of score, that the greater the demographic similarity. 4. Conclusion In sum, the study presented herein documents an empirical endeavor examining the dynamic process through which LMX and group performance influence organizational citizenship behavior. There are several results that expecting to get after data collecting. First, this conceptualization result suggests that group performance should be studied not only as predictors in organizational citizenship behavior, but also as predictors (moderators) of LMX influences of situational factors on citizenship behavior. Secondly, important aspect of our multilevel model pertains to the cross-level influences between individual-and team-level phenomena of LMX, OCB group performance is highly related. Third, Researcher also expects that individual and team performance are positively related. It is likely that high performance norms develop in more effective teams, which in turn drive better performance at individual level, and that over time individual who do not perform according to team norms will depart the team or organization (Scheneider, Smith, & Sipe, 2000). Furthermore, in interdependent teams, individual performance may be related to team performance, given that each member s behavior is highly dependent on other member s behavior. Indeed, as noted by Ployhart(2004),human resources management models often assume that individual performance aggregates to affect work unit and, eventually, organizational performance. In support Chen (2005) found a positive relationship between individual and team performance. Therefore, Researcher will collect individual and group performance data

12 Appendix A: OCB items Helping Help each other out if someone falls behind in his/her work. Willingly share their expertise with other members of the crew. Try to act like peacemakers when other crew members have disagreements. Willingly give of their time to help crew members who have work-related problems. Touch base with other crew members before initiating actions that might affect them. Encourage each other when someone is down. Civic virtue Provide constructive suggestions about how the crew can improve its effectiveness. Are willing to risk disapproval to express their beliefs about what s best for the crew. Attend and actively participate in team meetings Sportsmanship Always focus in what is wrong with our situation, rather than the positive side. Consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. Always find fault with what other crew members are doing

13 References Ashford, S. J, Blatt, R., & VabdeWalle, D Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 29: Ashford, S. J Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29: Ashford, S. J. and L. L. Cummings, 1983.Feedback as an individual Resource: Personal Strategies of Creating Information, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,, 32 (3): Bass, B. M Bass & Stogdill s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial application (3 rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press. Blau, P. M Exchange and power in social life.new York: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (77-98).San Franciso: Jossey-Bass. Chen, G., & Kanfer, R Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, Cohen, S. G., Bailey, D. R What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite? Journal of Management, 23(4), Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, Dansereau,J.F.,G.Graen, & W.J.Haga, 1975.A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership in Formal Organizations, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,.13, Erdogan, B.M., Liden R. C., & Kraimer M. L.2006.Justice and Leader-Member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 2: George, J. M., & Bettebhausen, K Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

14 performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, Gouldner, A. W The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, Graen, G. B Role making processes within complex organization. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Chicago: Rand-McNally. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: Grean, G. B.Scandura, T. A Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L.Cummings & B. M. Staw(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hackman, J. R Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol.3pp ).Palo Alto, CA:Con-sulting Psychologists Press. Hackman, J.R., Walton, R.E Leading groups in organizations, in Goodman, P.S. (Eds),Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., Gerras, S.J Climate as a moderator of the relationship between Leader-Member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(1): House, R. J., & Javidan, M Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M The interactive effect of

15 leader member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Karambayya R Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units have better citizens. York University Working Paper, North York, On-tario, Canada. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp ). New York: Wiley. Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J. & Sparrowe, R. T Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J Leader member exchange theory: The past and potential for future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C Taking charge at work: Extra role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, Organ, D. W Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135: Ployhart, E Organizational staffing: A multilevel review, synthesis, and model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23,

16 Podsakoff, P. M.,Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B.1997.Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Quantity and Quality of Work Group Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), Scandura, T. A Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Sipe, W Personnel selection psychology: Multi-level views. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Slater, P. E Role differentiation in small groups. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, & R. F. Bales(Eds), small groups: Studies in social interaction(pp )new York: Knopf. Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22: Stewart, G., Manz, C.1995.Leadership for Self-Managing Work Teams: A Typology and Integrative Model. Human Relations, 48, Stogdill, R. M Individual behavior and group achievement. New York: Oxford Unifersity Press. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18:1 74. Yukl, G.2002.Leadership in organizations (5 th Ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R Special issue introduction: The interface of leadership and team process. Group & Organizational Management, 27(1),