exchange and Organizational identification

Moderating Role of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment on Leader-Member Exchange and Employee’s Attitudinal and Behavioral Outcomes Relationships through Organizational Identification: A Test of Moderated Mediation Model Using Social Identity Theory

By Sajjad Hussain Registration No: F14C06P04001 Supervised by Prof. Dr. Khurram Shahzad A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MANAGEMENT SCIENCES (Human Resource Management) at FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, RIPHAH INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

July, 2018

iii

DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICATION I certify that the research work presented in this thesis is to the best of my knowledge my own. All sources used and any help received in the preparation of this dissertation have been acknowledged. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material, either in whole or in part, for any other degree at this or any other institution. Signature……………….…………. Sajjad Hussain Registration No: F14C06P04001

iv

Plagiarism Undertaking by the PhD Scholar I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled “Moderating Role of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment on Leader-Member Exchange and Employee’s Attitudinal

and

Behavioral

Outcomes

Relationships

through

Organizational

Identification: A Test of Moderated Mediation Model Using Social Identity Theory” is solely my research work with no significant contribution from any other person. Small contribution / help wherever taken has been duly acknowledged and that complete thesis has been written by me. I understand the zero tolerance policy of the HEC and Riphah International University towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an Author of the above titled thesis declare that no portion of my thesis has been plagiarized and any material used as reference is properly referred / cited. I undertake that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled thesis even after award of PhD degree, the University reserves the rights to withdraw / revoke my PhD degree and that HEC and the University has the right to publish my name on the HEC / University Website on which names of students are placed who submitted plagiarized thesis.

Student /Author Signature: Name:

_________________________ Sajjad Hussain

v

vi

Copyright@ 2018 by Mr. Sajjad Hussain All rights are reserved. No part of the material protected by this copy right notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the permission from the author.

vii

DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my parents, the rest of the family, friends and teachers especially to Prof. Dr. Khurram Shahzad for always believing in me, inspiring me, guiding me and encouraging me to achieve my goals.

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Allah Almighty who is always Merciful to His creatures and gives the light of hope and strength in times of darkness, dejection and hopelessness. The completion of this doctoral thesis is the beginning of an important chapter in my life. I feel honored and I am thankful to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for providing me with financial support and the opportunity to excel in my life. Without the support of Higher Education Commission, it would have been impossible to complete my doctoral degree in time, along with a job. Financial help from Higher Education gave me the opportunity to quit my job and continue my studies as a full-time Higher Education Commission Indigenous Scholar. I will In-Shaa-Allah serve my country for the rest of my life. I am thankful to the administration and faculty of Riphah International University, especially to Dean Amman Ullah for providing me with the opportunity to learn from a great researcher like Dr. Usman Raja. I would like to express my gratitude to the head of the business administration department, who is my inspiration; not only a teacher but also as a great human being, Professor Dr. Khurram Shahzad. Without his continuous guidance and support, I would never have been able to accomplish this tough, hectic and tiresome task in time. Without any exaggeration, his back-up and support have helped me in building the confidence and valor to pursue a Ph.D. program. I am also thankful to the management of “Bestway Cement”, especially to its Director of Sales Mr. Shahid Sohail Khan, for supporting me in my response collection process during this research. Help, guidance, support and response received from all officers and staff is a pleasant memory, which will be an asset for the rest of my life. Last but not least, I am thankful to my parents, family members and friends, who always prayed for my success and made every possible effort to help me accomplish this task in a successful manner.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.

Background .............................................................................................................. 3

1.2.

Problem Definition / Research Gap and Rationale of the Study ............................. 8

1.3.

Aims of the study ................................................................................................... 11

1.3.1.

Research Questions ............................................................................................ 12

1.3.2.

Objectives of the Study ...................................................................................... 13

1.4.

Significance of the study........................................................................................ 14

1.4.1.

Theoretical Significance ..................................................................................... 14

1.4.2.

Practical Significance ......................................................................................... 16

1.5.

Justification for the selection of variables ............................................................. 16

1.6.

Definition and description of Study Variables....................................................... 17

1.6.1.

Leader-member exchange .................................................................................. 17

1.6.2.

Supervisor’s organizational embodiment ........................................................... 18

1.6.3.

Organizational identification .............................................................................. 18

1.6.4.

Job satisfaction ................................................................................................... 19

1.6.5.

Affective commitment........................................................................................ 19

1.6.6.

Job performance ................................................................................................. 20

1.6.7.

Citizenship behavior ........................................................................................... 20

1.6.8.

Creativity ............................................................................................................ 21

2.

Literature Review...................................................................................................... 22

2.1.

Review of Organizational identification ................................................................ 22

2.2.

Organizational identification and Social identity theory ....................................... 24

2.2.1.

Process of identification ................................................................................. 25

2.2.2.

Measurement and Types of Identification ................................................... 26

2.2.3.

Antecedents and outcomes ............................................................................. 28

2.2.4.

Organizational identification versus Affective commitment .................... 29

2.2.5.

Problems, inconsistencies, Calls for future research.................................. 31

x

2.3.

Review of Leader-member exchange .................................................................... 33

2.4.

Review of Supervisor’s organizational embodiment ............................................. 41

2.5.

Leader-member exchange and Outcomes .............................................................. 43

2.6.

Leader-member exchange and Organizational identification ................................ 55

2.7.

Organizational identification and Outcomes ......................................................... 58

2.8.

Mediating role of Organizational identification Between Leader-member exchange

and Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 62 Conditional Effects of Supervisor’s organizational embodiment on Relationship of

2.9.

Leader-member exchange and Outcomes through Organizational identification ............ 69 2.10. 3.

Research Model .................................................................................................. 77 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 78

3.1.

Research Paradigm................................................................................................. 78

3.2.

Research Design..................................................................................................... 79

3.2.1.

Nature of Study ................................................................................................ 79

3.2.2.

Nature of Survey Design ................................................................................ 80

3.2.3.

Study Setting .................................................................................................... 80

3.2.4.

Unit of Analysis ............................................................................................... 81

3.2.5.

Time Horizon ................................................................................................... 81

3.3.

Population ............................................................................................................ 82

3.3.1.

Parameters of interest ..................................................................................... 82

3.3.2.

Targeted Population ........................................................................................ 82

3.4.

Sample .................................................................................................................. 83

3.4.1.

Sampling Frame ............................................................................................... 83

3.4.2.

Sampling Method ............................................................................................ 83

3.4.3.

Sample Size ...................................................................................................... 83

3.5.

Instruments ........................................................................................................... 84

3.5.1.

Leader-member exchange Scale ................................................................... 85

3.5.2.

Supervisor’s organizational embodiment Scale .......................................... 85

3.5.3.

Organizational identification Scale .............................................................. 86

3.5.4.

Job satisfaction Scale ...................................................................................... 86

3.5.5.

Affective commitment Scale ......................................................................... 87

xi

3.5.6.

Job performance Scale .................................................................................... 87

3.5.7.

Citizenship Behavior Scale ............................................................................ 87

3.5.8.

Creativity Scale ................................................................................................ 88

3.6.

Procedure / Data Collection Method ................................................................ 89

3.7.

Data Analysis Strategy and Techniques .......................................................... 91

3.8.

Pilot Testing ......................................................................................................... 92

3.8.1.

Reliability Analysis ............................................................................................ 93

3.8.2.

Validity Analysis of Scales ................................................................................ 95

3.8.3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................ 97 Characteristics of Supervisor’s Sample ................................................................. 98

3.9. 3.9.1.

Age of Supervisor’s Sample ............................................................................... 98

3.9.2.

Gender of Supervisor’s Sample.......................................................................... 99

3.9.3.

Qualification of Supervisor’s Sample ................................................................ 99

3.9.4.

Tenure of Supervisor’s Sample ........................................................................ 100

3.10.

Characteristics of Subordinate Sample ............................................................ 101

3.10.1.

Age of Subordinate Sample .......................................................................... 101

3.10.2.

Gender of Subordinate Sample ..................................................................... 101

3.10.3.

Qualification of Subordinate Sample ........................................................... 102

3.10.4.

Tenure of Subordinate Sample ..................................................................... 102

3.10.5.

Organizational Sector of Subordinate Sample.............................................. 103

3.11.

Controls ............................................................................................................ 103

3.11.1.

Supervisor’s Age and Outcomes .................................................................. 104

3.11.2.

Supervisor’s Qualification and Outcomes .................................................... 105

3.11.3.

Supervisor’s Tenure and Outcomes .............................................................. 106

3.11.4.

Subordinate Age and Outcomes ................................................................... 108

3.11.5.

Subordinate’s Gender and Outcomes ........................................................... 109

3.11.6.

Subordinate’s Qualification and Outcomes .................................................. 110

3.11.7.

Subordinate’s Tenure and Outcomes ............................................................ 111

3.11.8.

Subordinate’s Organizational Sector and Outcomes .................................... 113

3.11.9.

Summary of Controls.................................................................................... 115

4.

Results ..................................................................................................................... 116

xii

4.1.

Descriptive Analysis .......................................................................................... 116

4.2.

Correlation Analysis ........................................................................................... 118

4.3.

Test of Main Effects (Hypothesis 1 – 11) ......................................................... 121

4.3.1.

Leader-Member Exchange and Job satisfaction ........................................... 121

4.3.2.

Leader-Member Exchange and Affective commitment ............................... 123

4.3.3.

Leader-Member Exchange and Job performance ......................................... 125

4.3.4.

Leader-Member Exchange and Citizenship behavior .................................. 126

4.3.5.

Leader-Member Exchange and Creativity .................................................... 129

4.3.6.

Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational identification .................... 132

4.3.7.

Organizational identification and Job satisfaction ....................................... 133

4.3.8.

Organizational identification and Affective commitment ........................... 134

4.3.9.

Organizational identification and Job performance ..................................... 135

4.3.10.

Organizational identification and Citizenship Behaviors ........................ 136

4.3.11.

Organizational identification and Creativity ............................................. 138

4.4. 4.4.1.

Indirect effects of Organizational identification .............................................. 139 Mediating role of Organizational identification between Leader-member

exchange and Job satisfaction....................................................................................... 139 4.4.2.

Mediating role of Organizational identification between Leader-member

exchange and Affective commitment .......................................................................... 143 4.4.3.


exchange and Job performance .................................................................................... 146 4.4.4.


exchange and Citizenship Behavior ............................................................................. 149 4.4.5.


exchange and Creativity ................................................................................................ 155 4.5.

Conditional Effects of Supervisor’s organizational embodiment on Indirect

Relationship of Leader-member exchange and Outcomes through Organizational identification .................................................................................................................. 158 4.5.1.

Moderating Role of Supervisor’s organizational embodiment on Mediating

Relationship between Leader-member exchange and Job satisfaction ..................... 159

xiii

4.5.2.


Relationship between Leader-member exchange and Affective commitment ......... 162 4.5.3.


Relationship between Leader-member exchange and Job performance ................... 165 4.5.4.


Relationship between Leader-member exchange and Citizenship Behavior .................. 168 4.5.5.


Relationship between Leader-member exchange and Creativity.................................... 175 4.5.6. 5.

Summary of Accepted / Rejected Hypothesis .................................................. 178

Discussion ............................................................................................................... 185

5.1.

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 185

5.1.1.

Summary of Results for Research Question 1 ................................................. 185

5.1.2.

Discussion for Research Question 1................................................................. 185

5.2.

Research Question # 2 ......................................................................................... 187

5.2.1.


5.2.2.


5.3.


5.3.1.


5.3.2.


5.4.


5.4.1.


5.4.2.


5.5.


5.5.1.


5.5.2.


5.6.


5.6.1.


5.6.2.


5.7.


5.7.1.


5.7.2.


xiv

5.8.


5.8.1.


5.8.2.


5.9.


5.9.1.


5.9.2.


5.10.

Theoretical Implications ................................................................................... 205

5.11.

Implications and Recommendations for Practitioners and Policy Makers ..... 207

5.12.

Strengths and Limitations................................................................................. 214

5.13.

Future Directions .............................................................................................. 216

5.14.

Conclusion........................................................................................................ 216

Appendix I: (Questionnaire) ........................................................................................... 252 Supervisor’s Work Opinion Survey – Phase 1 ............................................................... 252 Supervisor’s Work Opinion Survey – Phase 3 ............................................................... 254 Subordinate’s Work Opinion Survey – Phase 1 ............................................................. 257 Subordinate’s Work Opinion Survey – Phase 2 ............................................................. 260 Subordinate’s Work Opinion Survey – Phase 3 ............................................................. 262 Appendix II: (Reliability of Instruments) ....................................................................... 264 Appendix III: (Validity of Instruments) .......................................................................... 272

xv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Instrument Details................................................................................................ 88 Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................. 98 Table 3 Age of Supervisory Sample .................................................................................. 99 Table 4 Gender of Supervisory Sample ............................................................................ 99 Table 5 Qualification of Supervisory Sample ................................................................. 100 Table 6 Tenure of Supervisory Sample ........................................................................... 100 Table 7 Age of Subordinate Sample ................................................................................ 101 Table 8 Gender of Subordinate Sample .......................................................................... 101 Table 9 Qualification of Subordinate Sample ................................................................. 102 Table 10 Tenure of Subordinate Sample ......................................................................... 103 Table 11 Organizational Sector of Subordinate Sample ................................................ 103 Table 12 One-way ANOVA between Supervisor’s Age and Outcomes........................... 104 Table 13 One-way ANOVA between Supervisor’s Qualification and Outcomes ........... 105 Table 14 One-way ANOVA between Supervisor’s Tenure and Outcomes ..................... 107 Table 15 One-way ANOVA between Subordinate’s Age and Outcomes ........................ 108 Table 16 One-way ANOVA between Subordinate’s Gender and Outcomes................... 109 Table 17 One-way ANOVA between Subordinate’s Education and Outcomes .............. 110 Table 18 One-way ANOVA between Subordinate’s Tenure and Outcomes ................... 112 Table 19 One-way ANOVA between Subordinate’s Organizational Sector and Outcomes ......................................................................................................................................... 113 Table 20 Summary of Controls ....................................................................................... 115 Table 21 Reliability, Mean and Standard Deviations of Main Study ............................. 117 Table 22 Correlation Matrix ........................................................................................... 120 Table 23 Supervisor-rated LMX and Job Satisfaction .................................................... 122 Table 24 Subordinate-rated LMX and Job Satisfaction ................................................. 122 Table 25 Supervisor-rated LMX and Affective Commitment .......................................... 123 Table 26 Subordinate-rated LMX and Affective Commitment ........................................ 124 Table 27 Supervisor-rated LMX and Job Performance .................................................. 125 Table 28 Subordinate-LMX and Job Performance ......................................................... 126 xvi

Table 29 Supervisor-rated LMX and Individual-Directed Citizenship Behavior ........... 127 Table 30 Supervisor-rated LMX and Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior ....... 127 Table 31 Subordinate-rated LMX and Individual-Directed Citizenship Behavior ......... 128 Table 32 Subordinate-rated LMX and Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior..... 129 Table 33 Supervisor-rated LMX and Creativity ............................................................. 130 Table 34 Subordinate-rated LMX and Creativity ........................................................... 130 Table 35 Supervisor-rated LMX and Organizational Identification .............................. 132 Table 36 Subordinate-rated LMX and Organizational Identification ............................ 133 Table 37 Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction ......................................... 134 Table 38 Organizational Identification and Affective Commitment ............................... 134 Table 39 Organizational Identification and Job Performance ....................................... 135 Table 40 Organizational Identification and Individual-Directed Citizenship Behavior 136 Table 41 Organizational Identification and Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior ......................................................................................................................................... 137 Table 42 Organizational Identification and Creativity .................................................. 138 Table 43 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Supervisor-rated LMX and Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 141 Table 44 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Subordinate-rated LMX and Job Satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 142 Table 45 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Supervisor-rated LMX and Affective Commitment ..................................................................................................... 144 Table 46 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Subordinate-rated LMX and Affective Commitment .............................................................................................. 145 Table 47 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Supervisor-rated LMX and Job Performance ............................................................................................................. 147 Table 48 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Subordinate-rated LMX and Job Performance ...................................................................................................... 148 Table 49 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Supervisor-rated LMX and Individual-Directed Citizenship Behaviors..................................................................... 150 Table 50 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Supervisor-rated LMX and Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior .................................................................. 151

xvii

Table 51 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Subordinate-rated LMX and Individual Directed Citizenship Behaviors .............................................................. 153 Table 52 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Subordinate-rated LMX and Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior ........................................................... 154 Table 53 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Supervisor-rated LMX and Creativity......................................................................................................................... 156 Table 54 Mediation of Organizational Identification between Subordinate-rated LMX and Creativity.................................................................................................................. 157 Table 55 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Supervisor-rated LMX and Job Satisfaction via OI........................................................................................................... 160 Table 56 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Subordinate-rated LMX and Job Satisfaction via OI........................................................................................................... 161 Table 57 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Supervisor-rated LMX and Affective Commitment via OI .......................................................................................... 163 Table 58 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Subordinate-rated LMX and Affective Commitment via OI .......................................................................................... 164 Table 59 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Supervisor-rated LMX and Job Performance via OI......................................................................................................... 166 Table 60 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Subordinate-rated LMX and Job Performance via OI......................................................................................................... 167 Table 61 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Supervisor-rated LMX and CBI via OI .................................................................................................................................... 170 Table 62 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Supervisor-rated LMX and CBO via OI .............................................................................................................................. 171 Table 63 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Subordinate-rated LMX and CBI via OI .............................................................................................................................. 173 Table 64 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Subordinate-rated LMX and CBO via OI .............................................................................................................................. 174 Table 65 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Supervisor-rated LMX and Creativity via OI ............................................................................................................. 176

xviii

Table 66 Conditional Indirect effects of SOE between Subordinate-rated LMX and Creativity via OI ............................................................................................................. 177 Table 67 Summary of Accepted / Rejected Hypothesis ............................................... 178 Table 68 Reliability of supervisor-rated leader-member exchange Scale ...................... 264 Table 69 Reliability of Subordinate-rated leader-member exchange Scale ................... 265 Table 70 Reliability of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment Scale ....................... 266 Table 71 Reliability of Organizational Identification Scale ........................................... 267 Table 72 Reliability of Job Satisfaction Scale ................................................................ 267 Table 73 Reliability of Affective Commitment Scale....................................................... 268 Table 74 Reliability of Job Performance Scale .............................................................. 269 Table 75 Reliability of individual-directed Citizenship Behavior Scale ......................... 270 Table 76 Reliability of organization-directed Citizenship Behavior Scale .................... 271 Table 77 Reliability of Creativity Scale .......................................................................... 271 Table 78 Factor loadings of Supervisor-rated leader-member exchange scale ............. 272 Table 79 Factor loadings of Subordinate-rated leader-member exchange Scale .......... 273 Table 80 Factor Loadings of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment Scale ............. 274 Table 81 Factor Loadings of Organizational Identification Scale ................................. 275 Table 82 Factor loadings of Job Satisfaction Scale ....................................................... 275 Table 83 Factor loadings of Affective Commitment Scale.............................................. 276 Table 84 Factor loadings of Job Performance Scale ..................................................... 277 Table 85 Factor loadings of individual-directed Citizenship Behavior Scale ................ 278 Table 86 Factor Loadings of organization-directed Scale ............................................. 279 Table 87 Factor loadings of Creativity Scale ................................................................. 279

xix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Conceptual/Research Model--------------------------------------------Page 76 Figure 2 Data Collection Procedure-----------------------------------------------Page 90

xx

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS SIT

Social Identity Theory

LMX

Leader-Member Exchange

LLMX

Supervisor-rated Leader-Member Exchange

MLMX

Subordinate-Rated Leader-Member Exchange

SOE

Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment

OI

Organizational Identification

JS

Job Satisfaction

AC

Affective Commitment

JP

Job Performance

CB

Citizenship Behaviors

CBI

Individual-directed Citizenship Behavior

CBO

Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior

Cr/CR

Creativity

EFA

Exploratory Factor Analysis

CFA

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

SPSS

Statistical Program for Social Sciences

xxi

ABSTRACT First, the study aims to investigate the effect of supervisor-rated leader–member exchange and subordinate-rated leader–member exchange on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Second, the study investigates the effect of organizational identification on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Third, the study aims to investigate the mediating role of organizational identification on leader–member exchange (from both perspectives) and employee outcomes (both attitudinal and behavioral outcomes). Fourth, the study aims to investigate the moderating role of supervisors’ organizational embodiment on the mediated relationship of leader–member exchange (both perspectives) on employee outcomes (both attitudinal and behavioral) via organizational identification. The study used a robust research design that includes three time lags, supervisor-rated and subordinate-rated outcomes, the latest statistical tools, and a relatively large sample size (n=411). Multiple regression analysis was performed in two steps to see the main effects of the supervisor-rated and subordinate rated leader-member exchange on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The indirect effects of leader–member exchange and outcomes via organizational identification were tested using model 4 of the latest PROCESS macro 2.4 installed in SPSS and the conditional effects of supervisor’s organizational embodiment on the mediated relationship of leader– member exchange on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes via organizational identification were tested using model 7. Findings suggest that leader–member exchange explains significant variance for predicting outcomes. Specifically, subordinate-rated leader-member exchange explained more variance in job satisfaction, affective commitment, and organizational identification than supervisor-rated leader-member exchange. Supervisor-rated leader-member exchange explained more variance in job performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity than subordinate-rated leader-member exchange. Findings also reveal that organizational identification explains significant variance for predicting subordinate outcomes. Findings for indirect effects confirmed that organizational identification mediates the relationship between leader–member exchange (both perspectives) and job satisfaction, affective commitment, job performance, and creativity. However, results also suggest that organizational identification mediates

xxii

between leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors for subordinate rated leadermember exchange only. The increase in conditional indirect effects of supervisor’s organizational embodiment (low to high) confirmed that high supervisor’s organizational embodiment moderates the mediated relationship between leader–member exchange (both perspectives) and all outcomes except citizenship behaviors. Results for conditional effects of supervisor’s organizational embodiment on the mediated relationship between leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors were significant for subordinate rated leader-member exchange only. Some limitations of the study are identified and implications for further research and practitioners are discussed at the end of thesis.

Keywords:

Social

Identity

Theory;

Leader-Member

Exchange;

Supervisor’s

organizational embodiment; Organizational identification; Job Satisfaction; Affective Commitment;

Job

Performance;

Citizenship

xxiii

Behaviors;

Creativity

Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Introduction Pakistan is relationship oriented country and supervisor or subordinate has natural relationships with each other beyond their working relationships. In relationship oriented cultures like Pakistani culture, the social structure is based on mutual respect, bonding and reciprocity. Therefore, in this case, the increased exchanges between supervisor and subordinate may not produce employee outcomes in all cases. The case may be more critical when the supervisor is not representative of his organization in subordinate’s perceptions. This may be due to the low level of shared characteristics between supervisor and organization. Therefore, here in this case subordinate may identify himself with his supervisor but not the organization itself. Managers working in Pakistani manufacturing and service organizations do not understand leader-member exchange. Normally, managers working in these organizational are least concerned about employee’s organizational identification (OI) as they treat others based on the personal relationship. This can be a severe case where supervisor share little characteristics with the organization (supervisor’s organizational embodiment is low). If the supervisor has little or no embodiment with the organization, increased relationship between supervisor and subordinate will have little or no benefit for the organization. Moreover, Pakistani managers due to relationship oriented relationship orientation expect natural relationships with subordinates. The problematic thing here is that most of the managers do not know how they can use these relationships for their organizational benefits. Therefore, investigating the relationship between subordinate and supervisor is vital for better making a better assessment about antecedents of employee’s positive attitudinal and behavior outcomes for the organization.

Leader-member exchange theory is one of the most practical and heavily research theory in social sciences. It has wider implications in theoretical and practical aspects of daily life. It is the most relevant leadership theory due to its individual, group and organizational level implications. It not only addresses the individualistic nature of relationship but also relationship oriented nature of relationship orientation between leader and member in any organization. As leader-member exchange relationship differs in relationship oriented cultures due to personal nature of relationships between supervisor and subordinate, it is vital to address leader-member exchange. Moreover, inconsistent results of leadermember exchange and outcomes relationship across cultures give an insight to further explore moderating and mediating mechanisms between these variables. This study is addressing this theoretical and practical issue by investigating supervisor’s organizational embodiment (SOE) in developing organizational identification. The majority of studies addressing leader-member exchange and outcomes relationship used subordinate’s perception of leader-member exchange. This study will address the issue from both perspectives. The only study addressing leader-member exchange and outcomes relationship predicted a single self-reported outcome and lack supervisor-rated outcomes. The present study will investigate leader-member exchange and outcomes (both self and supervisorrated) through organizational identification. To sum up, this study is first study addressing moderating effects of supervisor’s organizational embodiment (supervisor’s shared characteristic with the organization) leader-member exchange (Both supervisory and subordinate’s perspectives) and (self and supervisor-rated) outcomes relationships through organizational identification in three time-lags. This chapter is beginning with the brief introduction of a contextual and theoretical overview of the study, followed by theoretical background, evolution, the status of leader-member exchange theory and future calls by researchers. Further, this chapter discusses the problem statement, research objectives, theoretical and practical significance of the study. Finally, the chapter is closed

2

by defining the independent, mediating, moderating, and dependent variables of the study.

1.1. Background Leader-member exchange is the most influential and heavily researched theory of management sciences in last four decades. Leader-member exchange addresses relationships between the supervisor and subordinate’s work-related attitudes and behaviors and types of interactions they have (Day & Miscenko 2015). The main premise of the theory is related to the relationship quality between leader and the subordinate determines the quality of follower’s attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Wang, Kim, & Milne, 2016). In this way, these relationships bring enormous benefits to the organization in the form of positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). The theory focuses on the incremental and dyadic relationships essential for effective leadership by creating influence between supervisor and subordinate in different contexts like in teams, networks and departments within organizations (Wang, Fang, Qureshi, & Janssen, 2015). Most of earlier research on the leader-member exchange has focused on dyadic relationship’s intensity creating in-group and out-group. However, the theory has gone beyond the dyadic relationship to multi-level and social contexts in the organization (Bernerth, Walker, & Harris, 2015). The quality of the interactions developed between supervisor and subordinate

is

referred

as

the

leader-member

exchange

(Cropanzano,

Dasborough, & Weiss, 2016; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). Supervisor’s interactions with his subordinates include sharing of supervisor’s time, consideration and other resources that determine the quality of dyadic relationships. Supervisor shares resources based on the quality of relationships with their subordinates. The quality of the relationship is represented by the level of trust, liking and respect for each other (Day & Miscenko 2015). This quality of exchange between supervisor and subordinate creates in-group and out-group

3

around about a supervisor. Being in-group or out-group make a difference in the quality of supervisor’s resource sharing and subordinate’s attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in the organization (Wang, Xu, Liu, & Jiang, 2015). Earlier meta-analysis had focused on outcomes of leader-member exchange like supported a positive relationship between leader-member exchange and attitudinal outcomes like job satisfaction (JS) and affective commitment (AC) (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Leader-member exchange has a positive relationship with performance (Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016), citizenship behavior (Michel & Tews, 2016) and creativity (Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015). Despite heavy research in the area relationship between leader-member exchange and outcomes is still not clear. Scarce literature is available investigating

employee

outcomes

from

both

leader-member

exchange

perspectives including supervisor-rated and subordinate rated leader-member exchange. Results got from existing literature are not consistent. Schyns and Wolfram (2008) included both perspectives of leader-member exchange to predict diverse outcomes using a sample of 216 subordinates and their immediate supervisors from German banks and insurance companies. Findings of the study revealed significant positive relationships between subordinate-rated leadermember exchange and follower outcomes. Specifically, supervisor-rated leadermember exchange (LLMX) had a significant relationship with performance. However, supervisor-rated leader-member exchange did not predict job satisfaction and organizational commitment of subordinates. Paglis and Green (2002) conducted a research to investigate the effects of both sides of leadermember exchange quality on follower outcomes. Results based on a sample of 127 dyads revealed subordinate-rated leader-member exchange had an insignificant relationship with performance and organization-directed citizenship behavior (CBO). Researchers implied significant variations between findings of both perspectives and suggested for further inquiry on the subject. The metaanalysis from Martin, Gullaume, Thomas, Lee and Epitropaki (2016) examined

4

the effect of leader-member exchange on task performance and citizenship performance. Result so the meta-analysis revealed that there are significant positive

associations

between

leader-member

exchange

and

employee

performance. Results showed no significant differences in results on the basis of different leader-member exchange construct. All of this evidence provides us with a mixture of significant and insignificant relationships between leadermember exchange and outcomes. Findings reinforce the inconsistent relationship between supervisor-rated leader-member exchange and outcomes. Authors emphasized the need to explore various moderated mediation models for understanding

the

leader-member

exchange

development

using

more

sophisticated research designs (Martin et al., 2016). The vast majority of studies conducted on leadership outcomes in last four decades comprise Western contexts and relatively lesser studies in non-Western settings showed a substantial difference in leadership outcomes for both contexts (Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Anand, Hu, Liden and Vidyarthi (2011) have noted that leader-member exchange results are not similar in relationship oriented cultures like Asia and other regions. Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003) found a significant relationship between leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior in the United States. However, Lio and Ngo (2009) found no relationship between leader-member exchange and Citizenship Behavior in China. Leader-member exchange is weakly related to job satisfaction and affective commitment in relationship oriented cultures (Mehta, 2009). However, in an individualistic culture like the United States, these relationships are strong. Rockstuhl and others (2012) have found inconsistencies in leader-member exchange quality across cultures (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Kumar and Singh (2012) revealed that exchange relationships are not related to turnover intentions testing data based on an Indian sample. Inconsistencies in leader-member exchange outcomes across cultures needs consideration about possible moderators and mediators. Relationship oriented contexts naturally has more exchange relationships (Hofstede, 1980) and

5

should naturally create more harmony and bonding between the dyadic relationship between supervisor and subordinate. Because the main assumption of relationship oriented culture is based on the binding and intense mutual relationships between individuals, groups, teams and organization (Roberts, Jadalla, Jones-Oyefeso, Winslow, & Taylor, 2015). Based on this assumption, researchers may argue meaningful consequences for employees, groups and organization. Theoretically, increased leader-member exchange creates a sense of attachment with organizational as organizational identification which creates diverse employee attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). It is surprising to see leader-member exchange has low or no relationship with employee outcomes in relationship oriented cultures (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). If relationship oriented culture has relationship orientation, then there must be a reason of leader-member exchange not producing desired employee outcomes. Exchanges between supervisor and subordinate are related to the organization or based on personal relationships. The basis for this relationship may differ based on characteristics of supervisor and subordinate (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). According to social identity theory (SIT), individuals cognitively evaluate their position and accordingly categorize themselves in the social network. This categorization helps these individuals to identify themselves with a group or organization (Tajfel, 2010). Similarly, if subordinate perceives his relationships with his supervisor based on work-related exchanges on organizational behalf, he may also identify himself with his organization. Ultimately, employee’s identification with organization leads him to produce more intense attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. On the other hand, if an employee has exchange relationships with his supervisor on personal grounds, like guanxi leadership in the Chinese context (Chen & Tjosvold, 2007; Gu, Hung, & Tse, 2008), he may not identify himself with his organization. And in this case, if he does not identify himself with his organization than the outcomes of these relationships may not be strong. This indirect path of leader-member exchange and outcomes can explain the inconsistencies across culture.

6

Surprisingly, using social identity theory, so far only one study has tested leadermember exchange and outcome relationship through organizational identification in relationship oriented context (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015). Loi, Chan and Lam (2014) tested the indirect relationship of leader-member exchange and job satisfaction in Chinese context through organizational identification and provided proofs of full mediation. However, this study has limitations of self-rated measures and single outcome. Researchers have called for further exploration of this mediating mechanism using social identity theory with other outcomes including supervisor-rated outcomes (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015; Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). An employee’s perception of his supervisor’s shared identity, acts, deeds, interactions as organizational representative due to shared characteristics is discussed

in

the

literature

as

supervisor’s

organizational

embodiment

(Eisenberger, Shoss, Karagonlar, Gonzalez‐Morales, Wickham, & Buffardi, 2014; Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2013). Supervisor’s organizational embodiment is relatively a new and less researched concept in leader-member exchange literature. Major research evidence in leader-member exchange theory has treated supervisors as organizational representatives (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014; Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Evidence about the role of supervisor as an organizational representative in leader-member exchange relationship has got attention to explain variance in leader-member exchange and outcomes relationships. For example, Eisenberger and colleagues have addressed leader-member

exchange

and

affective

commitment

relationships

using

supervisor as an organizational agent (Eisenberger, Karagonlar, Stinglhamber, Neves, Becker, Gonzalez-Morales, & Steiger-Mueller, 2010). Supervisor’s interactions about processes in an organization are assumed by employees as working on the organization’s behalf and employee normally generalizes these exchanges in the organization to organization (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). According to the social identity theory assumption, the employee cognitively evaluates supervisor as an

7

organizational representative and categorize and identify himself with the organization. However, employees do not always see their relationship with supervisor as only as organizational agents. Especially in relationship oriented cultures, where a supervisor may have exchanges beyond organizational working routines, this situation may become intense (Zhang, Li, & Harris, 2015). Supervisors may differ regarding the degree of similarity in characteristics with their organization. In this case, outcomes of leader-member exchange relationships may differ with different level of supervisor’s organizational embodiment (Eisenberger et al., 2010). Now if there is a degree of this perceived similarity in supervisor and organization’s characteristics then subordinate may see closeness with supervisor as an attachment with the organization (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). In another case, supervisor and subordinate relationships will have

no

relationship

with

organizational

identification

and

outcomes.

Particularly, it is relevant to investigate the role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in a relationship oriented culture where leader-member exchange based on personal exchange relationships and outcomes. Here if supervisor’s organizational embodiment is also low, subordinate may identify himself with the leader but not with his organization. However, the role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment has been overlooked in the development of organizational identification leading this identification with the organization to employee outcomes.

1.2. Problem Definition / Research Gap and Rationale of the

Study Leader-member exchange research has vitally addressed the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Day & Miscenko 2015; Dulebohn et al., 2012). Most of the research evidence regarding leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal outcomes and employee’s behavioral outcomes is largely available

8

from the developed countries and there are a few studies available from developing countries. Second, a major part of leader-member exchange research has measured leader-member

exchange

from

member’s

perspective

and

supervisory

perspective on the leader-member exchange has been relatively less emphasized. Researchers have recently called for investigating leader-member exchange and outcomes relationship from both perspectives due to the low level of correlation between them (Erdogan & Bauer, 2015). Recent literature on leader-member exchange and outcomes emphasized the need of measuring supervisory rated outcomes with time-lagged designs to minimize the common method variance problems (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). Third, leader-member exchange deals with dyadic nature of the relationship between supervisors and subordinates (Liden, Anand, & Vidyarthi, 2016; Sherony & Green, 2002). A relationship oriented culture where relationships orientation is more prevalent so need to address leader-member exchange and outcomes is more vital for practical implications (Erdogan & Liden, 2006). However, results of leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal outcomes and employee’s behavioral outcomes in relationship oriented countries seem inconsistent compared to individualistic countries (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Inconsistent leader-member exchange and outcomes relationships call for possible moderators and mediators in this path. There is still a gap to address generalizability of leader-member exchange theory across western and non-western contexts. Fourth, cross-fertilization of leader-member exchange and social identity theories can open new horizons in research as increased leader-member exchange helps follower in developing identification with the organization (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015). Social identity theory gives prospects that organizational identification may be a fine mediating mechanism between leader-member exchange and outcome relationships. However, recently only one study has

9

addressed organizational identification as a mediator between leader-member exchange and single self-reported employee outcome (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). Researchers have called for testing organizational identification as a mediator with other outcomes including supervisory rated outcomes. Therefore, research on organizational identification as mediator needs further replication and extension using better research designs (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015; Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). Differences in member’s perceptions about supervisor as representative of organization on the basis of shared characteristics with organization make quite a difference in employee outcomes (Eisenberger et al., 2014; Shoss et al., 2013). Theoretically, if employees’ perception about supervisor’s organizational embodiment is low, he may identify himself with his supervisor (Gu, Tang, & Jiang, 2015) but not with his organization as a result of increased leader-member exchange. However, the role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in determining employee’s organizational identification as mediating mechanism between

leader-member

exchange

and

outcomes

has

been

completely

overlooked. Therefore, the role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment needs further consideration in determining differences in follower’s organizational identification due to increased leader-member exchange relationships. Last, the leader-member exchange has wider implications in relationship oriented cultures due to relationship orientation (Lee, Scandura, & Sharif, 2014). Pakistan is relationship oriented country and research on the leader-member exchange is still in initial stages. The role of organizational identification in leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal and behavioral outcome has been less emphasized (if any) in both theoretical and applied perspectives in Pakistan. Interaction of leader-member exchange and supervisor’s organizational embodiment using social identity theory is not emphasized in the literature. Managers working in Pakistani organizations have little information about leader-member exchange or organizational identity. These managers due to relationship oriented in cultural expect some natural relationships with

10

subordinates. However, most of the managers do not know about how they can use these relationships for their organizational benefits. Based on above theoretical and contextual realities there is a is a dire need to explore leader-member exchange relationships for organizational benefits and to identify what can or cannot improve subordinate’s attitudes and behaviors in organization’s favor.

1.3. Aims of the study The present study is aimed at finding the actual nature of relationship between leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. This study also makes an effort to figure out the nature of apparent inconsistencies in ealier literature regarding the leader-member exchange and outcomes. Using social identity theory, the current study carried out the scientific investigation about the role of organizational identification and supervisor’s organizational

embodiment

in

leader-member

exchange

and

outcomes

relationship. To achive this, study aims to carry out detailed literature review on leader-member exchange and outcomes relationship. Next, study aims to build strong theoretical foundation about the role of organizational identification and supervisor’s organizational embodiment using social identity theory. Study also aims to operationalize the variables included in the study on the basis of several research questions identified. Morover, study aims to use rigorous analytical tools for testing the hypothetical deductions based on literature and theory to evaluate the entire research process. At the end of entire exercise, study aims to identify the research limitations of present research, to provide the receipient of the research with proper theoretical and practical recommendations on the basis of significance of the study. Research objectives and questions of the research are summarized below: -

11

1.3.1.

Research Questions

Present research consists of research questions listed below: Research Question # 1: What is the association between leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal outcomes? Research Question # 2: What is the association between leader-member exchange and employee’s behavioral outcomes? Research Question # 3: What is the association between leader-member exchange and employee’s organizational identification? Research Question # 4: What

is

the

association

between

organizational

identification and employee’s attitudinal outcomes? Research Question # 5: What

is

the

association

between

organizational

identification and employee’s behavioral outcomes? Research Question # 6: Are leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal outcomes related through organizational identification? Research Question # 7: Are leader-member exchange and employee’s behavioral outcomes related through organizational identification? Research Question # 8: Does supervisor’s organizational embodiment moderates the

relationship

of

leader-member

exchange

and

employee’s behavioral outcomes through organizational identification? Research Question # 9: Does supervisor’s organizational embodiment moderates the

relationship

of

leader-member

exchange

and

employee’s behavioral outcomes through organizational identification?

12

1.3.2.

Objectives of the study

On the whole objective of the study is to explore the role of supervisor’s organizational

embodiment

in

leader-member

exchange,

organizational

identification and employee outcomes. The proposed moderated mediation in the relationship between the independent and dependent variables is exhibited in the research model of the study. Detailed objectives of the study are:o To review the literature on leader-member exchange and social identity theory and understand the possibilities of cross fertilization of theories. o To understand the role of social identity theory to explain inconsistent results leader-member exchange and outcomes. o To understand the association between leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal outcomes. o To understand the association between leader-member exchange and employee’s behavioral outcomes. o To understand the role of social identity theory on the effects of leadermember exchange and outcome relationships. o To understand the association between organizational identification and employee’s attitudinal outcomes. o To understand the association between organizational identification and employee’s behavioral outcomes. o To understand the leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal outcomes through organizational identification. o To understand the leader-member exchange and employee’s behavioral outcomes through organizational identification. o To understand the moderating role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in leader-member exchange and employee’s attitudinal outcomes through organizational identification.

13

o To understand the moderating role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in leader-member exchanges (LMX) and employee’s behavioral outcomes through organizational identification. o To develop theoretically testable statements and framework for testing hypotheses on the basis of social identity theory o To collect data and test it using sophisticated tools in order to accept or reject hypotheses derived from social identity theory and existing literature. o To discuss the results of the study using compare and contrast perspective using social identity theory and existing literature. o To discuss theoretical implications of the study for future researchers to replicate, extended, and generate knowledge. o To provide recommendations for practitioners to add, modify, or change existing practices for favorable organizational outcomes.

1.4. Significance of the study

1.4.1.

Theoretical Significance

First, the recent call for cross-fertilization of theories in leader-member exchange research is addressed by bringing leader-member exchange and social identity theories together (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015). Social identity theory can better explain the role of organizational identification and its outcomes regarding leader-member exchange outcomes (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). Second, leader-member exchange is a heavily researched topic in last four decades; however, organizational identification as mediating mechanism between leader-member exchange and outcomes relationship has relatively been less emphasized. Moreover, researchers have recently emphasized the need of exploring leader-member exchange and outcome relationships from both supervisor and subordinate’s perspectives (Erdogan & Bauer, 2015). There is an

14

increased need to use supervisory rated outcomes as consequences of leadermember exchange relationships through organizational identification with timelagged designs (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). This study will address the indirect relationship of leader-member exchange and supervisory rated outcomes through organizational identification from both leader-member exchange perspectives and time-lagged design. Third, supervisor’s organizational embodiment is quite a novel concept in behavioral research and the best part of the preceding research has been conducted in developed countries (Eisenberger et al., 2014; Shoss et al., 2013). The invisible proof is presented (if any) from developing countries regarding the role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in leader-member exchange and employee outcomes relationships. Moreover, differences in leader-member exchange outcomes due to differences in perceptions of the supervisor as organizational embodiment on the development of organizational identification have not been addressed before. Especially, in collective cultures, leader-member exchange may differ due to nature of the relationship between supervisor and subordinate. In relationship oriented cultures, the relationship is based on personal and social exchanges. So, it is essential to explore the role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in making differences in leader-member exchange outcomes. Present study attends the gap by exploring supervisor’s organizational embodiment’s conditional effects on leader-member exchange’s indirect relationship to outcomes through organizational identification. Last, this study attends the researcher’s call for researching leader-member exchange in non-Western settings and relationship oriented cultures (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). This better explains the generalizability of leader-member exchange theory across cultures. Using social identity theory, this study explains the theoretical differences in outcomes of leader-member exchange in Western and not- Western contexts. In this way, this study refines the theoretical boundary of leader-member exchange theory and will extend social identity theory using differences in supervisor’s organizational embodiment. In this way, this study

15

adds significant evidence in existing body of research in developing countries (Lee, Scandura, & Sharif, 2014). Moreover, in comparison to developed countries, this study will open new horizons for further research in leadermember exchange if theoretical differences are found in outcomes due to supervisor’s organizational embodiment.

1.4.2.

Practical Significance

The research is conducted in non-Western context and will provide practical guidance for managers working in organizations having relationship oriented orientation. As it differs from research conducted in Western settings, therefore, recommendations provided by this study is more relevant and fruitful for local practitioners. Moreover, in relationship oriented societies due to relationship orientation leader-member exchange with social and personal exchanges goes beyond the work-related exchanges (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). This study will guide practitioners about the need to use exchange relationships for the betterment of the organization. Finally, an organization can benefit from this study about how to recruit and train managers such that they are more like organizational representatives and the exchanges relationships are maintained such that these relationships are work-related and benefit the organization.

1.5. Justification for the selection of variables The present study aimed at resolving the apparent inconsistencies in leader-member exchange and outcomes relationships across social contexts. Therefore, study tests the leader-member exchange and outcomes relationship from both leader-member exchange perspectives. Assessing leader-member exchange from both supervisor and subordinate’s perspective not only help the comparison of actual and inflated ratings on leader-member exchange and to figure of the real strength of relationships. To address the generalizability issue, both attitudinal and behavioral outcomes are included in outcomes. The most dominant variables used in literature for assessing generalizability are selected in this study.

16

Attitudinal variables include job satisfaction and affective commitment. To spread the scope of study both in-role and extra role performance related variables that are considered most relevant are selected in behavioral outcomes. Behavioral outcomes of the study include job performance and creativity (CR) as in role performance related variables. Citizenship Behavior directed towards organization and towards coworkers is also included in this study as extra role behavioral variables. Using social identity theory’s approach, I have identified supervisor’s organizational embodiment as a moderator and organizational identification as a mediator in the light of theoretical basis and recent calls for research.

1.6. Definition and description of Study Variables

1.6.1.

Leader-member exchange

Leader-member exchange is defined as both uni-dimensional and multidimensional construct and measured accordingly (Joseph, Newman, & Sin, 2011; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Scandura & Graen, 1984). A major portion of leader-member exchange comprise subordinate or subordinate-rated leadermember exchange, however, recently a stream of researchers have also focused on supervisor-rated leader-member exchange (Schyns & Day, 2010). The leadermember exchange discussed in this dissertation is described as a uni-dimensional construct from both leader/supervisor and subordinate/member perspectives. Leader-member exchange is defined as: Leader-member exchange is a system of sub-units and their associations comprising a dyad i.e. supervisor and the subordinate having interdependent behavioral schemes and mutual outcome instrumentalities that create conceptions of environments, cause maps and value (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986).

17

Supervisor’s organizational embodiment

1.6.2.

Eisenberger and colleagues (2010) proposed supervisor’s organizational embodiment as uni-dimensional construct measuring employee’s perceptions about his supervisor as organizational agent based on supervisor’s shared characteristics with the organization. Based on shared characteristics with the organization, acts and deeds of the supervisor are identified with the organization and his actions or treatment with subordinates is perceived on organizational behalf. Supervisor’s organizational embodiment is defined as: The degree to which an employee perceives his supervisor’s identity, acts, deeds, interactions with him as organizational representative due to shared characteristics

is

defined

as

supervisor’s

organizational

embodiment

(Eisenberger et al., 2002).

1.6.3.

Organizational identification

Organizational identification is a uni-dimensional construct comprising self-concept about organizational membership and has cognitive, emotional or both elements (Harris & Cameron, 2005; Shamir & Kark, 2004). In this dissertation, organizational identification is described with social identity theory perspective and measured with one of the most used measurement tool (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Organizational identification is defined as: Organizational identification is the perception of an employee about recognizing him with his organization and seeing himself identical with his organization due to attachment, affect and relationships (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Pratt, 1998).

18

1.6.4.

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is measured uni-dimensionally and multi-dimensionally. In-depth studies on job satisfaction measured job satisfaction as multidimensional construct measuring satisfaction with different facets including satisfaction with pay, promotion, work, supervisor and co-workers (JDI; Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969). I have taken job satisfaction as a holistic construct as we are not concerned to investigate in-depth analysis of job satisfaction. So, to know an overall satisfaction status of an employee, I have taken job satisfaction as a holistic construct. Therefore, we defined job satisfaction as the uni-dimensional construct. Job satisfaction is defined as: The degree to which an employee holds positive feelings about his job are known as Job satisfaction in organizational behavior literature (Odom, Boxx, & Dunn, 1990).

1.6.5.

Affective commitment

Researchers have defined commitment as a holistic and multi-dimensional construct. Although researchers have found different dimensions of commitment including affective, continuance and normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), the affective commitment has been seen as real commitment beneficent and having wider positive implications for the organization (Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004). Therefore, I have taken affective commitment as an attitudinal outcome for the dissertation. Affective commitment is defined as “An affective or emotional attachment to the organization such that the strongly

committed

individual

identifies with, is

involved in

membership in, the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 2)

19

and

enjoys

1.6.6.

Job performance

Research has viewed job performance from both objective and subjective measures (Sue-Chan, Chen, & Lam 2011). The objective definition of job performance is related to the level of achievement on assigned goals. However, this definition is relatively less acceptable due to other hindrances present in the workplace that affect performance measured on objective grounds. Therefore, I have defined job performance as a holistic construct on subjective terms that views performance on behavioral episodes that give expected value for the organization. Job performance is defined as: The total expected value to the organization of the discrete behavioral episodes that an individual carries out over a standard period of time (Motowildo, 2003).

1.6.7.

Citizenship behavior

Despite many meta-analyses, organizational behavior literature is still not clear about the nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior. Researchers have treated citizenship behavior as a latent overall measure, aggregate construct and multidimensional construct (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998). I have described citizenship behavior as a two-dimensional construct with a measure of the positive behavior of an employee towards organization and coworkers (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Organizational citizenship behavior is defined as: Citizenship behavior is the positive voluntary behavior of an employee that is beyond the recognition in formal paybacks from the employer and it enhances the positive effects and makes the organizational climate more supportive (Organ, 1988).

20

1.6.8.

Creativity

Creativity is defined as an objective or subjective outcome in organizational behavior literature. Objective definitions of creativity include the level of achievement on specific goals and objectives (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Subjective criteria include judgments on creativity assessments on different subjective criteria, self and supervisory ratings on creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Self-rated assessment of creativity is subjected to common method variance; therefore, supervisory rated assessments are preferable (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). In this dissertation, creativity is described as supervisor’s assessment as a holistic construct on creative, novel and innovative ideas or solutions to tasks. Creativity is defined as: The tendency to generate or make out ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be valuable in solving problems, communicating with others and entertaining ourselves and others is termed as creativity (Franken, 1988. page 396).

21

Chapter 2: Literature Review 2. Literature Review 2.1. Review of Organizational identification Identity concept is widely discussed in literature but the specification of the conception is not consistent in literature. Identity is self-referential and defines itself in relational, comparative and collective aspects (Martin, Johnson, & French, 2011). Four perspectives on identity are discussed in literature including functional, social constructionist, psychodynamic and postmodern perspective. The functional perspective on identity suggests that identity is the collection of objective and tangible features that stem from the environmental cues. Social constructionist view claims identity is constructed through collective cognitions of individuals working in any organization. It includes the collective understanding of individual’s perceptions, interactions and cognitive evaluation of the situational factors. Psychodynamic perspective suggests that organizational identity is an unacknowledged process and identification itself is an imagination. Postmodern perspective views organizational identity as an ongoing process of becoming. It means that identity is just an aggregate of identity-related narratives for a present moment of the specific time interval (He & Brown, 2011). Historically,

in

organizational

behavior

literature,

organizational

identification has been viewed as an underlying bonding force or psychological state between worker and the organization. Despite immense focus from researchers, the nature of psychological state covered by the organizational identification construct still requires further attention. Different researchers described the construct with diverse cues.

Organizational

identification

as

construct

finds

its

roots

in the

conception of human being’s tendency to identify, categorize, and get motivated with attraction, bonding and commitment to their groups (Foote, 1951). Brown conceptualized identification with four cues including a feeling of attraction, loyalty, alignment of mutual goals and significant placement in reference to organizational membership (Brown, 1969). This means that if an individual has some degree of attraction, bonding, has some loyalty to the organization, feels that he has shared goals and fate with the organization and finds himself as a significant member of the organization then he identifies himself with his organization. Furthermore, Patchen (1970) included another dimension as acts of defending organizational values, goals and policies along with the perception of shared characteristics and a feeling of belongingness or solidarity. However, instead of defending organizational goals, values and policies, Hall, Schneider and Nygren (1970) and Schneider (1971) included acceptance of organizational goals, values and policies as a core aspect of organizational identification as a construct. Another conception of organizational identification comes from “Talk and discourse perspective” by George Cheney (1983), one of the most prominent researchers in the field of organizational identification literature. He describes organizational identification as an active communication process where talk and discourse work as means of linking and identifying him in relation to a certain social scene, group, or organization (Cheney, 1983). Summarizing the underlying cues and dimensions of organizational identification include a feeling of solidarity and belongingness (Rotondi, 1975), attraction and loyalty with organization, alignment and acceptance of shared goals (Lee, 1971), social categorization and identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), self-referential membership with group or organization (Pratt, 1998) and cognitive evaluation (Rousseau, 1998).

23

2.2. Organizational identification and Social identity theory Most dominant, recent and widely accepted conception of organizational identification comes from the literature on social identity theory. According to social identity theory, human beings have a tendency to simplify their social world through the construction of self-concept and comparison with others about their social existence. Consequently, this cognitive evaluation leads them to categorize themselves in the social landscape. Positive attraction, bonding, linkages and categorization help them to identify with particular group or organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). A sense, feeling and perception of distinctiveness in relational and comparative existence compose identity and social identity theory relates individual’s self-concept of the organization to a collective role in the organization. The perception of oneness and belongingness with the organization is referred as organizational identification. This perception is

based

on

the

informational

cues

evaluated

through

human

cognitions (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Proponents of social identity theory view organizational identification as a psychological or cognitive state where individuals cognitively evaluate and psychologically attached themselves with the fate of the group based on shared characteristics (Ashforth

&

Mael,

1989; Dutton,

Dukerich,

&

Harquail,

1994; Rousseau, 1998). Social identity theory suggests that human beings cognitively evaluate, categorize and classify themselves into various social classifications. Social classifications are based on relational interactions, prototypical

characteristics

and

comparative

positioning. This

cognitive

segmentation helps human beings to identify themselves into these social categorizations. Identification is a perceptual or cognitive construct representing belongingness and perception of oneness with a social entity. This construct is based on cognitions and is not related to affect or behaviors of human beings. Identification allows human beings to experience the shared fate of the 24

group or organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The perception of oneness gives human beings a sense of being an in-group member. Although researchers have also described other dimensions of organizational identification including affective, evaluative and behavioral aspect, organizational identification as a cognitive construct is prevalent amongst the literature. Social identity theory emphasizes on the dynamic aspect of organizational identification

and

focuses

on

the

process

of

emerging

identification. Identification comes from the interplay of self, situation and symbolic interactions in social landscape (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). There is some degree of value and emotional significance in the form of outcomes attached with organizational identification. Therefore, affective attitudes and organizational behaviors are significant outcomes of the organizational identification (Ashforth, 2001).

2.2.1. Research

Process of identification on

the

process

of

identification

is

not

mature

and

for researchers, it is a "low hanging fruit" for further inquiry (Ashforth et al., 2008). Identification has been discussed as a stable and dynamic construct. Researchers have discussed the process of identification from both top-down and bottom-up approaches (Bartels, Pruyn, De Jong, & Joustra, 2007; Mayhew, 2007). Top-down approach discusses the process of identification as of how organizational configurations play a role in the development of identity and organizational identification. Social identity theory emphasizes the role of situational cues available in organizational configurations leading to a sense of distinctiveness and prestige in groups or organizations. When the employee or newcomer’s identity is questioned by self or others through the process of "sensebreaking", he tries to cognitively evaluate and make a sense out of situational cues available in the organization through the process of

25

"sensemaking". Informational, behavioral and attitudinal cues available help individual to perform the process of "sensegiving" and make it easy for an employee to complete the "sensemaking" process. Ultimately, the complete process leads an employee to evaluate and identify the relative or comparative status in a group or an organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). The bottom-up approach suggests that individuals differentiate from or identifies with the organization due to their cognitions, feelings and thoughts. Here in this approach, an individual enacts its identity through his actions, behaviors, or performance and this performs the process of "sensegiving". Afterwards, individual cognitively evaluate the feedback and completes the process of "sensemaking" to identify his position, standing and the status in a group or organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). Another procedural description of organizational identity classifies the identification into emulation and affinity (Pratt, 1998). Emulation process comprises the individual’s "sensebreaking" process and efforts to adapt him to make himself more congruent with organizational identity. In contrast, affinity is mere recognition and realization of congruence between self and the organization. This comes from the process of cognitive evaluation of situational cues

using

the

process

of

"sensegiving".

These

classifications

are

not mutually independent and the process of affinity may be preceded by the multiple episodes of emulation (Ashforth et al., 2008).

2.2.2.

Measurement and Types of Identification

Measurement of organizational identification has a lack of integrity and consensus. Various operationalizations have been used by researchers to measure organizational identification as a construct. These include operationalizations of Brown (1969), Cheney’s (1982) a 25-item organizational identification

26

Questionnaire (OIQ), Mael & Ashforth (1992)’s six-item scale. Although no scale has fully established its content and psychometric validity, the scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) has been used frequently to operationalize organizational identification construct. This short scale has demonstrated a high-level of alpha reliability. However, more attention and research is required to operationalize organizational identification that is conceptually relevant and exhaustive. Rousseau

classified

identification

into

two

classes

i.e.

situated

identification and deep structure identification. Situated identification describes the in role identification with any particular situation, circumstances and roles. The perception of oneness generated from the situational factors leads to situated identification as classified by the Rousseau (Rousseau, 1998). However, as this type of identification comes from situational cues and situations do change over time, situated identification is less stable and has little affinity. However, the conception of organizational identification derived from social identity theory is more stable and have more affinity with the organization. This conception is more relevant to deep structure identification as classified by Rousseau. Deep structure identification is deeply rooted in the perception of individuals working in any organization. Deep structure identification comprises the most dominant identity over the other less evident identities (Rousseau, 1998). Researchers have argued that individuals have multiple identities in any organization including identification with a supervisor, identification with a group and identification with an organization. Organizations as social units hold multiple identities. Organizations comprise multiple departments, sub-units, occupational work-groups and teams. Based on the worker’s affiliation an organization may have different identities (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). An individual may identify with his boss or leader, group, or the organization as a whole. On the basis of work unit identification with dyad or

27

group can be classified as lower level identification and the identification with an organization can be labeled as high-level identification (Ashforth et al., 2008). Individual identity is salient in groups but organizational identity is superordinate on these lower level identities. These identities are based on the organizational

configurations.

Homogeneous

organizations

may

have

symmetrical identifications but heterogeneous organizations are an aggregate of diverse blended management styles and therefore are composed of different identities (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Multiple identities may hold in the heterogeneous organization and may create inter-group and inter-organizational conflicts. However, homogenous organizations help to create an aggregate higher level identification. Researchers suggest that organizations have multiple identities that are different and diverse conceptualizations. However, the question arises that if all individuals have different conceptualizations then the organization will have identities equal to the number of employees? So, organizational identity is the individual’s self-concept and the perception of its organization due to the situational cues available in the organizational configurations (He & Brown, 2011). Research on levels of identification recommends combining, integrating and reconciling multiple identities in the larger interest of the organizations (Ashforth et al., 2008).

2.2.3.

Antecedents and outcomes

Identification based on social categorization is due to distinctiveness, prestige, out-group salience and other group formation factors like nature of interactions between group members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Because of the daily interactions, employee’s supervisor or leader has a significant role in the development of organizational identification. Transformational, ethical and moral leadership are related to organizational identification. Leader-member exchange

28

is found to be a significant antecedent of organizational identification (Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007). Identification is based on an identity means a distinct characteristic or quality that enables an individual to perceive himself with a group or an organization. Consequently, group members may act in congruence with expectations and welfares of their group or organizations. Organizational identification may cause individual and organizational outcomes. Individual outcomes include self-enhancement, fulfillment of the need for affiliation, uncertainty reduction and a feeling of order. As organizational identification leads to these positive individual outcomes, this creates positive outcomes for the organization. Organizational outcomes include cooperation, more effort, participation, decision-making, intrinsic motivation, job performance, job satisfaction, Citizenship Behavior and creativity (Ashforth et al., 2008). Identification is related with outcomes related to cohesion and cooperation with organizational tasks, goals and objectives (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Because identification comes from the cognitive evaluation about the perception of oneness, it leads to affective commitment and internalization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Organizational identification is related to positive outcomes including job performance (Walumbwa, AvoLoi, & Zhu, 2008), creativity (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011), Job satisfaction and Citizenship Behavior (Ashforth et al., 2008).

2.2.4.

Organizational

identification

versus

Affective commitment Organizational identification as a construct has often been confused with affective commitment but two constructs are conceptually and empirically distinct (Bedeian, 2007). Researchers have compared the conception of organizational identification with affective commitment and have time and again separated conceptually and empirically. 29

Affective commitment is at the heart of three sub-dimensions (affective, normative and continuance commitment) of organizational commitment as it is real

commitment

about

which

authors

are

concerned.

Organizational

identification focuses on the individual’s self-definition through organizational membership individuals perceive or treat themselves and the organization as one entity. In the case of organizational commitment, individuals working in the organization and the organization itself remain two separate entities in individual’s perceptions (Edwards, 2005). Organizational identification as a construct is organization-specific and confers a shared destiny with the organization. For this reason, organizational identification

involves

psychological bonding and

attachment with the

organization. However, organizational commitment does not necessarily include any psychological attachment (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). It is pertinent to note that organizational identification is a cognitive evaluation and a self-concept of the comparative position in a group or an organization. On the other hand, affective commitment includes an affective or emotional response and it does not include individual’s self-concept (Rousseau, 1998). Organizational identification comprises an active ongoing process of cognitive evaluations and affective commitment is an outcome in the form of actions, patterns and behaviors. Hence, organizational identification is a subjective psychological state dependant on the social scene and individual’s cognitions

but

affective

commitment

is

an

affective

and

evaluative

outcome (Cheney & Tompkins, 1987). In fact, it can be said that organizational identification leads to organizational commitment (Ashforth et al., 2008). In this way, organizational identification is likely to be an important antecedent of

30

affective commitment. Therefore, these two constructs are conceptually and empirically distinguishable (Mael, 1988).

2.2.5.

Problems, inconsistencies, Calls for future

research Research

has

recently

focused

on

social

identification

due

to

communication, interaction, feedback in creating organizational identification but it is not enough for two reasons. First, very few numbers of studies (Flynn, 2005; Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001) are available addressing interaction and communication as a reason for organizational identification. Second, studies that are available are still not clear about exact nature of relationship about dyadic interactions between supervisor and employees. The role of social exchange relationship in forming organizational identification still requires further attention. Interaction of employees, peers, supervisors and other parts of organizational configuration create a feeling of attachment, desire, and motivation to identify an employee with his organization. Perception of identification with organization comes from cognitive evaluation and perceptual association with his organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). In this perspective, if we take increased interaction between supervisors and subordinates can motivate the employee to create the perception of attachment and

oneness

with

their

organization

in

the

form

of

organizational

identification (DeConinck, 2011). Therefore, extending leader-member exchange theory with social identity theory with our focus on social interactions of employees with their supervisors or bosses is one of the key objectives of this research. This is an important area for further investigation of the nature of the dyadic relationship between supervisor and subordinate and how an employee identifies himself as a consequence of these exchange relationships. By investigating dyadic relationship with organizational identification it will have a 31

better prediction about employee’s psychological attachment that motivates him to work for organizational objectives and outcomes.

32

2.3. Review of Leader-member exchange Leader-member exchange theory has all characteristics of valid and generalized theory as a good theory is practical (Lewin, 1951), has precise concepts and definitions (Bacharach, 1989), clear propositions (Durrant, 1975), promotes knowledge in particular research domain (Achinstein, 1968) and has contributions based on contribution to previous work (Sutton & Staw, 2007). Leader-member exchange theory is the heavily researched theory in leadership research and increasing the speed of publications has made it the top theory of leadership. Unlike earlier leadership research, recent research has established leadership as a two-way active process between leader and subordinate comprising mutual exchanges. These reciprocal exchanges include tangible,

intangible, work-related and

personal

exchanges.

Leader-member

exchange theory focuses on quality of exchange relationships between leader and subordinate that helps in the emergence of effective leadership (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Leader-member exchange literature has a long history of evolution including

changing

nature

of

its

theoretical

dimensions

and

considerations (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Graen, 1976). Focus of leader-member exchange comprising the development of basic concepts, definitions and measures of leader-member exchange (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). Leader-member exchange theory finds its root in vertical dyad leadership introduced in the 1970s (Dansereau et al., 1975). Researchers focused on the nature and the dimensionality of leader-member exchange at the infancy stage of theory and construct was not theoretically defined with clarity. Later on, research shifted to focus on theoretically defining the construct and developing

33

miscellaneous scales for measuring leader-member exchange (Haga, Graen, & Dansereau, 1974). In 1980s researchers elaborated the construct including subdimensions

and

cues

and

reached

to

the

basic

definition

of

the

construct (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986, p. 580). Researchers has seen basis of supervisor and subordinate relationship including

competence,

interpersonal

skills (Graen,

1976),

consideration, (Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1976), trust (Schiemann, 1977), support (Graen & Schiemann, 1978), reciprocity and satisfaction with exchange

patterns (Graen

&

Ginsburgh,

1977).

Generally,

researchers

define leader-member exchange as the quality of exchange relationships between supervisor and subordinate but underlying dimensions of these exchanges remained variant from researcher to researcher across the continued span of leader-member exchange evolution (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) Generally, quality of relationships between supervisor and subordinate is classified

as work-related and

personal

exchange

relationships. Work

related relationships normally consist of employment contracts and purely jobrelated transactions or interactions. Leader-member exchange research categories such relations as low-quality exchanges and member falling in these exchanges are considered as out-groups of leader-member dyadic relationships. Exchange relationships that move beyond the work-related transactions and develop more personal nature of exchange relationships are treated as high-quality exchange relationships and subordinates with high-quality exchange relationships fall in ingroup of dyadic relationships. This classification of in-groups and out-groups is the essence of leader-member exchange theory and is helpful to understand the organizational attitudes and behaviors (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). From the inception of leader-member exchange construct, there is an unending and ongoing debate about the sub-dimensions and underlying cues.

34

There is a lack of consensus on this issue as research on diverse cues and subdimensions of leader-member exchange relationships is quite dispersed and scattered. There is a dearth in integration of literature regarding sub-dimensions of the construct and researchers have widely included various information cues including mutual respect, mutual trust, mutual interpersonal attraction, mutual loyalty, confidence, understanding, consideration, attention, support, sensitivity, competence, influence, latitude, motivation, authority, time spent, concern, feedback, better task assignments, resource allocation, distribution of rewards, social

distance,

common

fate

sense, quality of

communication

and

internationalization (Schriesheim et al., 1999). Leader-member exchange dimensionality has been broadly classified into two high order dimensions i.e. quality (attitudinal aspect) and coupling (behavioral aspect). The quality aspect of leader-member exchange includes attitudinal cues like attraction, consideration, attachment, etc. The coupling includes behaviorally oriented cues of leader-member exchange including autonomy, resource allocation, task assignments, etc. However, most of the research focused on quality aspect more than coupling dimension of the leadermember exchange construct (Graen, 1976). This development and evolution of theory lead researchers to define leader-member exchange for the first time: Leader-member exchange is a system of sub-units and their associations comprising

a

dyad

i.e.

supervisor

and

the

subordinate

having

interdependent behavioral schemes and mutual outcome instrumentalities that create conceptions of environments, cause maps and value (Scandura et al., 1986). Although

many

researchers

defined leader-member

exchange,

forthcoming researcher remained inconsistent, diverse and scattered on

35

defining leader-member exchange and no consistent and universal definition of the construct prevailed even in diverse excerpts of the identical authors. Leader-member exchange has been addressed across individual, dyadic and group level exchange relationships (Anad, Hu, Linden, & Vidyarthi, 2011). The individual level of analysis includes leader-member exchange through work outcomes, social comparison, environmental contexts, relative leader-member exchange, leader-member exchange differentiation and team member exchange perspectives (Liden, Anand, & Vidyarthi, 2016). Leader-member exchange analysis from dyadic and group level relationships includes leader-member exchange congruence, leader-member exchange from both supervisor and subordinate perspectives and coworker exchange relationships (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015). Leadership

has

been

analyzed

at

individual,

dyad,

group

and

organizational level but the quality of leader-member exchange focus on the dyadic relationship between supervisor and subordinate and therefore it has mainly been analyzed at dyadic level. Recently, researchers have emphasized the need to study leader-member exchange in broader social network scenario of the organization. Just like defining the leader-member exchange, measurement is also a problematic area as there is a lack of consensus among researchers on the dimensionality of leader-member exchange (Avoloi, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). There are multiple scales available ranging from very short (2 items) to long scales (25 items). Popular scales of leader-member exchange include a four item Leader-Boss

Linking-Pin Quality Scale (George

Graen,

Cashman,

Ginsburg, & Schiemann, 1977), a seven-item scale LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) and a revised seven items scale LMX-7 (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). May measures

addressed

the

multidimensionality

36

of leader-member

exchange

including

three

sub-dimensions

contribution (Dienesch,

Liden,

of

Scandura,

Multidimensional

mutual affect, Taber,

&

scales

loyalty Vecchio,

and 1986). include

Attribution/Expectation Scale, Behavioral Incident Scale (Dienesch, 1987), a 24items scale (Gerras, 1992) and a 13-items MLMXDM scale (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Although some researchers have leader-member exchange a multidimensional construct, sub-dimensions are highly correlated and therefore, it is recommended to use uni-dimensional scale (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Keller & Dansereau, 2001). Most commonly used a scale to measure leader-member exchange is seven-item operationalizations (LMX-7) reported in Scandura and Graen (1984). Recently researchers have recommended the use of seven-item revised scale by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). However, logical adequacy of the scale for recommendation is not evident. Moreover, measuring leadermember exchange is criticized for measuring from subordinate’s perspective only. Researchers emphasized the need to measure leader-member exchange from both perspectives i.e. from supervisor and subordinate’s perspective because leader-member exchange relationships are dyadic in nature (Martin, Epitropaki, Thomas, & Topakas, 2010). Research on the leader-member exchange has found a wide range of subordinate characteristics, leader characteristics, interactional variables and contextual

variables

as

antecedents

of leader-member

exchange quality.

Subordinate characteristics as antecedents of leader-member exchange include subordinate’s locus of control, extraversion, self-efficacy, personality traits and implicit leadership theories (Allinson, Armstrong, & Hayes, 2001; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Lapierre & Hackett, 2007; Murphy & Ensher, 1999; Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). Leader’s affectivity, agreeableness, intuition, power strategies and

influence

tactics

are

evident

37

as

antecedents

of leader-member

exchange quality (Allinson et al., 2001; Borchgrevink & Boster, 1997; Day & Crain, 1992; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997). Demographic similarity, personality similarity, power similarity, least preferred coworker similarity and value similarity are interactional variables that cause high-quality leader-member exchange (Ashkanasy & O’connor, 1997; Mcclane, 1991; Varma & Stroh, 2001). Contextual variables like workload, a span of control, organizational culture, workplace

climate

are

antecedents

of leader-member

exchange quality (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Schyns, Paul, Mohr, & Blank, 2005). Leader-member exchange has significantly been related with different attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in an organization (Dulebohn et al., 2012). This includes leader-member exchange’s significant relationships with employee affective commitment and job satisfaction (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015), jobrelated well-being (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008), lower job stress (Bernas & Major, 2000), positive self-efficacy (Murphy & Ensher, 1999), employee empowerment (G´omez & Rosen, 2001) and turnover intentions (Bauer, Erdogan, & Liden, 2006), job performance (Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, & Lee, 2016), satisfaction with work (Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), citizenship behaviors (Hackett, Farh, Song, & Lapierre, 2003; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007) and creative work involvement (Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, 2012). Despite several comprehensive reviews and meta-analysis there remains an inconsistency in findings of leader-member exchange and organizational outcomes which calls for further investigation about dimensionality of leadermember exchange, sub-dimensions and relationships with outcomes across different settings, cultures and samples (Dienesch et al., 1986; Dulebohn et al., 2012; Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984).

38

Leader-member exchange research is criticized for having “the dearth of theoretical understanding”. Researchers describe that research on leader-member exchange lacks integration and it fails to link causes and effects of leadermember exchange in a simple, concise, coherent manner (Robin Martin et al., 2010). The generalizability of leader-member exchange theory across cultures is still missing. Leader-member exchange quality has mostly been measured from follower/subordinate’s perspective. Although, theoretically both perspectives must bring same results but empirically it has not been the case. Results are not consistent with both perspectives (Schyns & Wolfram, 2008). Despite the fact that leader-member exchange literature is the most dominant in leadership research over last four decades, there is still a room for improvement and development. Because leader deals their subordinates with different behaviors, styles and patterns (Wang, Xu, Liu, & Jiang, 2015) including pure working relationships based on contracts and laws to the level of personal affection and mutual understandings for each other (Buch, Thompson, & Kuvaas, 2016). Recently researchers have emphasized the need of exploring leadermember exchange and outcome relationships from both supervisor and subordinate’s perspectives (Bauer & Erdogan, 2015), using supervisory rated outcomes as consequences of leader-member exchange relationships and using more comprehensive time-lagged designs (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014). There is also a need to explore leader-member exchange from new angles through crossfertilization of related theories with leader-member exchange theory (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015) Researchers have recommended that leader-member exchange research can grow by integration of theoretical approaches from related areas like close 39

interpersonal relationships. Cross-fertilization of interpersonal relationship and leader-member exchange research has great potential to open new horizons of research. It is highly relevant because high-quality leader-member exchange relationships share very similar characteristics. Similar characteristics include mutual influence, attraction, confidence, the disclosure of privileged information and support (Martin et al., 2010). Social identity theory can better explain the role of organizational identification

and

its

outcomes

regarding leader-member

exchange

outcomes (Loi et al., 2014). When a leader plays a significant role in cognitively evaluating, categorizing and identifying individuals with a social group like organization, social identity theory and leader-member exchange theory can interact and explain simpler, logical and parsimonious paths (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015). Researchers have emphasized the use of social identity theory for refining

and

fine-tuning

the

boundaries

of leader-member

exchange

theory (Hogg, Martin, & Epitropaki, 2005). In relationship oriented cultures, leader-member exchange may differ due to nature of the relationship between supervisors and subordinate because the relationship is mostly based on personal and social exchanges (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). So, it is essential to figure out the consequences if the supervisor doesn’t share identity with the organization. The role of differences in supervisor’s representation as an organizational agent in making differences in leader-member exchange outcomes is not addressed. Further research is needed in leadermember exchange to explain theoretical differences in outcomes due to supervisor’s organizational embodiment.

40

2.4. Review of Supervisor’s organizational embodiment The degree to which an employee perceives his supervisor’s identity, acts, deeds, interactions with him as organizational representative due to shared characteristics is defined as supervisor’s organizational embodiment. High supervisor’s organizational embodiment indicates a high degree of similarity with characteristics of the organization. In this case, subordinates perceive a lot of things are common between supervisor and the organization. It means that subordinates treat their supervisor as a representative of the organization. As much as supervisor shares identity and has shared characteristics with his organization, supervisor’s organizational embodiment increases, in this case an employee may perceive attention, compliments, treatments, encouragements, praises, interactions, goals assigned and respect from supervisor as from organization (Robert Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Similarly, when an employee does not perceive his supervisor as organizational representative due to lack of shared characteristics with the organization, he may treat exchanges with his supervisor as his personal relationships with a supervisor. In this case, an employee will not identify himself with his organization even though exchanges between supervisor and employee are still high (Mael & Tetrick, 1992). Researchers address shared characteristics and experiences of employees with the organization as organizational identification (Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick, 2006), in the same manner, if the supervisor has shared characteristics with the

organization,

his

subordinate’s

perceptions

about

his

supervisor’s

identification with the organization may differ. Perception of supervisor’s organizational embodiment greatly influences nature of relationships between supervisor and subordinate.

41

Supervisor’s organizational embodiment is individual level perception of an employee about his supervisor’s treatments on the behalf of organizational representative but based on similar nature of shared characteristics of supervisor perceived by all subordinates, supervisor’s organizational embodiment may be similar among a group subordinates (Eisenberger et al., 2010). As social identity theory (Brown, 2006) say employee cognitively evaluates their relationships in the organization and determine the level of identification with social units, we argue that employee evaluate their relationships (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998) with supervisor on the basis of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. If subordinate perceive their employee as representative of the organization then they are likely to identify themselves with the organization for the interactions and treatments received from their supervisor. Strong identification with the organization makes employee exhibiting positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). In another case, same relationships with their organization may not lead subordinates to identify with the organization and due to lack of identification with organization employee’s attitudinal outcomes and employee’s behavioral outcomes may not be strongly related to leader-member exchange (Wren, 2002). Perception of supervisor’s organizational embodiment help practitioners to understand how to maintain relationships with subordinates so that subordinate invest their efforts in right direction that may help organization to achieve favorable outcomes (Shore, Lynch, Tetrick, & Barksdale, 2006) like employee’s job satisfaction, reduced affective commitment, Citizenship Behavior, job performance and employee’s creativity. Similarly, employees may direct their relationships in their favorable directions to get benefits, promotions and rewards from

the

organization (Eisenberger

42

&

Fasolo,

1990).

2.5. Leader-member exchange and Outcomes Social identity theory provides a suitable framework to explain the process of cognitive evaluation of these informational cues available in leader-member exchange (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Increased exchange relationships between supervisor and subordinate provide the subordinate with some informational cues including trust, attention, consideration and feeling of closeness. These informational cues act as a catalyst to perform the process of “sensegiving”. Individuals cognitively evaluate and self-categorize themselves in a social landscape through the process of “sensemaking” from situational cues (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Favorable self-categorization with a group or an organization triggers the feeling of attachment with leader and organization. This provides subordinates a psychological comfort and produces psychological satisfaction

about

job-related

activities

and

tasks

assigned

by

supervisor (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015). Likewise, those members who received fewer exchanges do not have a sense of closeness to the leader and they do not categorize themselves an insider to a particular group or organization. This creates a sense of dissatisfaction in subordinates (Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984). Researchers have widely studied employee satisfaction due to positive exchanges and interactions with supervisor or leader and found significant and positive associations between leader-member exchange and employee’s job satisfaction as a single and multidimensional construct (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Liden et al., 1997). Affective

commitment

is

a

psychological

state

that

describes

employee’s affective relationship with his organization that determines his decision to continue membership with his organization (Meyer & Alien, 1991). Over the last four decades, the affective commitment has widely been studied by

43

researchers for its key implications for any organization (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Affective commitment of employee with their organization is associated with increased job performance, reduced job search behavior and declining turnover intentions (Felps et al., 2009; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Jaramillo, Mulki, & Marshall, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002). Leader-member

exchange

explains

that

leader’s

relationship

with

his

subordinates varies across the organization. Only small group of people have close access to leader’s attention, trust, affection, mutual respect and obligation for reciprocation of exchanges for shared commitment and loyalty (Ellemers, Heuvel, de Gilder, Maass, & Bonvini, 2004; Epitropaki & Martin, 2015; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012; Lee & Park, 2007). Social identity theory explains the process of cognitive evaluation of these informational cues. Social identity theory suggests that individuals working in an organization cognitively evaluate the information available around and transform it. Informational cues in leader-member exchange help in the process of "sensegiving" and as a result, individuals categorize themselves as a part of their organization through the process of "sensemaking" from situational cues (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Feelings of being an insider to the organization create a psychological state in the hearts and minds of the subordinates to remain attached to the organization. This provides subordinates a psychological comfort and produces provides a sense of affection and commitment to their organization (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015).Leadership theories focus on leader’s goal achievement by creating relationships with followers that create follower’s commitment with the organization (Epitropaki & Martin, 2015). Leader’s more attentions and support for his followers indicate trust on followers that make followers accept more challenging tasks and display more commitment towards the accomplishment of these goals (Graen, 1976; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993).

44

DeConick (2011) tested impact of leader member exchange on performance and turnover of sales persons. Results of research show that leadermember exchange has significant impact on organizational commitment, job performance and turnover of sales workforce. Study confirmed that leadermember exchange, organizational identification and outcomes are related through organizational commitment. The results found that LMX, organizational identification, and performance are related indirectly to turnover through organizational commitment. Performance is a discrete behavior exhibited by an employee in the organization over an interval of time and it has expected value and contribution to his organization. It means that if an employee has inconsistent behavior with variant value for the organization, then it means that employee performance is inconsistent. Measuring performance on the basis of outcomes is not convenient because of different nature of time span for observing consequences of behaviors (Motowidlo, 2003). This definition is subjective because it focuses on behaviors that can have expected values for the organization regardless of results achieved. It helps individuals to exhibit their efforts that help the organization to achieve objectives and leaves a room for uncertain environmental factors that are not in control of individuals. Performance as a behavior allows organizational behavior’s researchers to understand its underlying cognitive and psychological antecedents. This is particularly relevant due to the tendency of people to see someone’s behavior and cognitively evaluate its relevance in any social context (Newtson, 1973; Newtson, Engquist, & Bois, 1977). If these behaviors are consistent with a purpose in a particular situation, then it becomes simpler to observe its expected value for the organization (McCormick, 1979, p. 136). Behaviors

that

have

potential

value

for

the

organization

includes

underperformance of an employee and behavior of each employee may change its expected values from positive to negative for the organization on the basis of his personal characteristics. 45

Leader-member exchange literature has found that relationships based on exchanges between supervisor and subordinate have significant and positive relationships with employee’s job performance (Bauer, 1996; Liden et al., 1993; Wayne, Ferris, Wayne, & Ferris, 1990). Increased level of interactions and exchanges build satisfaction with the supervisory relationship and increased reciprocity is perceived as a reward and motivate subordinate for behaving in the interest of organizational interests (Bauer, 1996). Based on social identity theory, information cues of leader-member exchange like attention, support, trust and consideration of supervisor for a subordinate give a sense of oneness with organization. "sensemaking" and "sensebreaking" through a process of cognitive evaluation of informational cues from leader-member exchange compel followers to self-categorize themselves as a part of organization (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Identification with organization leads to work and perform better (Pan, Sun, & Chow, 2012). The sense of felt obligations and reciprocation increases follower’s focus and attention given to the work challenges. Researchers have seen employees behaviors for expected value of organizations as an outcome of increased level of supervisor and subordinate exchanges because this increased level of interaction makes it possible for employee to increased level of possibilities to get resources, help, guidance and feedback as a benefit of this relationship (Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, & Wang, 2011; Zhang, Wang, & Shi, 2012). This is also perceived as a chance to get promotions, benefits that motivate an employee to exert more efforts to achieve tasks assigned by his supervisor and organization as a whole (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). The review conducted by Matta and Van Dayne (2015) concluded quality of leader-member exchange is essential for determining subordinate performance. Authors emphasized the need to define new boundaries of leader-member exchange and outcomes relationships. Using a sample of supervisor-bank teller dyads from China, Wang and colleagues (2008) found subordinate-rated leader-member exchange has a significant relationship 46

with work outcomes including task and contextual performance. Bauer and Erdogan (2006) investigated the relationship between leader-member exchange and job performance using a sample of 116 new and 67 senior executives with a time-lag of 3 months. Authors found leader-member exchange has significant positive relationship with job performance (r=0.33, p