EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE
Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan
Publications of the Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration
Nr 115
ANNIKA VATANEN
LEADER - FOLLOWER RELATIONS IN AN
INTERCULTURAL CHINESE CONTEXT
PERSONAL, INTERPERSONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL
INFLUENCES AND IMPACT ON WORK CONTRIBUTION
Helsingfors 2003
Leader - Follower Relations in an Intercultural Chinese Context: Personal,
Interpersonal and Behavioural Influences and Impact on Work Contribution
Key words: Leader-member exchange, Leader-follower relations, Organisational citizenship
behaviour, Organisational behaviour, Intercultural interaction, Personality,
Expatriation, China
© Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration & Annika Vatanen
Annika Vatanen
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration
Department of Management and Organization
P.O.Box 479
00101 Helsinki, Finland
Distributor:
Library
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration
P.O.Box 479
00101 Helsinki, Finland
Telephone: +358-9-431 33 376, +358-9-431 33 265
Fax: +358-9-431 33 425
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.hanken.fi/biblioteket/eng/page903.php
ISBN 951-555-783-6 (printed)
ISBN 951-555-784-4 (PDF)
ISSN 0424-7256
Yliopistopaino, Helsingfors 2003
To my co-travellers
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although the Buddhist saying “Roads are made for travelling – not destinations” has
guided my life in general, I do feel that the completion of this PhD thesis represents a
turning point, albeit not a final destination, in my life. During this academic journey, I
have swum through oceans of books, climbed hills of confusion, waded through
swamps of data while occasionally reaching some peaks of enlightenment. From the
outside, the quest for the PhD plateau may seem like a lonely mission. However, I have
not travelled alone.
I am grateful to a large number of people and institutions that have provided me with
inspiration, guidance, and support throughout the research process. This input has not
only been vital in an academic sense by enabling the completion of this thesis, but it has
turned the conduct of research into a personally rewarding experience. I have learned a
great deal, and have many fond memories of the inspiring people I have met and the
exotic places I have seen.
The person who sent me off on my scholarly trip and guided me until its completion is
my supervisor, Professor Ingmar Björkman at the Swedish School of Economics and
Business Administration in Helsinki. I appreciate his good supervisory skills, sharp
mind and efficiency that has greatly facilitated the research process. My pre-examiners,
Professor Ingemar Torbiörn, Stockholm University and Dr. Pawan Budhwar, Cardiff
University also deserve my gratitude for their constructive comments that helped me
improve my manuscript.
I also want to express my gratitude to all the organisations that agreed to participate in
the study. I am glad that I was able to personally visit all thirteen subsidiaries during my
stay in Shanghai in July 2001. I was overwhelmed by the assistance and hospitality
provided to me. This warm welcoming reinstated my confidence in the practical
relevance of my study, and motivated me to continue working during a rather
burdensome part of the voyage. I also highly appreciate the input of each individual
who was willing to answer the 350 questions included in the questionnaires – I know it
was a laborious task!
The numerous researchers I refer to in this thesis have inspired me to conduct scientific
research. Although some of this inspiration has been provided in text form via scientific
articles, I have been fortunate enough to meet many scholars in person during
conferences and my research visits to Hong Kong and Australia. I would especially like
to mention Chun Hui and Professor Fanny Cheung at the Chinese University of Hong
Kong, Professor John Brebner and Professor Laubie Li at Adelaide University, and
Professor Kwok Leung at the City University of Hong Kong. These people have
provided me with practical resources and valuable comments on my research during my
research visits. Furthermore, the inputs of Shalom Schwartz, Michael Bond, Lilach
Sagiv, Davis Thomas and other helpful people I have met at the International
Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) conferences are highly
appreciated. I have also received useful advice via email from prominent researchers
such as Anne Tsui and Mary Uhl-Bien, who have been patient enough to answer my
questions.
My colleagues at my home base, the Department of Management and Organisation at
the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration also deserve many
thanks. Patrick Furu, Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen and Mats Ehrnrooth were of great
assistance in introducing me to the wonders of data analysis using LISREL and SPSS.
Li Li helped me with the Chinese questionnaires and Denise Salin has provided general
support during our many lunchtime conversations. The editorial help provided by
Barbara Cavonius from the library is also appreciated.
I was privileged to receive financial assistance towards the conduct of this research, and
wish to thank the following foundations: The Foundation for Economic Education
(Liikesivistysrahasto), The Foundation of the Swedish School of Economics and
Business Administration, The Foundation of Marcus Wallenberg, the Department of
Management and Organisation at the Swedish School of Economics and Business
Administration, The Foundation of Waldemar von Frenckell, The Foundation of Hans
Bang, and The Foundation of Gesellius. The financing provided by these foundations
has enabled full-time research as well as some necessary and motivating research visits
and participation in conferences. I also wish to express my appreciation to the
Foundation for Economic Education and The Academy of Finland for enabling a
smooth transition into post-doctorate life and peace of mind during the final stages of
the journey by sponsoring my current research visit in Hong Kong.
The research path I have followed during the last years is merely a side stream of a
larger river that has carried me forward in life. Life including research is impossible
without love and support provided by family, friends, and partners. Dear Marita, Leo,
Marina, Kari, Juha, Famu, Yvonne, Anna, Franciska, Satu, Milla, Masa, Brett, Eki and
Pekka; thanks to you it has been easy for me to jump into the river of life: you have
always supported me whenever I’ve been weary. I know that you will be there wherever
I decide to travel in the future, just as I will be there for you.
Hong Kong, September 2003
Annika Vatanen
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 7
1.1 THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL CONCERNS ............................................................... 7
1.2 RESEARCH AIMS AND FOCUS .................................................................................. 11
1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH ........................................................................................... 14
1.3.1 Interpersonal or intercultural approach? ..................................................... 14
1.3.2 Derived or imposed etics? ............................................................................. 16
1.4 OUTLINE ................................................................................................................ 19
2 THEORETICAL STARTING POINT: THE LMX FRAMEWORK .................. 20
2.1 WHAT IS LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE QUALITY? ................................................. 20
2.1.1 Level of analysis ............................................................................................ 20
2.1.2 The multidimensionality and definition of LMX ............................................ 23
2.1.3 Leader and follower perspectives of LMX..................................................... 27
2.1.4 Conclusion: Working definition of LMX quality ........................................... 28
2.2 ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES OF LMX............................................................... 30
2.2.1 Models of LMX development ......................................................................... 30
2.2.2 Antecedents of LMX....................................................................................... 31
2.2.3 Outcomes of LMX .......................................................................................... 37
2.3 THE INTERCULTURAL CHINESE CONTEXT AND THE LMX FRAMEWORK ................ 39
2.3.1 Cross-cultural differences ............................................................................. 40
2.3.2 Chinese cultural influences ........................................................................... 43
2.3.3 Acculturation ................................................................................................. 49
2.3.4 The applicability of the LMX framework in the intercultural
Chinese context.............................................................................................. 51
2.4 SUMMARY: LEVEL OF ANALYSIS, LMX DEFINITION, AND INCLUDED VARIABLES . 53
3 PERSONAL, INTERPERSONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL
ANTECEDENTS OF LMX ...................................................................................... 56
3.1 PERSONALITY AND LMX....................................................................................... 56
3.1.1 A Western model of personality: the five-factor model ................................. 57
3.1.2 Chinese perspectives on personality: the CPAI ............................................ 59
3.1.3 Linking specific personality traits to LMX .................................................... 62
3.2 VALUES AND LMX................................................................................................ 71
3.2.1 Schwartz value theory.................................................................................... 71
3.2.2 Individualism/collectivism ............................................................................. 72
3.2.3 The self-enhancement facet of individualism................................................. 74
3.3 CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND LMX ...................................................................... 76
3.3.1 Influence on cognitive structures and processing ......................................... 76
3.3.2 Influence on adaptive behaviour ................................................................... 78
3.3.3 Cultural knowledge and intercultural competence ....................................... 80
3.4 SIMILARITY AND LMX .......................................................................................... 82
3.4.1 Actual similarity ............................................................................................ 83
3.4.2 Perceived similarity....................................................................................... 86
3.5 INROLE PERFORMANCE AND LMX......................................................................... 88
3.6 INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE AND LMX ...................................................................... 89
2
3.7 CONTROL VARIABLES .............................................................................................91
3.8 SUMMARY: ANTECEDENTS OF LMX.......................................................................92
3.8.1 Follower LMX: hypotheses ............................................................................92
3.8.2 Leader LMX: hypotheses................................................................................94
3.8.3 Dyad-level hypothesis.....................................................................................96
4 LMX AND ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR........................97
4.1 DEFINITION AND DIMENSIONS OF OCB...................................................................97
4.2 EXPLORING THE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LMX AND OCB .....................102
4.3 LMX AND OCB: MEDIATORS AND CONTROL VARIABLES ....................................105
4.3.1 Organisational justice ..................................................................................106
4.3.2 Perceived organisational support ................................................................107
4.3.3 Organisation-based self-esteem ...................................................................107
4.3.4 Job satisfaction.............................................................................................108
4.3.5 Control variables..........................................................................................108
4.4 SUMMARY: OCB RELATED HYPOTHESES .............................................................111
5 METHOD..................................................................................................................113
5.1 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE .....................................................................................113
5.1.1 Participating companies...............................................................................113
5.1.2 Questionnaire administration.......................................................................115
5.1.3 Respondents..................................................................................................117
5.2 MEASUREMENT ISSUES .........................................................................................120
5.2.1 Western or Chinese measures? ....................................................................120
5.2.2 Validity and reliability..................................................................................121
5.2.3 Cross-cultural equivalence and bias ............................................................126
5.2.4 Multidimensionality and perspective............................................................130
5.3 MEASURES AND THEIR VALIDATION .....................................................................133
5.3.1 LMX ..............................................................................................................134
5.3.2 OCB ..............................................................................................................141
5.3.3 Inrole performance.......................................................................................146
5.3.4 Justice...........................................................................................................148
5.3.5 Perceived similarity......................................................................................150
5.3.6 Perceived organisational support ................................................................154
5.3.7 Organisation-based self-esteem ...................................................................155
5.3.8 Job satisfaction.............................................................................................156
5.3.9 Personality....................................................................................................156
5.3.10 Values .........................................................................................................159
5.3.11 Cultural knowledge ....................................................................................160
5.3.12 Actual similarity .........................................................................................160
5.3.13 Control variables........................................................................................161
5.4 ANALYTIC PROCEDURES .......................................................................................162
5.4.1 Comparing groups........................................................................................162
5.4.2 Detecting relationships between variables...................................................163
6 RESULTS..................................................................................................................166
6.1 DESCRIPTIVES ......................................................................................................166
6.1.1 Central and significant correlations ............................................................166
6.1.2 Differences in mean scores...........................................................................167
3
6.2 DIFFERENCES IN LMX QUALITY .......................................................................... 170
6.3 ANTECEDENTS OF FOLLOWER LMX .................................................................... 173
6.3.1 Intercultural dyads ...................................................................................... 174
6.3.2 Intracultural Chinese dyads ........................................................................ 184
6.3.3 Comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads ................................. 194
6.4 ANTECEDENTS OF LEADER LMX ......................................................................... 198
6.4.1 Intercultural dyads ...................................................................................... 198
6.4.2 Intracultural Chinese dyads ........................................................................ 208
6.4.3 Comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads ................................. 217
6.5 OVERVIEW OF ANTECEDENTS OF LEADER AND FOLLOWER LMX IN
INTERCULTURAL AND INTRACULTURAL CHINESE DYADS .................................... 221
6.6 LMX AND ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR ....................................... 229
6.6.1 Intercultural dyads ...................................................................................... 230
6.6.2 Intracultural Chinese dyads ........................................................................ 234
6.6.3 Comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads ................................. 237
7 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 239
7.1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 239
7.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 242
7.3 IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 249
7.3.1 Theoretical implications .............................................................................. 249
7.3.2 Practical implications.................................................................................. 250
7.3.3 Limitations ................................................................................................... 252
7.3.4 Suggestions for further research ................................................................. 254
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 257
INDEX OF DEFINITIONS AND KEYWORDS ..................................................... 275
APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 277
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................................................. 277
a) Follower questionnaire .................................................................................... 277
b) Leader questionnaire........................................................................................ 294
APPENDIX 2: SPECIFICATION OF MEASUREMENT ISSUES ............................................ 312
a) CFA model fit indices ....................................................................................... 312
b) Reliability ......................................................................................................... 313
c) Measurement equivalence ................................................................................ 314
d) Item bias detection ........................................................................................... 317
APPENDIX 3: CORRELATION TABLES ......................................................................... 320
APPENDIX 4: DIFFERENCES IN INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM BETWEEN
WESTERN AND CHINESE LEADERS ............................................................................. 332
APPENDIX 5: REGRESSION TABLES; ANTECEDENTS OF LMX ..................................... 334
a) Follower LMX in intercultural dyads............................................................... 334
b) Follower LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads ................................................ 343
c) Summary of results obtained for follower LMX ............................................... 350
d) Leader LMX in intercultural dyads.................................................................. 353
e) Leader LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads .................................................... 361
f) Summary of results obtained for leader LMX ................................................... 368
4
APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION TABLES: LMX AND OCB .................................................371
a) OCB in intercultural dyads ...............................................................................372
b) OCB in intracultural Chinese dyads .................................................................377
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic information on the Chinese followers ......................................117
Table 2: Demographic information on the leaders ........................................................118
Table 3: Results of follower LMX CFA .......................................................................135
Table 4: Results of Western leader LMX CFA .............................................................137
Table 5: Results of Chinese leader LMX CFA .............................................................139
Table 6: Results of leader LMX item-bias analysis ......................................................140
Table 7: Results of follower OCB CFA ........................................................................142
Table 8: Results of Western leader OCB CFA..............................................................143
Table 9: Results of Chinese leader OCB CFA ..............................................................145
Table 10: Results of follower inrole performance CFA................................................146
Table 11: Results of Western leader perceptions of follower performance CFA .........147
Table 12: Results of Chinese leader perceptions of follower performance CFA..........147
Table 13: Results of follower organisational justice CFA ............................................149
Table 14: Results of follower interactional justice CFA ...............................................150
Table 15: Results of follower perceived similarity CFA ..............................................151
Table 16: Results of Western leader perceived similarity CFA ....................................152
Table 17: Results of Chinese leader perceived similarity CFA ....................................153
Table 18: Results of follower perceived organisational support CFA ..........................154
Table 19: Results of follower perceived organisation-based self-esteem CFA ............155
Table 20: Overview of results for leader and follower LMX........................................222
Table 21: Summary of factors that contribute to high-quality LMX ............................228
Table 22: Correlations between follower LMX and antecedents, intracultural ............320
Table 23: Correlations between follower LMX and antecedents, intercultural ............322
Table 24: Correlations between leader LMX and antecedents, intracultural ................324
Table 25: Correlations betwee leader LMX and antecedents, intercultural ..................326
Table 26: Correlations between OCB and antecedents, intracultural...........................328
Table 27: Correlations between OCB and antecedents, intercultural...........................330
Table 28: Results of regression analyses for follower LMX in intercultural dyads a ...336
Table 29: Results of regression analyses for follower affect in intercultural dyads a ...338
Table 30: Results of regression analyses for follower loyalty in intercultural dyads a .339
Table 31: Results of regression analyses for follower contribution in
intercultural dyads a .....................................................................................340
Table 32: Results of regression analyses for follower professional respect in
intercultural dyads .......................................................................................341
Table 33: Summary of results obtained for follower LMX in intercultural dyads.......342
Table 34: Results of regression analyses for follower LMX in Chinese dyads a ..........344
Table 35: Results of regression analyses for follower affect in Chinese dyads a ..........345
Table 36: Results of regression analyses for follower loyalty in Chinese dyads a ........346
Table 37: Results of regression analyses for follower contribution in Chinese
dyads a ..........................................................................................................347
5
Table 38:Results of regression analyses for follower professional respect in
Chinese dyads a ........................................................................................... 348
Table 39: Summary of results obtained for follower LMX and its dimensions in
Chinese dyads ............................................................................................. 349
Table 40: Summary of results obtained for follower LMX.......................................... 351
Table 41: Results of regression analyses for leader LMX in intercultural dyads a ...... 354
Table 42: Results of regression analyses for leader affect in intercultural dyads a ...... 356
Table 43: Results of regression analyses for leader loyalty in intercultural dyads a.... 357
Table 44: Results of regression analyses for leader contribution in intercultural
dyads a ......................................................................................................... 358
Table 45: Results of regression analyses for leader professional respect in
intercultural dyads a..................................................................................... 359
Table 46: Summary of results obtained for Western leader LMX and dimensions ..... 360
Table 47: Results of regression analyses for leader LMX in Chinese dyads a ............ 362
Table 48: Results of regression analyses for leader affect in Chinese dyads a ............. 363
Table 49: Results of regression analyses for leader loyalty in Chinese dyads a ........... 364
Table 50: Results of regression analyses for leader contribution in Chinese dyads a ... 365
Table 51: Results of regression analyses for leader professional respect in Chinese
dyads a ......................................................................................................... 366
Table 52: Summary of results obtained for Chinese leader LMX and dimensions...... 367
Table 53: Summary of results obtained for leader LMX.............................................. 369
Table 54: Results of regression analyses for relationship between overall LMX and
OCB in intercultural dyads a ....................................................................... 373
Table 55: Results of regression analyses for relationship between LMX dimensions
and OCB in intercultural dyads a ................................................................ 375
Table 56: Results of regression analyses for relationship between overall LMX and
OCB in Chinese dyads a.............................................................................. 378
Table 57: Results of regression analyses for relationship between LMX dimensions
and OCB in Chinese dyads a ....................................................................... 380
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overview of follower LMX hypotheses ..........................................................94
Figure 2: Overview of leader LMX hypotheses ..............................................................96
Figure 3: Overview of OCB-related hypotheses ...........................................................112
Figure 4: Follower personal characteristics and follower LMX, intercultural..............176
Figure 5: Leader personal characteristics and follower LMX, intercultural .................177
Figure 6: Interpersonal antecedents and follower LMX, intercultural ..........................179
Figure 7: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on follower LMX,
intercultural .................................................................................................181
Figure 8: The mediating effect of interactional justice on follower LMX,
intercultural .................................................................................................182
Figure 9: Follower personal characteristics and follower LMX, intracultural..............186
Figure 10: Leader personal characteristics and follower LMX, intracultural ...............187
Figure 11: Interpersonal antecedents and follower LMX, intracultural ........................189
Figure 12: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on follower LMX,
intracultural .................................................................................................191
Figure 13: The mediating effect of interactional justice on follower LMX,
intracultural .................................................................................................192
Figure 14: Follower personal characteristics and leader LMX, intercultural................200
Figure 15: Leader personal characteristics and leader LMX, intercultural ...................201
Figure 16: Interpersonal antecedents and leader LMX, intercultural............................204
Figure 17: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on leader LMX,
intercultural .................................................................................................205
Figure 18: The mediating effect of follower inrole performance on leader LMX,
intercultural .................................................................................................206
Figure 19: Follower personal characteristics and leader LMX, intracultural................210
Figure 20: Leader personal characteristics and leader LMX, intracultural ...................211
Figure 21: Interpersonal antecedents and leader LMX, intracultural............................213
Figure 22: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on leader LMX,
intracultural .................................................................................................214
Figure 23: The mediating effect of follower inrole performance on leader LMX,
intracultural .................................................................................................216
Figure 24: OCB-related results, intercultural dyads......................................................232
Figure 25: OCB-related results, intracultural Chinese dyads........................................236
7
1 INTRODUCTION
An important factor in the leadership process is the relationship that a leader has with
individual followers. Practice and previous research have shown that successful
interaction between leaders and their followers are central to the overall functioning of a
company (cf. Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). High-quality leader-follower relationships have
been found to have a large impact on employee performance, organisational
commitment, delegation, empowerment, and job satisfaction (for reviews see Gerstner
& Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997). One
rationale for this study is that good leader-follower relationships are vital to ensure the
effective functioning of any company.
The increasingly multinational nature of modern business and the resulting multicultural
and increasingly heterogeneous workforce imposes specific challenges on the
development of high-quality work relationships (cf. Gilbert, Carr-Ruffino, Ivancevich &
Lownes-Jackson, 2002). Additional demands are generated by the increased diversity
between the interacting parties, including differences in demographic and cultural
backgrounds, and differences in values, interpretations and behaviours. In addition to
actual differences, perceived differences and stereotypifications could influence the
quality of leader-follower relationships in the intercultural context. The large number of
Western multinational companies that have started operations in China face these
challenges. Misunderstandings and conflict are likely especially in the interactions
between expatriate leaders and their local followers with different cultural and
demographic backgrounds.
1.1 THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL CONCERNS
Leader-member exchange theory (LMX; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982)
provides the theoretical basis for examining leader-follower relations in this study.
Leader-member exchange theory deals with the dyadic interactions between leaders and
their followers and it has traditionally emphasised the differing relationships that
supervisors develop with followers within a work unit. Leader-follower relationships
range from those that are based strictly on employment contracts (i.e. low quality LMX) to
those that are characterised by mutual loyalty, affect, contribution, and professional
respect (i.e. high quality LMX) (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Leader-member exchange can be
seen as a developmental process in which the leader and member learn about each other over
time (Bauer & Green, 1996). More specifically, each leader and member brings unique
physical characteristics, attitudes, appearance, abilities, personality, experience, age, and
background to the leader-member exchange relationship (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Past
research has examined leader and follower characteristics as antecedents to leader-member
exchange quality as well as contextual factors such as work group composition,
organisational politics and culture, and the number of followers supervised by leader
(for reviews, see e.g. Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997).
Regarding the outcomes of leader-member exchange, Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) argue that
leader-member exchange research has usually found that higher-quality leader-member
8
exchange relationships lead to positive outcomes for leaders, followers, and the organisation
in general.
Although the significance of both leader and follower characteristics as well as the
interplay between characteristics (e.g. in the form of similarity between the interacting
leader and follower) is stressed in conceptual discussions of leader-member exchange,
in their review, Liden et al. (1997) found only one empirical study that examines leader
characteristics as an antecedent of leader-member exchange quality and the focus still
today is on follower characteristics. Regarding the studies of follower characteristics,
most of these have investigated only very few characteristics. There hence seems to be a
need for research that includes a large number of leader and follower characteristics in
the same study in order to determine their relative importance and relation to each other.
An important issue to consider in the examination of leader-follower relationships is the
perspective from which the quality of the relationship is examined: the leader or the
follower. The majority of the leader-member exchange studies to date have been
concerned with leader-member exchange quality measured from a follower perspective
and very few studies have assessed the exchange simultaneously from both leader and
follower perspectives (Minsky, 2002). The studies that have investigated leader-member
exchange from both perspectives have normally found a significant difference between
leader and follower reports of the type of exchange relationship (Gerstner & Day,
1997). Further theoretical discussion and empirical examination of differences in leader
and follower perceptions and conceptualisations of the quality of the leader-follower
relationships is hence warranted. It has also been argued that different types of high
quality relationships can exist. For instance, some people may value professional
respect in a relationship whereas others value a dyadic partner they can regard as a
friend (cf. Liden & Maslyn, 1998). This brings us to the debated question of the
multidimensionality of leader-member exchange and the question of whether different
dimensions have different antecedents and outcomes (as suggested e.g. by Liden &
Maslyn, 1998; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001).
It should be noted that leader-member exchange theory has mainly been applied in a
Western (US) setting. A few exceptions are provided by Wakabayashi and Graen, who
used the leader-member exchange framework in Japan (1984); Aryee, Tan and Budhwar
(2002) and Bhal & Ansari (1996), who applied leader-member exchange theory in
India; Hui, Law, and Chen (1999), who applied leader-member exchange theory in
China; and Pelled and Xin (1997) who applied the theory in Mexico; and finally Pillai,
Scandura and Williams (1999) who applied LMX theory in Australia, India, Colombia,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia. This use of leader-member exchange theory in a non-Western
setting provides some support for the assumption that leader-member exchange theory
is useful for the study of Chinese leader-follower relations. However, the leadermember exchange framework has not been applied to an intercultural context. Using the
leader-member exchange framework in a new context requires extensive validation
analyses. Demonstration of the applicability of the leader-member exchange framework
to an intercultural Chinese context and the examination of both Chinese and WesternChinese leader-follower relations would increase the external validity of the framework
as well as enable its expansion.
9
However, theoretical knowledge of leader-follower relations provided by the leadermember exchange framework is not sufficient to thoroughly understand leader-follower
relations in an intercultural Chinese setting including both Chinese and WesternChinese dyads. The intercultural Chinese context places additional demands on leaderfollower relationships and their examination. Past research and theorising pertaining to
intercultural interaction, cross-cultural differences, Chinese social interaction,
expatriation, and intercultural competence are examples of research areas of relevance
to increase our understanding of these context-specific demands and influences. Still,
these research areas are only of partial use for the study of the type of intercultural
interaction we are dealing with in this study. We are dealing with prolonged
intercultural interaction, i.e. individuals who interact with each other on a daily basis for
several months or even years. The extensive research on intercultural communication
and negotiation is more relevant for an examination of intercultural interaction with a
shorter time-span. Cross-cultural psychology and comparative studies on organisational
behaviour provide some useful and relevant insights on how individuals representing
different cultures may differ from each other, but they do normally not deal with the
actual interaction between cultures.
The expatriation literature and especially the issue of intercultural competence are of
relevance for understanding leader-follower relationships in an intercultural context.
However, the expatriation literature has largely focused on the characteristics of the
expatriate manager and those factors associated with him or her such as family, career
path, and compensation, as well as the adjustment to the foreign assignment and the
preparation and training for foreign assignments (Vance & Paderon, 1993). In these
discussions, those being managed, the local employees have mostly been left out of the
picture. This is surprising given that the local employee plays an equally important role
in the cross-cultural interaction as the expatriate manager, and this interaction is likely
to have great influence on the general success of the expatriate assignment. This is
implicitly indicated in studies stressing the importance of expatriate relational skills
(e.g. Tung, 1981) and interaction with host nationals (e.g. Black & Mendenhall, 1990).
The point made here is that the success of the expatriate assignment, including the
intercultural interactions it involves, is not only influenced by the characteristics of the
expatriate and his or her ability to adjust to and understand cultural differences; the
characteristics of the local employees and their cultural understanding has an impact as
well (c.f. Vance & Paderon, 1993).
In sum, there seems to be an empirical gap in leader-member exchange research that
warrants an examination of an extensive set of leader and follower characteristics,
measuring leader-member exchange from both a leader and follower perspective, and
assessing the multidimensionality of leader-member exchange. This empirical gap is
especially large with respect to leader-follower relations in a non-western setting.
Regarding the intercultural aspect of the leader-follower relationship, there seems to be
a theoretical gap as most of the theoretical frameworks designed for studying
intercultural interaction are designed for interaction of a more short-term or one-sided
nature. The “intercultural research gap” is of an empirical nature too, as intercultural
dyads are less numerous and often more geographically dispersed than intracultural
dyads and hence more difficult to access. The application of the leader-member
exchange framework to an intercultural context using an extensive set of variables and
10
examining both Chinese and Western-Chinese leader-follower relationships is an
attempt to fill these gaps.
11
1.2 RESEARCH AIMS AND FOCUS
The general aim of the study is to increase our understanding of factors affecting leaderfollower relationships in an intercultural Chinese context and to increase our knowledge
of the work-related implications of the quality of these relationships. Simultaneously,
the aim is to fill the theoretical and empirical gaps mentioned in the previous section.
An attempt is made to answer the following two research questions:
1. Which personal, interpersonal, and behavioural characteristics influence the quality
of leader-follower relationships?
2. How is the quality of the leader-follower relationship related to the employees’
willingness to co-operate and contribute to their organisation?
These questions are examined separately for leaders and for followers and will be
explained further below.
Regarding the first research question, a more specific sub-aim of this study is to
examine the extent to which the quality of the leader-follower relationship is a result of
relatively stable personal characteristics that affect our job attitudes and perceptions and
that predispose us to approach interpersonal interaction in a specific way. In contrast, to
which extent is the quality of the relationship related to the to the characteristics of the
person we are interacting with and his or her behaviour? Additionally, which specific
characteristics and behaviours are most important, and are the different dimensions of
leader-member exchange affected by different factors? A further question is whether the
ethnicity of the leader influences the quality of the leader-follower relationship above
the other variables examined in the study.
The models of leader-member exchange development suggest that the quality of the
leader-follower relationship partly depends on the relatively stable characteristics of the
interacting individuals that dispose them to approach interpersonal relationships in a
certain way (Uhl-Bien, Graen & Scandura, 2000; Bauer & Green, 1996). Later in the
leader-follower relationship, the exchange of resources, actual behaviour (such as
follower performance and leader delegation), and testing of competence becomes more
important (e.g. Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Bauer & Green, 1996). However, leadermember exchange relationships have been shown to develop very quickly and remain
relatively stable over time (e.g. Liden et al., 1993). This indicates that initial
impressions of the dyadic partner based on non-behavioural characteristics are likely to
affect leader-member exchange quality at different stages of the relationship and that the
study of such characteristics is relevant in well-established dyads as well. If the focus of
the present study is judged by the number of variables included as antecedents of leadermember exchange, the focus is on personal and non-behavioural characteristics rather
than on behavioural factors. Measures of personality, values, demographic
characteristics and differences as well as cultural knowledge are included in the study.
12
However, central behavioural factors that have been linked to leader-member exchange
will also be investigated. A difficulty with the examination of behaviour is that actual
behaviour is relatively hard to measure. To measure behaviour, one often has to rely on
the perceptions one of the interacting persons has of the behaviour of the other person.
The leader’s perceptions of the follower’s performance and the follower’s perceptions
of the fairness of the leader’s behaviour (i.e. interactional justice) are “behavioural”
measures that will be included in the present study. A problem with these perceptual
measures of behaviour is that if they are measured from the same source as leadermember exchange, they may reflect rating biases and have little to do with actual
behaviour (cf. Duarte et al, 1994). Therefore, performance will be measured from both
leader and follower perspectives. An additional problem with perceptual measures of
behaviour is that they sometimes seem to have an almost tautological relationship with
leader-member exchange: it is quite easy to understand that positive perceptions of an
individuals behaviour will lead to positive perceptions of the quality of the relationship
with that individual. These concerns also relate to the other perceptual measures in the
study, namely perceived similarity. The focus on personal and rather stable and nonperceptual characteristics hence seems justifiable as it diminishes the focus on relatively
tautological relationships between variables that could be influenced by rating bias. In
other words, showing that positive perceptions lead to positive perceptions is arguably
not as interesting as showing that dispositional personality traits or values influence our
perceptions in a constant manner. Other antecedents of leader-member exchange quality
as well as additional arguments for the choice of variables for the present study are
presented in the following chapter dealing with the leader-member exchange framework
and the antecedents and outcomes of LMX (see p. 30).
Concerning the second research question, the linkage between leader-member exchange
and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) will be in focus. It is theoretically and
practically important to examine how the leader-follower relationship affects behaviours
that are organisationally relevant. The term “organisational citizenship behaviour” was
proposed by Bateman and Organ (1983) to “denote those organisationally beneficial
behaviours and gestures that can neither be enforced on the basis of formal role
obligations nor elicited by contractual guarantee of recompense” (Organ, 1990, p. 46).
Organisational citizenship behaviours are considered as vital for productivity because
organisations cannot anticipate through formally stated in-role job descriptions the
entire array of follower behaviours needed for achieving goals (Deluga, 1998). Research
conducted in an intracultural setting using a one-dimensional measure of leader-member
exchange has established a relationship between leader-member exchange and
organisational citizenship behaviour (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997; Settoon, Bennett &
Liden, 1996). The aim of this study is not only to examine how overall leader-member
exchange quality is related to organisational citizenship behaviour, but also to examine
the effect of the different dimensions of leader-member exchange. A thorough and valid
examination of the relationship between the different leader-member exchange
dimensions and organisational citizenship behaviour requires an inclusion of a sufficient
number of control variables and an analysis including mediating and moderating
factors. The relationship between leader-member exchange and organisational
citizenship behaviour will be examined by including other perceptual variables such as
perceived organisational support, organisational justice and organisation-based self-
13
esteem. In addition, some relevant personal characteristics will be included in the
analysis.
The theoretical and empirical concerns pertaining to leader-member exchange research
raised in the previous section are hence addressed in the present study by including a
large number of leader and follower characteristics in the same study, by measuring
leader-member exchange from both a leader and follower perspective and by assessing
the multidimensionality of leader-member exchange.
14
1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH
1.3.1 Interpersonal or intercultural approach?
Studying leader-follower relations in Western subsidiaries in China entails the
examination of the interaction between individuals, some of whom represent different
cultures. To which extent, then, is the current study an interpersonal study or an
intercultural study?
In order to facilitate this discussion, central culture-related concepts are presented
below.
Types of cultural studies. According to Hart (1998), cultural studies can be divided into
three groups: 1) monocultural studies, 2) cross-cultural studies, and 3) intercultural
studies. Monocultural or single culture studies are common in anthropology and
sociology. Cross-cultural studies are studies that compare the characteristics of two or
more cultures. Intercultural studies are studies that focus on the interaction two or more
cultures and answer the main question of what happens when of two or more cultures
interact (at the interpersonal level, group-level or international level). Monocultural and
cross-cultural studies serve as necessary precursors to intercultural studies. In this study,
the relationships between a leader and a follower representing the same culture will be
referred to as intracultural, adopting the terminology used by Van de Vijver and Leung
(1997). Hart (1998) categorises the field of intercultural relations as an interdiscipline.
Littlejohn (1982, p. 246; as cited in Hart 1998) defined an interdiscipline as "a field of
scholars who identify with various disciplines but share a common interest in a theme
that crosses traditional boundaries". The fields of personality and cross-cultural
psychology have in addition to the management field influenced the present study.
Definition of culture. Earley’s (1997, p. 23) view and definition of culture as “the
individual-level manifestations of shared meaning systems that are learned from other
members of the society” is endorsed in the present study. This shared meaning system is
manifested e.g. in the form of beliefs, norms and values (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000).
Central terms in this definition are ‘individual-level manifestations’ and ‘shared’.
‘Individual-level manifestations’ implies that cultural values that characterise a society
can be inferred by aggregating the value priorities held by individuals (cf. Hofstede,
1984; Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000). ‘Shared’ implies that individual values become
cultural values if they are shared by a group of people. Triandis (1996) argues that the
view that culture consists of shared elements is what the majority of the definitions of
culture have in common.
Two remarks concerning the concept of culture are in place. The first remark pertains to
the comparative nature of the concept of culture: it can only be accessed, analysed and
described through comparison (e.g. Billings, 2002). As Boski (1993, as cited in Billings,
2002) points out, we become aware of our own culture only when we are in contact with
the culture of others. Furthermore, when we describe another culture, we often describe
it in comparison to our own culture. (Marco Polo: “every time I describe a city, I am
15
saying something about Venice”, as in cited Bond 2002). The second remark concerns
the use of the word "culture". The word "culture" as used stretches from the diffuse and
generalised values of a society to the narrower definitions of the activities of a small
group. As Price-Williams (2002) suggests, when we use the term, maybe we are better
off consistently delineating the term in terms of its appropriate and concrete synonym:
for instance, a specific value or a specific custom or a specific way of looking at things.
The present study will focus on specific values.
Research approach of this study. The primary aim of this study is neither to generate
knowledge about a specific “culture” nor to detect cultural differences between
individuals representing different nationalities. In other words, this is not a crosscultural study but partly an intercultural study, with a strong interpersonal and
individual focus. This argument will be discussed more in detail below. What also
should be noted is that although the focus in the present study is on the individual and
not cultural-level phenomena, it is recognised that an individual’s values and
characteristics are partly affected by cultural influences and that various manifestations
of culture are likely to influence they way people behave in organisations and that it
should hence be considered. Values and other manifestations of culture (that previous
research has investigated on a cross-cultural level) will in the present study be studied at
an individual level without taking the existence of certain values in certain groups for
granted. It is recognised that substantial differences exist between individual members
of the same culture, and on the other hand, two persons from different cultures can share
many similar characteristics (cf. Koivisto, 1998). The starting point for this study is
hence that “culture” does not exist until its existence has been proven by showing that
certain elements are shared by a group of people.
The decision to focus on the individual level in the present study is related to the
underlying thought that the Western-owned subsidiary is not optimal for making
culture-level discoveries and cross-cultural comparisons of the Chinese and Western
“cultures”. This is due to the fact that the individuals under examination in this study,
both Western and Chinese, have typically worked with individuals and in countries with
very different cultural backgrounds for extensive periods of time and have hence
undergone various forms of acculturation. As a result of prolonged intercultural
interaction and selection, the values and other cultural manifestations could start to
converge. Furthermore, multinational companies may deliberately attempt to recruit
individuals whose values and characteristics converge with those valued in the
company. These could be related either to the home- or host-country environment. In
this case we would be dealing with interpersonal interaction in an intracultural setting,
where the new “culture” has been developed through intercultural interaction and
selection. Furthermore, not all of the studied leader-follower relations involve expatriate
leaders and local Chinese followers, but a significant part of the studied relations
concern Chinese leaders and Chinese followers (who also are likely to have undergone
various forms of acculturation). This further adds to the interpersonal and intracultural
character of the present study while decreasing its intercultural character.
The distinction between intercultural and interpersonal interaction can also be of a very
subjective nature. The more subjective view of these interactions recognises the
interacting parties’ perceptions of cross-cultural differences and stereotypifications. As
16
an example, one could classify an interaction as intercultural in case the interacting
parties perceive great cultural differences and as interpersonal if the potential cultural
differences are considered as only one of the many factors of the interpersonal
dynamics. When two persons interact over a prolonged period of time, they get to know
each other better and the interpersonal dynamics of a non-cultural origin are likely to
become more important than initial perceptions of cultural differences (cf. Koivisto,
1998). In other words, the better the individuals know each other, the less they tend to
regard each other as mere tokens of cultural backgrounds. As the interaction in the
leader-follower dyad tends to be of a non-sporadic nature, one could hence presume that
interpersonal factors are important.
In sum, the focus in the present study is foremost on the interacting individuals and not
on the “cultures” they represent. However, it is recognised that interpersonal dynamics
are influenced by cultural influences. The interpersonal nature of the study is reflected
by the fact that both the Chinese and intercultural Western-Chinese leader-follower
relationships under examination are expected to be influenced by basically the same
factors and lead to the same type of outcomes. This assumption is made despite of the
fact that the literature review indicates that differences in e.g. values will be larger in
intercultural dyads than in intracultural dyads. The effect of “cultural differences” on
some factor is expected to be the same as the effect of most other differences between
leader and follower. Phrasing it differently, different types of similarity are expected to
be of importance in all types of dyads. Although the detection of group-level differences
(i.e. cross-cultural differences) between the interacting individuals is of a certain
interest, interesting is also to see the extent to which the intercultural nature of a
relationship influences the leader-follower relationship in a way that cannot be
explained in terms of increased differences in values and other manifestations of
culture. It is possible that perceptions of cultural differences that are formed mainly
based on expectations and stereotypifications are more important than actual differences
in determining the quality of leader-follower relationships.
1.3.2 Derived or imposed etics?
The emic-etic (Pike, 1967) distinction has become central in cultural and cross-cultural
research (cf. Jahoda, 1995). In etic research strategies, behaviour is studied from a
position outside the system and the approach typically involves the importation, testing
and perhaps adaptation of existing models or constructs in new cultures to see if they
work elsewhere. In contrast, emic approaches attempt to identify and elaborate
indigenous constructs and aim at understanding behaviour from within the system. In
emic approaches, the research criteria are relative to internal characteristics whereas in
etic approaches, criteria are considered absolute or universal (Berry, 1969, as cited in
Berry et al., 1992). Hofstede (1994, xii; as cited in Billings, 2002, p. 48) describes the
emic-etic distinction in the following way: “An emic view is taken from within a
culture, usually the author’s own. An etic point of view is a “view from the bridge”,
comparing different cultures according to criteria supposed to apply to all of them”. In
other words, the etic approach assumes the universal status of the underlying construct.
What should be noted is that these approaches are not necessarily contradictory.
17
Hofstede (1994, xii; as cited in Billings, 2002, p. 49) also points to the complimentary
nature of the two approaches:
“The emic and etic points of view are almost by definition complementary. The ethnic
psychologists that are developing within various non-western societies are necessary
emic complements to the imposed Western emic of classical Western psychology.
However, in order to learn from each other we also need an etic meeting ground and a
terminology with which we can explore our common concerns and our difference”.
Based on the discussion above, the approach adopted in the present study could mainly
be described as etic, as the concepts and measures employed in the present study mainly
have a Western origin, but they are applied in a (relatively) Chinese setting and tested
on partly Chinese respondents.
The danger of the etic approach is that it often carries with it different sources of
cultural bias (Berry, 1997). If a construct is used in cultures where its status is uncertain
the approach could be labelled imposed etics (Berry, 1969; as cited in Berry et al.,
1992). The important question in the etic approach is thus whether it in fact taps culturegeneral or universal processes as hoped and becomes what Berry (1969) calls derived
etics, or forces processes specific to one culture to other cultures, which is the case in
imposed etics (Yang & Bond, 1990). The derived etic approach is closely linked to the
universalist research orientation (Berry et al., 1992), where the underlying assumption is
that basic psychological processes are likely to be the same everywhere but that their
manifestations, including their development and deployment, are likely to be influenced
by culture. A goal of the universalist approach is to identify and define universals, with
the aid of which cross-cultural comparisons of how these universal processes are
developed, displayed and deployed in different cultures can be made. A universal is
defined by Berry et al. (1992, p. 260) in the following way: “a concept (or a
relationship) is a universal when on theoretical grounds there is reason to accept it as
invariant across all cultures, where there is empirical evidence to support this claim and
when there is no empirical evidence to refute it”. Within the universalist approach it,
however, is recognised that it is difficult to achieve context-free definitions of concepts
but this is considered a goal. (Some researchers consider this quest for universals as
relatively unrealistic [cf. Jahoda, 2002]). The starting point for universalist research may
be some extant theory or test but their use is informed by local cultural knowledge and
cross-cultural comparisons are hence made within caution. Berry (1969, 1989, as cited
in Berry et al., 1992) suggests an iterative approach to separate the emic from the etic in
search of a derived etic and truly universal constructs. Here the researcher will typically
start with an imposed etic, but the methods and constructs will be modified to suit the
new culture in an emic phase. The goal is to end up with a modified or derived etic in
terms of which valid comparisons across the cultures concerned can be made. An
extension of this research could lead to the accumulation of evidence that a certain
phenomenon is universally present (Berry et al., 1992). A similar approach
recommended by Triandis (e.g. 1978) is the “combined etic-emic” approach, where a
construct with an allegedly universal or etic nature is measured in an emic or cultureappropriate way.
18
The underlying assumption in this study is that leader-follower relationships have some
universal characteristics. For instance, the literature review suggests that managerial
work and the leadership function includes similar elements across countries (cf. Suutari,
1996). For instance, decisions are made, work is organised, and goal-oriented
interaction between leaders and followers is undertaken. Furthermore, it is assumed that
individuals can to some extent be described using universally applicable descriptors (cf.
e.g. Dorfman et al., 1997). This assumption is especially important when examining
intercultural interactions that entail the comparison of the interacting parties
representing different cultures. These assumptions are made while recognising the
difficulties in achieving context-free definitions of concepts and related measures.
What should be noted is that although leadership and leader-follower relations per se
may be universal phenomena, it is not argued that conceptions and the styles and
practices associated with them are universal (Westwood, 1997). Personal values, shaped
by the wider culture in which the person is socialised affect leadership style by
determining how a manager perceives and defines a situation, tackles problems and
decisions, approaches interpersonal relations, interprets ethical behaviour, and responds
to organisational pressures (England et al, 1974, as cited in Westwood, 1997). The same
argument would logically hold for followers as well. Therefore, the intercultural
Chinese context has to be considered so that context-specific factors related to the
leader-follower relationship can be identified. It is hoped that the present study
represents derived etics more than imposed etics. Due to own cultural biases, this is
hard to judge but is hoped that the description of the research will enable the reader to
make this judgement.
19
1.4 OUTLINE
The thesis has seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, an overview of leadermember exchange theory (LMX), which provides the theoretical basis for the present
study, is given (Chapter 2). The applicability of the LMX framework in the present
intercultural Chinese context is also discussed. Then, hypotheses pertaining to personal,
interpersonal and behavioural antecedents of LMX are developed (Chapter 3).
Thereafter, hypotheses regarding the relationship between LMX and organisational
citizenship behaviour are presented (Chapter 4). The subsequent chapter discusses the
method of the present study (Chapter 5). Thereafter, the results are presented (Chapter
6). Finally, in the concluding chapter (Chapter 7) the thesis is summarised, general
conclusions based on the major findings are drawn, and the implications of the present
study are discussed (Chapter 7).
20
2 THEORETICAL STARTING POINT: THE LMX FRAMEWORK
The aim of this chapter is to present the theoretical framework of the present study and
to clarify some theoretical stances taken. This chapter has four main sections. The first
section deals with the definition and conceptualisation of leader-member exchange
quality (section 2.1). This is followed by a presentation of the research areas covered by
previous leader-member exchange research (section 2.2). Thereafter, the intercultural
Chinese context is discussed as well as the applicability of the LMX framework in this
context (section 2.3). Finally, the chapter is summarised (section 2.4).
2.1 WHAT IS LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE QUALITY?
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has evolved into a dyadic approach to
understanding leader-follower relationships. Social exchange theory and role theory
provide the dominant theoretical bases for leader-member exchange theory (Liden &
Maslyn, 1998; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Despite the high level of scholarly interest in
leader-member exchange theory, there is surprisingly little agreement on what leadermember exchange is or how it should best be measured (cf. Liden & Maslyn, 1998;
Gerstner & Day, 1997, Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser, 1999). The review article
written by Schriesheim et al. (1999) demonstrates a lack of consistency concerning the
basic definition and content of the leader-member exchange construct as well as its
measurement, despite claims of an apparently robust phenomenon (cf. Graen & UhlBien, 1995). The aim of this section is to clarify how leader-member exchange is
conceptualised and defined in the present study including the level of analysis,
multidimensionality and measurement perspective.
2.1.1 Level of analysis
Most leader-member exchange studies claim to operate at the “dyad-level”. Despite this
claim, many researchers view the dyad level differently. In order to gain a deeper
understanding of the level of analysis issue in leader-member exchange research and to
clarify the level of analysis in the present study, an overview of the development of the
dyadic approach to leadership including leader-member exchange theory is presented
below. This presentation is mainly based on the overview provided by Dansereau
(1995).
Dansereau’s work in the 1970s induced the dyadic approach to leadership with the
claim that a single leader can form different relationships with different individuals.
This idea was in sharp contrast with the dominating individual difference approach that
focused on the individual differences between leaders and asserted that leaders form the
same relationships with everyone in the same work group. This traditional approach is
sometimes referred to as the average leadership style approach (ALS). Here the focus
was on the differences between superiors as persons. The level of analysis when it
21
comes to leaders was hence between person, and between groups concerning followers.
(Dansereau, 1995).
As a critique to this ALS approach, two different, but partially related, approaches
evolved: the leader- member exchange approach (LMX) presented by Graen and
Cashman (1975, as cited in Dansereau 1995) and the vertical dyad linkage approach
(VDL) developed by Dansereau and colleagues in the 1980s (Dansereau, 1995). The
assumption within the leader-member exchange approach was that different
relationships must occur within workgroups and that the ALS approach hence was
inapplicable. In contrast, the idea behind the VDL approach was that it could coexist
with the traditional ALS approach. What the VDL and ALS have in common is that
they both focus on groups. The basic idea of the VDL model is that leaders form ingroups and out-groups by differentiating among sets of followers, one relative to
another. The level of analysis relating to the leader is hence within persons, not between
persons as in the ALS approach. This VDL approach is not purely dyadic, as it requires
first that a group may be assigned and then that superiors differentiate among group
members. It is dyadic in the sense that there are differences within groups and these
differences refer to differences among dyads in these groups. The level of analysis
concerning followers is hence between persons within groups. This approach was the
forerunner of Graen’s subsequent leader-member exchange approach. (Dansereau,
1995).
However, Dansereau started doubting the need for leaders to have in-groups and outgroups within the group of followers who formally report to the same leader. Instead,
within a particular formal work group, all, some, or none of the followers may link with
a leader. As a result, Dansereau decided to move away from the within group level to
pure dyads naming this approach the individualised leadership approach (IL). This
approach still focuses on the relationship between leaders and followers, but
independently of groups. In other words, both individuals involved in the dyad are
considered distinct from their respective others. Thus, leaders view and treat one person
independently of another person. It is also possible that an individual treats a whole
group of people the same way or all differently; but it all depends upon how she or he
view the other individuals. The level of analysis has so far been the person and on
individual differences concerning followers. The level of analysis relating to leaders has
been the other person or the situation (leader perceptions of the follower). This IL
approach is not intended to serve as a replacement for the other views, but as an
additional view. Within and between analysis (WABA, Dansereau et al., 1986) is
recommended to identify the empirically purely dyadic case. (Dansereau, 1995)
In the present study, it is expected that the hypothesised relationships between variables
will occur mainly at the level of dyads independent of groups. The view of the dyad is
hence identical to the one in Dansereau’s IL approach. This view is different from some
of the leader-member exchange research, where it is asserted that because of time
pressure, the leader develops a close and high-quality leader-member exchange
relationship between only a few key followers (Graen, 1976, as cited in Dienesch and
Liden, 1986) forming the so-called in-group whereas the others form the so called outgroup. The stance taken in the present study is that such a division in in- and out-groups
must not necessarily occur, it all depends on the individuals forming the dyads.
22
However, the focus in the present study is slightly different from the one in Dansereau’s
IL approach. In the IL approach, leader perceptions of the follower have been examined
but not personal leader characteristics. In other words, the leader has not been examined
as a person. Studying both the leader and the follower at the person (individual) level,
entailing the examination of both leader and follower personal characteristics (and not
just their perceptions of each other), is identical to the approach adopted by Klein and
House (1995), where charisma is seen to reside within the relationship between leader
and follower. In addition to focusing on the personal characteristics of the leaders and
followers (i.e. examining the leaders and followers as persons), leader and follower
perceptions of the other party will be examined. In other words, they will also be
examined as what Dansereau would call situations. To clarify and summarise this
discussion, the leader and follower are considered as persons if we are interested in their
personal characteristics and as situations if we investigate how the leader and follower
are perceived by the other party. The focus on leaders and followers, either as persons
or situations, does not mean that external or environmental variables are considered of
no importance in determining the quality of the leader-follower relationship, but it is
hypothesised that the major external influences can be measured as individual
perceptions. The organisations in which the dyads are active are likely to exert influence
on the dyad in the form of various job attitudes (such as perceived organisation support,
justice and organisation based self-esteem). These job attitudes are also examined in the
present study, but these attitudes or perceptions are expected to vary between
individuals within the organisation and are hence considered to be of an individual
nature. In other words, each leader and follower is expected to have characteristics and
perceptions that are individual and unrelated to other organisational members.
It seems possible to examine leader-follower relations on a very personal (individual)
and non-dyadic level if all we are interested in is examining the relationship between
one of the dyadic parties as a person and the other as a situation (e.g. follower
personality in relation to a follower’s perceptions of leader-member exchange quality,
which does not entail gathering data from the leader). Turning leader-member exchange
research into research at a dyadic level requires according to Keller and Dansereau
(2001) that there is leader/follower agreement on leader-member exchange quality.
More specifically, the authors assert that “If agreement is not present, superiors and
subordinates are merely individual actors rather than interdependent.”(p. 140). I do not
agree with this view. Even if the perception of leader-member exchange quality resides
within the individual and is not similar to the dyadic partner, it has been formed as a
result of dyadic interaction and the interplay between leader and follower
characteristics. As the present study examines both leader and follower perceptions and
characteristics and relates them to each other, I would claim that the dyad and the
especially the individual within dyad is the appropriate term to use for the level of
analysis in the present study. However, it is true that when the exchange relationship
reaches a mature and balanced state, both interacting parties are likely to reach
agreement in their assessment of the quality of the relationship. Furthermore, agreement
on high leader-member exchange quality could be considered to be a sign of higher
leader-member exchange quality than the case in which only one party reports high
quality leader-member exchange. Agreement can hence in my opinion be seen as a
23
measure of intensity of interaction and even leader-member exchange quality, but lack
of agreement does not reduce the dyadic nature of the leader-follower relationship.
In sum, the present study deals with an individual’s perception of the quality of the
leader-follower relationship that is the result of dyadic interaction. Furthermore, each
leader and follower is expected to have characteristics and perceptions that are
individual and relatively unrelated to other organisational members. However, while the
focus in the present study is on individuals within dyads, it is recognised that leadership
is a multiple-level phenomenon (cf. Yammarino, Dansereau, & Kennedy, 2001) and that
the present study hence gives a partial view of the leader-follower relationship.
2.1.2 The multidimensionality and definition of LMX
Schriesheim et al. (1999) trace the history of the leader-member exchange concept as an
attempt to examine the adequacy of leader-member exchange theory. This discussion
will be presented here to provide some background and justification for the
conceptualisation of leader-member exchange chosen for the present study. This section
draws heavily on the original article.
Schriesheim et al. (1999) note that throughout the 1980’s, Graen et al. continued to
define leader-member exchange as the quality of the exchange between leader and
subordinate, while at the same time, in a total of 13 studies, describing varying subdimensions of the construct such as trust, competence, motivation, assistance and
support, understanding, latitude, authority, information, influence in decision making,
communications, confidence, consideration, talent, delegation, innovativeness,
expertise, control of organisational resources, and mutual control. In 37 other LMX
studies published or presented in the 1980s, 11 different definitions of leader-member
exchange as well as 35 different sub-dimensions were used and, even more alarmingly,
in many of these studies explicit construct definitions were not provided. In response to
the general confusion in the field, several comprehensive reviews were undertaken in
the 1980s and some authors brought attention to the lack of theoretical underpinnings.
Finally, a detailed definition of leader-member exchange emerged (Scandura, Graen &
Novak, 1986, p. 580): “Leader-member exchange is (a) system of components and their
relationships (b) involving both members of a dyad (c) involving interdependent
patterns of behaviour and (d) sharing mutual outcome instrumentalities and (e)
producing conceptions of environments, cause maps and value”. This is the only leadermember exchange definition that I have found. What raises concern is whether this
definition is reflected in the recommended LMX7 measure (measurement issues will be
discussed later in this section).
In the 1990s, the majority of the leader-member exchange studies showed consensus on
the nature of the phenomenon as being the quality of the exchange relationship between
leader and follower (Schriesheim et al., 1999). However, inconsistencies regarding the
sub-dimensions continued to exist. Of these dimensions, mutual support, trust, liking,
latitude, attention and loyalty appear to be predominant in the majority of studies
according to Schriesheim et al. (1999).
24
As an example of a widely accepted conceptualisation of leader-member exchange,
Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) suggest the sub-dimensions of respect, trust, and obligation.
Graen and Uhl-Bien postulate that the offer to another to build a partnership (or highquality) LMX is based upon three factors: 1) mutual respect for the capabilities of the
other, without which an offer will not be made; 2) the anticipation of deepening
reciprocal trust with the other; and 3) the expectation that interacting obligation will
grow over time as career-oriented social exchanges blossom into a partnership.
According to Graen and Uhl-Bien, the development of the leader-member exchange
relationship is based on the characteristics of the working relationship as opposed to a
personal friendship relationship, and this trust, respect and mutual obligation refer
specifically to the individual’s assessments of each other in terms of their professional
capabilities and behaviours. The authors argue that although the LMX construct has
multiple dimensions, these are so highly correlated that they can be measured with the
single measure of leader-member exchange. The authors advocate the use of the 7-item
leader-member exchange (LMX7) measure used in Graen, Novak and Sommerkamp
(1982) and reported in Scandura and Graen (1984). Overall, I find Graen’s and UhlBien’s discussion about the multidimensionality of leader-member exchange
misleading: they are arguing that leader-member exchange has multiple dimensions
(respect, trust, and obligation) but still measuring it in a one-dimensional way. Putting it
even more critically, I don’t think the recommended LMX7 measure reflects the
conceptualisation provided by Graen and colleagues.
Schriesheim et al. (1999) note in their review that investigations have used leadermember exchange measures having from 2 to 25 items (for a comprehensive review of
measures used, see Schriesheim et al., 1999). Just in the 1980s, 16 different
operationalisations and measures of LMX were use and at least 12 different measures in
the 1990s, some of which were developed on an ad hoc basis without adequate
psychometric testing. Inadequate measurement causes problems at the individual study
level, but in addition, the use of different measures of leader-member exchange in
different studies makes it hard to determine whether conflicting results between studies
are due to deficiencies in the theory or the operationalisation of the core construct
(Gerstner & Day, 1997). Despite the large number of leader-member exchange
measures available, the LMX7 has been the most frequently used measure in the 1980s
and 1990s (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) suggest minor changes
to this measure and consider it most appropriate and recommended, as more expanded
measures have been highly correlated with it and as they have also produced the same
results. But as Schriesheim et al. (1999) correctly point out, no evidence of adequate
psychometric testing of this revised scale has been provided. However, the metaanalysis conducted by Gerstner and Day (1997) showed that the LMX7 measure has the
soundest psychometric properties of all instruments, and the authors hence recommend
its use when assessing one-dimensional exchange quality.
Liden and Maslyn (1998) criticise the LMX7 construct, which, regardless of its
psychometric properties, is not capable of capturing multiple dimensions. According to
the authors, role theory, which provides a theoretical basis for leader-member exchange
research, stresses the multidimensional character of roles. Followers’ roles, for instance,
comprise both task-related activities and social interaction. Followers may differ in
strength on these dimensions. Leaders’ roles also consist of different factors such as
25
supervising, allocating resources, and serving as a liaison. Liden and Maslyn also find
support for a multidimensional perspective on LMX from social exchange theory, the
other theoretical foundation of leader-member exchange, which identifies numerous
material and non-material goods that can be exchanged. The main argument is that
although work behaviours stressed by Graen and colleagues are important, leadermember exchange relationships may develop and endure in a number of ways. Liden
and Maslyn use the multidimensional perspective on leader-member exchange
advocated by Dienesch and Liden (1986) as a foundation for their LMX
conceptualisation and construct. Dienesch and Liden suggested that the quality of
leader-member exchange could be based on three different types of “currencies of
exchange”: a) task related behaviours (labelled contribution), defined as the “perception
of the amount, direction, and quality of work-oriented activity each follower puts forth
toward the mutual goals” (this has been the focus in a big part of the LMX research); b)
loyalty to each other (labelled loyalty), defined as the “extent to which the leader and
follower publicly support each other’s actions and character” (loyalty has been regarded
by Graen and colleagues as an outcome of the leader-member exchange developmental
process), and c) liking each other (labelled affect), defined as “the mutual affection
members of the dyad have for each other based rather on interpersonal attraction rather
than work or professional values” (Graen and colleagues have traditionally regarded
affect as an antecedent to leader-member exchange development. In their attempt to
develop a measure which could enhance future leader-member exchange research,
Liden and Maslyn (1998) identified one additional dimension of LMX: professional
respect, which refers to the “perception of the extent to which each follower of the dyad
has built a reputation, within and/or outside the organisation, of excelling at his or her
line of work”. This perception may be based on historical data concerning the person
(awards, outside comments) and could be formed before working with the person. It is
argued that an exchange can be based on one or more of these exchanges (dimensions)
and that the importance of each dimension may vary across individuals.
Liden and Maslyn (1998) argue that a multidimensional perspective on leader-member
exchange increases our understanding of both the construct itself and its relationship
with organisational outcomes. It also indicates that there can be different types of high
and low quality leader-member exchange relationships. A high quality leader-member
exchange relationship could, for instance, be based on contribution, where a leader and
follower frequently work together after normal office hours, or the relationship could be
based on affect, where the leader and follower spend much time at work discussing nonwork issues. Dienesch and Liden (1986) suggest that the leader-member exchange
dimensions could be mutually reinforcing through an ongoing reciprocal process. The
different dimensions could also be affected by different factors and predict different
organisational behaviours and outcomes. In their theoretical article, Dienesch and Liden
(1986) hypothesised that the contribution dimension in a leader-member exchange
relationship is likely to have greater influence over the challenge and difficulty of
assignments assigned to and accepted by the follower than the affect or loyalty
dimensions have (professional respect was not included in this work). This is because
the superior should have confidence in the ability and willingness of the follower to
successfully complete difficult, extensive, or critical tasks. The follower should also be
confident in his or her own ability, be willing to accept a larger workload, and be
confident that the leader will provide an adequate level of support and advice. Liden and
26
Maslyn (1998) expected and found contribution (and professional respect) to be more
related to organisational commitment than loyalty and affect toward the supervisor. The
loyalty dimension, which is primarily concerned with the degree to which the dyad
members protect each other relative to those outside the relationship, is, according to
Dienesch and Liden, more likely to have a greater effect than the other dimensions on
the number on boundary spanning assignments, and behaviours that concern interfacing
with the environment as well as discretion when interacting with individuals from
outside the work group. The authors also hypothesise that high loyalty should be
reflected in attempts at long term development of the follower because the superior can
be more assured of benefiting from developmental activities through continuance of the
relationship. Dienesch and Liden expect the affect dimension to influence the work
atmosphere in general and hence the level of flexibility and emotional support provided
to the follower. This influences schedule flexibility and autonomy in a follower’s tasks.
The affect dimension could also have an effect on leader ratings of follower
performance as liking has been found to be related to performance ratings (Liden &
Maslyn, 1998) (as a result of either attributional bias or actually improved performance
as a result of additional support). The results obtained by Maslyn and Uhl-Bien (2001)
provided support for the assumption of unique effects depending on the dimension
considered.
In their comparison of the LMX7 measure and the multidimensional measure of leadermember exchange (LMX-MDM), Liden and Maslyn (1998) found that LMX-MDM
might explain incremental variance in some outcome variables beyond that explained by
LMX7. The authors point out that in some studies, LMX dimensionality may not be a
concern and a one-dimensional measure could be sufficient. When a global measure for
leader-member exchange is needed, the 12 LMX-MDM measures could be combined
into a composite (in Liden’s and Maslyn’s sample, this composite correlated .84 with
LMX7). Alternatively, each of the four dimensions could be used as indicators of global
LMX in a structural equations model.
In contrast to the LMX7 measure, the multidimensional measure developed by Liden
and Maslyn (LMX-MDM; 1998) seems to be more in line with the theoretical
arguments presented. This measure has also undergone reasonable psychometric testing
and has shown promising evidence of satisfactory reliability and validity (cf.
Schriesheim et al., 1999). The present study is based upon the multidimensional
conceptualisation and measure of leader-member exchange developed by Liden and
Maslyn (1998) due to the arguments presented above (i.e. sufficient theoretical
background, multidimensional character, and sound psychometric properties). Specific
hypotheses pertaining to each dimension will be developed and the relative importance
of the different dimensions on OCB will be examined. These hypotheses will also be
tested on a composite measure of LMX, which is the average of the LMX-MDM
measure.
27
2.1.3 Leader and follower perspectives of LMX
Some researchers have claimed that leader-member exchange should always be
measured from both leader and follower perspectives (e.g. Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Minsky, 2002). However, according to Minsky (2002), of the over 100 studies of
leader-member exchange to date, the majority have been concerned with leader-member
exchange quality measured from a follower perspective and only a few studies have
simultaneously assessed leader-member exchange from both leader and follower
perspectives.
The studies that have investigated leader-member exchange from both leader and
follower perspectives have normally found a significant difference between leader and
follower reports of the quality of the leader-member exchange relationship (e.g.
Gerstner & Day, 1997). Furthermore, in some studies, no specification is made with
regard to the leader-member exchange perspective examined. The perspective taken
should, however, be clearly defined as leader and follower evaluations of leadermember exchange quality could be affected by different factors and lead to different
organisational outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Furthermore, the meta-analysis
conducted by Gerstner and Day (1997) suggests that leader-member exchange is more
reliably assessed from a follower’s perspective than from a leader’s. As an explanation
for this the authors suggest that leaders may have a somewhat more complex,
multidimensional construction of exchange quality than followers. This suggests that
leader and follower LMX are separate constructs. The distinctiveness of leader and
follower LMX quality is underlined if leader-member exchange quality is
conceptualised as perception held by one of the dyadic partners, rather than as an
objective reality, as discussed by Brower, Schoorman and Tan (2000). In other words,
the different perspectives of leader-member exchange quality capture different
perceptions of the leader-follower relationship and not actual exchange.
The majority of the leader-member exchange measures have originally been designed
and validated to measure leader-member exchange from a follower perspective. This
concerns at least the LMX7 and LMX-MDM measures discussed earlier. However, both
leader and follower versions for the LMX7 and LMX-MDM have been developed. The
leader version of the LMX7 measure does not, however, quite respond to the follower
version of the scale as many items seem to focus on the follower and his or her
perceptions of the leader-member exchange relationship and not on the leader’s
perceptions of the relationship (see e.g. the second item of LMX7: ‘How well does your
leader understand your problems?’, which in the leader version stands ‘How well do
you understand your follower?’ instead of e.g. ‘How well does your follower
understand you?’). The LMX-MDM measure in its original form also measures leadermember exchange from a follower perspective. To measure leader-member exchange
from a leader perspective, a scale based on and very similar to the original LMX-MDM
that has been developed by Paglis and Green (November 2000, personal
communication) and it will be used in the present study. The items in the leader version
(see the section on measures and their validation p. 137) mirror those in the follower
version (with some changes in wording to better suit the leader situation) with the
28
exception of the items belonging to the contribution dimension. For instance, item 7 ‘I
do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description’ is
formulated as ‘This subordinate does things for me that go beyond what is specified in
his/her job description’. What this means is that all items in the leader version concern
leader perceptions of the follower. In the follower version, all items concern follower
perceptions of the leader with the exception of the contribution items where the follower
rates their own contribution.
The conceptualisation of leader and follower leader-member exchange as separate and
perceptual constructs has implications on the examination of agreement between
perspectives. The treatment of leader and follower LMX as conceptually distinct and
even different constructs makes it difficult, if not impossible, to examine the level of
agreement between leader and follower perceptions of the quality of leader-member
exchange. Of course, a situation where the leader has high perceptions of the follower
and the follower has high perceptions of the leader would be a preferred situation, but
the term “agreement” is not the appropriate term as we are examining different
individuals’ perceptions of different individuals. The examination of both perspectives
in one study naturally gives a more complete picture of the exchange relationships, but
the omission of either perspective does not reduce the usefulness and validity of the
other leader-member exchange perception. I argue that an individual’s perceptions of
the quality of the relationships will affect his or her attitudes and behaviour, although he
or she does not know the perceptions of the dyadic partner. This conceptualisation does
not exclude the fact that leader and follower perceptions could, and are likely to,
influence each other but it underlines the fact that what we are actually measuring, and
able to measure with the current measures, are individual perceptions, not a mutual and
objective exchange.
In view of the arguments presented above, in the present study leader and follower
leader-member exchange quality will be treated as separate constructs and
conceptualised as perceptions that reside within the individual independently of the
perceptions of the dyadic partner. This conceptualisation of leader-member exchange is
not radical in the sense that it conforms to the majority of the empirical studies that have
focused on measuring leader-member exchange from a single (mostly follower)
perspective. The main difference is that the claim is not made that what is measured is
“objective” exchange leading to a recognition of the fact that leader and follower LMX
hence can have different antecedents and outcomes.
2.1.4 Conclusion: Working definition of LMX quality
Based on the discussions above, a working definition of leader-member exchange
quality has been formulated for the present study. It is based on Liden’s and Maslyn’s
(1998) multidimensional measure of leader-member exchange and the authors’
description of the LMX dimensions. This multidimensional conceptualisation is here
combined with the view of leader-member exchange quality as perceptions of the
quality of the relationship that reside within the individual independently of the dyadic
partner ‘s perceptions. This means that leader and follower perceptions are separate
29
constructs that do not require mutuality although they are likely to be mutually
reinforcing. What should also be noted is that even if the perception of leader-member
exchange quality resides within the individual and is not similar to the one of the dyadic
partner, it has been formed as a result of dyadic interaction and the interplay between
leader and follower characteristics.
Follower leader-member exchange quality is defined as the combination of: 1) the level
of affection the follower has for the leader, 2) the follower’s perception of leader loyalty
towards follower, 3) the follower’s perception of own work contribution toward leader,
and 4) the level of follower respect for leader’s professional skills.
Leader leader-member exchange quality is defined as the combination of: 1) the level of
affection the leader has for the follower, 2) the leader’s perception of follower loyalty
towards leader, 3) the leader’s perception of follower’s work contribution toward leader,
and 4) the level of leader respect for follower’s professional skills.
30
2.2 ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES OF LMX
Research into leader-member exchange and its relation to other variables has been
gaining momentum since its inception in the 1970s, as clearly demonstrated by
numerous review articles (e.g. Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden,
Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). In these reviews, it
has been demonstrated that a wide range of antecedents determine leader-member
exchange and that it is a significant correlate of many work-related outcomes. An
overview of these antecedents and outcomes will be presented in this section. The first
hypotheses will also be presented for leaders and followers separately. What should be
borne in mind is that the inconsistencies in the definitions and measurement of leadermember exchange mentioned earlier makes it difficult to relate different leader-member
exchange studies to one another in a strict sense. However, these studies provide a
general idea of what type of factors have been and could be associated with the quality
of leader-follower relations.
Before a presentation of specific antecedents and outcomes identified in prior empirical
research, conceptual models of leader-member exchange development will be presented
to serve as an introduction to the subject. As this section will demonstrate, it is
sometimes hard to distinguish between antecedents and outcomes of LMX. This is due
to the dynamic nature of leader-follower relationships, where the result of former
interaction lays the foundation for future interaction. This is the case especially with
behaviours, such as follower performance and leader fairness and delegation. This
section aims at giving a general overview of antecedents and outcomes of leadermember exchange. More specific hypotheses on how different factors are related to
leader and follower LMX are presented in the following two chapters.
2.2.1 Models of LMX development
Several conceptual models of leader-member exchange development have been put
forward by researchers. In Bauer’s and Green’s (1996) model, the development of
leader-member exchange relationship is basically viewed as a trust-building process.
Brower, Schoorman and Tan (2000) also integrate leader-member exchange and trust
theory in their model of relational leadership. Trust has been an important dimension of
leader-member exchange in most conceptualisations, including the multidimensional
conceptualisation of LMX, where the loyalty dimension was found to correspond to
trust (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Graen and Scandura (1987) developed a three-phase
model of leader-member exchange development including role taking, role making, and
role routinisation. Later, Scandura (1999) proposes a model of leader-member exchange
development where each type of justice (procedural, distributive and interactional) plays
a different role at different stages. Furthermore, a model called the Leadership Making
model was developed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991, 1993) and a model called the
relationship-building model was put forward by Uhl-Bien, Graen and Scandura (2000).
The relationship-building model presented Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) shares many
31
commonalties with the other models, and will be presented here in order to give an
overview of the dynamics of LMX development.
According to Uhl-Bien et al. (2000), relationship development begins when the leader
and follower experience an interaction or exchange sequence over a limited period of
time. The nature of the interaction sequence depends on: 1) the relatively stable
characteristics of the interacting individuals that dispose them to approach interpersonal
situations in a certain way, 2) the individuals’ expectations of the exchange based on
past experience, outside information and cognitive schemata, 3) the individuals’
assessment of and reaction to the exchange both while it is occurring and in retrospect.
The outcomes of the initial testing sequences cause the individual to form perceptions,
attributions and attitudes about the other individual and the relationship. Reactions and
evaluations of the interaction build expectations (of self, of other, or relationship and of
situation) and influence behaviour exhibited by individuals in subsequent interactions.
These cognitive and perceptual processes are responsible for the dynamic nature of the
relationship development and repeated interactions result in the formation of
relationships of different types and quality that in turn influence future exchanges. (This
makes it difficult to distinguish between antecedents and outcomes of LMX as the
outcome of earlier LMX influences subsequent LMX). Situational factors exert
influence throughout the process by affecting how individuals interact and form
relationships and how these relationships influence work-related outcomes. Situational
variables are mainly considered as mediators or moderators and their effect will vary
depending on the interacting individuals and their stage in the relationship. (Uhl-Bien et
al., 2000).
As a final remark it should be noted that the quality of leader-member exchange is
expected to be the result of the cumulative effects of various factors and interactions;
the result of the history of the relationship (Bauer & Green, 1996). It is not the most
recent interaction that defines the quality of exchange, but their cumulative effect.
2.2.2 Antecedents of LMX
The antecedents of leader-member exchange identified in prior empirical research will
be divided into four groups in this presentation and throughout the thesis: 1) leader and
follower personal characteristics that exist prior to the leader-follower exchange, 2)
interpersonal variables that are formed through interaction between leader and follower
characteristics, 3) leader and follower behaviours that occur during the exchange, and 4)
contextual variables that mediate or moderate the exchange between the leader and
follower.
a) Leader and follower personal characteristics
Each leader and follower brings unique physical characteristics, attitudes, appearance,
abilities, personality, experience, age, and background to the leader-member exchange
relationship (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). These leader and follower characteristics
influence the dyadic partners’ perceptions and evaluations of each other, which in turn
32
determine their behaviour towards each other (Liden et al., 1997) as well as leadermember exchange quality (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). These characteristics could be
divided into two groups: 1) characteristics that influence how we perceive another
person, and 2) characteristics that influence how others perceive us. Dividing the
personal characteristics into these two groups has mainly served as an aid in the
hypothesis development and identification of variables to include in the present study.
This distinction has not, to the best of my knowledge, been made in previous leadermember exchange research. The first group of characteristics refers to the relatively
stable characteristics of the interacting individuals that dispose them to approach
interpersonal situations in a certain way, as discussed by Uhl-Bien et al. (2000). An
example of this type of characteristics is neuroticism, which allegedly is associated with
negativity and negative perceptions. Agreeableness again is a personal characteristic
that could influence how others perceive us.
In their review, Liden et al. (1997) identified the following follower characteristics that
have been examined in previous LMX research: follower affectivity, locus of control,
growth need strength and introversion/extroversion. Furthermore, demographic
characteristics have been examined, such as age and tenure, race and education (Tsui &
O'Reilly, 1989), and gender (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989; Wayne & Liden, 1995; Varma
& Stroh, 2001). However, it should be noted that most studies on the influences of
demographic factors have been from a relational perspective (the demographic
characteristics of a person in relation to others’ characteristics) and they hence mainly
belong to the category ‘interpersonal variables’ that will be described later in this
section.
A surprising discovery is that almost all leader-member exchange studies examining the
influence of personal characteristics on leader-member exchange have focused on
follower characteristics (this is indicated by review articles on leader-member exchange
theory written by Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997; Gerstner & Day, 1997).
When Liden et al. (1997) reviewed leader-member exchange research, they found only
one study had examined leader characteristics as antecedents of LMX: Day and Crain
(1992; as cited in Liden et al., 1997) found that positive affectivity on the part of the
leader was positively linked to follower reports of leader-member exchange whereas
leader ability and negative affectivity was not significantly related to leader-member
exchange. In other words, past leader-member exchange has focused on how follower
characteristics affect leader perceptions of the follower and resulting leader behaviour
(delegation) and leader-member exchange quality rather than how leader characteristics
influence follower perceptions and the resulting exchange (Liden et al., 1997). The
focus on follower characteristics is surprising, considering that the leaders are the ones
who are expected to make the initial “offer” to develop a high-quality leader-member
exchange relationship (Bauer & Green, 1996). Furthermore, the leaders are supposed to
have more control over the quality of the relationship through their behaviour including
delegation (Liden et al., 1997). In addition, Liden et al. (1997) suggest that leader
characteristics could be important in determining whether a follower desires and accepts
a high-quality exchange offered by the leader. The present study could hence make a
contribution to existing leader-member exchange research by measuring personal
characteristics including personality, values and demographic factors from both leader
and follower perspectives. Brower et al. (2000) point to the need for further research
33
that specifies how propensity for leader-member exchange relationships develops and
whether individual traits have differential effects on the relationship. This will be
examined for both leaders and followers in the present study. Hypotheses on how
different personal characteristics are expected to influence leader-member exchange and
its dimensions are developed in Chapter 3.
Cognitive structures and expectations have also been linked to leader-member exchange
(cf. Uhl-Bien et al. 2000). As these reside within the individual and exist already prior
to the exchange (although they are likely to change during the exchange), they are
categorised as personal characteristics in this overview. Engle and Lord (1997) argue
that many aspects of dyadic relations are based on the automatic use of cognitive
schemata as a basis for categorising one's dyadic partner. Since categorisation guides
subsequent information processing, the initial classification of another person can lay
the groundwork for the dyadic relationship that will eventually develop. The cognitive
structures affect the leader expectations and perceptions of subordinates (Sparrowe &
Liden, 1997). According to Feldman (1986), categorisation of employees produces a
“Pygmalion effect” in which the supervisors’ expectations influence the quality of the
exchange relationship with the employee. Sparrowe and Liden (1997) argue that leader
expectations of subordinates established and expressed during the first few days of
working together have been shown to be related to subordinate perceptions of the
quality of leader-member exchange six months later. Leaders' expectations alter their
perceptions of subordinates. Leaders holding high expectations of subordinates may be
more likely to attribute their good behaviour to their internal qualities and poor
behaviour to forces external to them, whereas attributions would be the reverse when
the leaders have low expectations of the subordinates (Heneman, Greenberger, &
Anonyuo, 1989). Leaders' expectations may also influence their behaviour toward
members. High leader expectations for a subordinate may translate into the provision of
challenging tasks, feedback, and training. Conversely, a subordinate of whom a leader
has low expectations may be left with relatively routine tasks, little feedback, and few
training opportunities (cf. Feldman, 1986; Leana, 1986). As Liden, Wayne and Stilwell
(1993) suggest, leaders may provide more time, attention, feedback, and encouragement
to subordinates of whom they have higher expectations. Thus, in an attempt to influence
the fulfilment of expectations, leaders might enhance leader-member exchange
relationships with "high-expectation" subordinates. Support for this assumption was
found in a study conducted by Wayne et al. (1997). As expectations seem to play a
major role before or in the beginning of the relationship, it seems most suitable to
examine newly formed dyads and adopting a longitudinal perspective, as in the study
conducted by Liden et al. (1993). As this study does not focus on newly formed dyads
or adopt a longitudinal perspective, expectations are not included in the analyses.
In many leader-member exchange studies it has been argued that the characteristics and
similarity of dyadic partners should be influential early in relationships, but later, the
exchange of resources, actual behaviour (such as follower performance and leader
delegation), and testing of competence becomes increasingly important (e.g. Dienesch
& Liden, 1986; Bauer & Green, 1996). Personally, however, I agree with Phillips and
Bedeian (1994) who argue that personal attributes and characteristics play an important
role in older dyads as well. This view is supported by the fact that leader-member
exchange relationships have been shown to develop very quickly and remain relatively
34
stable over time (e.g. Liden et al., 1993). This could be interpreted as indicating that
initial impressions of the dyadic partner based on non-behavioural characteristics are
likely to affect subsequent LMX interactions and quality. Furthermore, as personality
traits, which form an important group of the personal attributes to be examined in the
present study, arguably do not change during the development of the LMX relationship,
they will continue to affect the leader-member exchange relationship in a similar way
all through the relationship’s development and not just in its beginning. Furthermore,
the study conducted by Liden, Wayne and Stilwell (1993) showed that ratings of
follower performance (a behavioural factor) are relatively less important in predicting
leader-member exchange than were affective variables (liking caused by similarity).
The argument made here is not that behavioural factors are unimportant to the leadermember exchange quality of established dyads, but that non-behavioural personal
characteristics and similarity exert influence continuously.
Drawing on the literature on trust, Brower et al. (2000) suggest that an individual’s
propensity to trust and relate, and hence propensity to form high-quality LMX
relationships, is not only influenced by personality, but also by culture and experiences.
This gives the propensity to relate a more dynamic nature. It also suggest that in the
intercultural context of the present study, the leader’s and follower’s cultural
knowledge, including past experiences of working in foreign cultures and with
individuals representing different cultures could influence their expectations and
propensity to form high-quality LMX relationships in the present context. As a result,
the leaders’ and followers’ past intercultural experiences will be included in the
analyses in the present study.
In sum, both leader and follower personality, values, cultural knowledge and
demographic background will be examined in the present study. These characteristics
are expected to be of importance at different stages of the leader-follower relationship
and influence both how a person perceives others and is perceived by others.
b) Interpersonal variables
In addition to examining the leader’s and follower’s characteristics and behaviours
separately, researchers have examined these characteristics in relation to each other in
terms of actual similarity, liking, expectations and perceived similarity. Studies on
actual similarity have often focused on demographics (e.g. Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden
et al., 1993) and have obtained mixed results. Mixed results in terms of personality
similarity and leader-member exchange have also been obtained (e.g. Bauer and Green,
1996). Furthermore, Engle and Lord (1997) found that cognitive similarities between
supervisors and subordinates have a positive effect on leader-member exchange quality.
Hypotheses regarding the influence actual similarity, including similarity in values,
personality and demographics on the different dimensions of leader-member exchange
will be presented in Chapter 3.
Concerning perceived similarity, studies have consistently found it to be positively
related to leader-member exchange (e.g. Liden et al., 1993; Wayne et al., 1997). A
positive relationship between liking and leader-member exchange has also been found
in many studies (e.g. Liden et al., 1993; Wayne et al., 1997). (However, in later
35
conceptualisations of leader-member exchange and in the present study, the liking or
affect factor is actually considered to be one dimension of leader-member exchange).
The dyadic parties’ positive expectations of each other have also been found to predict
leader-member exchange (Liden et al., 1993; Wayne et al., 1997). Furthermore, in a
Chinese context, the existence of guanxi bases between the dyadic partners could be
important (Hui & Graen, 1997). Dyadic tenure and dyadic contact hours per week could
also influence the LMX relationships (Bauer & Green, 1996). Hypotheses regarding the
influence of perceived similarity on the different dimensions of LMX will also be
presented in Chapter 3.
c) Leader and follower behaviours
Follower impression management and performance and leader fair treatment and
delegation are behaviours that have been linked to leader-member exchange quality, as
will be discussed below. What makes the interplay between leader-member exchange
and these behaviours confusing is that some of them have also been regarded as
outcomes of leader-member exchange. It appears that this confusion would be largely
diminished if the perspective from which leader-member exchange is measured would
be clearly defined.
The study conducted by Wayne and Liden (1995) indicated that followers’ impression
management behaviours influence leaders' liking of the follower (i.e. affect, which is a
dimension of leader-member exchange in the current conceptualisation) as well as the
leaders’ perceptions of similarity to the followers. Furthermore, Wayne and Ferris
(1990) found that follower behaviours aimed at pleasing the leader influence affect.
Maslyn and Uhl-Bien (2001) showed that when the other member of the dyad (i.e.
leader or follower) put effort into relationship development, higher LMX relationships
are reported. In addition, a follower behaviour that has been considered as a central
aspect of leader-member exchange development is follower performance. The early
conceptualisations of leader-member exchange development as well as the role-making
model (Graen & Scandura, 1987) stressed the importance of follower performance and
suggested that the leaders assess the followers’ ability, performance and competence
through a series of assignments and eventually develop high-quality exchanges with
high-ability, competent, and high-performing followers. Dockery and Steiner (1990)
and Wayne and Ferris (1990) have found empirical support for the argument that
follower performance is associated with leader leader-member exchange. Follower
performance will hence be examined as an antecedent of leader LMX in the present
study.
Regarding leader behaviours that have been associated with leader-member exchange
quality, fair treatment provided by the leader (i.e. interactional justice) is one example
(e.g. Scandura, 1999). As noted by Graen and Scandura (1987), one of the requirements
for the development of high-quality relationships is that each party must see the
exchange as reasonably fair. Interactional justice is concerned with the quality of
treatment received from decision-makers (Leung et al., 1996). Scandura (1999) suggests
that interactional justice represents an important aspect of the leader-follower
relationship and that interactional justice should hence correlate closely and
significantly with leader-member exchange. The findings of the study conducted by
36
Murphy, Wayne, Liden and Erdogan (2003) support the significant relationship between
interactional justice and LMX. Furthermore, the results obtained by Wayne, Shore,
Bommer and Tetrick (2002) indicate that leader contingent rewards are related to LMX.
In the present study, interactional justice is conceptualised as a leader behaviour,
measured as a follower perception, which constitutes an antecedent of follower LMX.
Leader delegation has also been linked to leader-member exchange quality
(Schriesheim, Neider and Scandura, 1998; Bauer and Green, 1996). Bauer and Green
(1996) suggest that follower performance and leader delegation are a form of interact
that are related to each other at any given point in time. Better performance provokes
more delegation, which leads to more delegation that offers the opportunity for better
performance, and so on. Bauer and Green measure leader-member exchange from only
a follower perspective and find that delegation has a significant impact on leadermember exchange quality. Furthermore, they show that follower performance is
correlated with delegation. It is possible that instead of claiming that delegation and
performance interact to determine leader-member exchange, a more correct assertion
would be that leader delegation is an antecedent of follower LMX (but outcome of
leader LMX) and follower performance is an antecedent of leader LMX (but outcome of
follower LMX). If this is the case, one could claim that good follower performance
leads to high leader leader-member exchange that leads to leader delegation that leads to
higher follower leader-member exchange that leads to higher follower performance and
so on. Despite evidence of delegation as a determinant of leader-member exchange
quality, the present study will focus on only one leader behaviour, namely interactional
justice. As already noted in Chapter 1, a problem with perceptual measures of behaviour
is that they sometimes seem to have an almost tautological relationship with leadermember exchange. Furthermore, if perceptions of behaviour are measured from the
same source as leader-member exchange, they may reflect rating biases and have little
to do with actual behaviour (cf. Duarte et al, 1994). As a result, the decision has been
made to include only one central behavioural measure each for leader and follower
LMX and to focus on personal and interpersonal antecedents.
d) Contextual variables
Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) note that contextual influences, such as physical setting, nature of
the task, time constraints, organisational culture, reward systems and the
communication situation occur throughout the process, acting either as mediating or
moderating factors by affecting how individuals interact and form relationships.
Cogliser and Schriesheim (2000) examined work group size, work group cohesiveness
and leader power in relation to LMX development. Dienesch and Liden (1986)
identified work group composition, a leader’ power and organisational politics and
culture. Dienesch and Liden (1986) suggest that if a leader supervises a large number of
followers, he or she may not have time and resources to develop high-quality
relationships with all of them. Kinicki and Vecchio (1994) found that leaders
experiencing time-based stress differentiate less between their followers and develop
higher quality relationships with them. The rational for this offered is that leaders who
experience greater time-pressure should be inclined to offer more opportunities for
participation to a greater range of followers due to a need for trustees. However, Green
et al. (1996) found a strong negative relationship between workload and LMX and
37
further that large financial resources were positively and larger group size negatively
related to LMX. This suggests that organisational characteristics may constrain a leader
and hence LMX development.
Sparrowe and Liden (1997) describe how social structure facilitates the exchange
process through which leaders assist in incorporating some members into the inner life
of an organisation but exclude others. The authors argue that there is an interplay
between leader-member exchange and social networks during the different relationshipdevelopment phases (the authors call these initial relationship development, sponsorship
and assimilation). It is suggested that during initial relationship development, if the
leader and member of a new dyad share a common contact, the form of reciprocity each
shares with the contact will shape expectations and perceptions of similarity held by the
leader and member and thus affect the early development of leader-member exchange
(“friends of friends are likely to become friends”). Furthermore, it is argued that given
the effects of cohesive groups on individual propensity to conform to group norms, the
inclusion of members in their leaders’ inner circles during the sponsorship phase is
likely to increase both parties’ perceptions of similarity (affecting subsequent LMX
quality).
The contextual factors that will be included in the study as control variables are the
number of followers the leader supervises as well as the intensity of the interaction.
2.2.3 Outcomes of LMX
A significant part of leader-member exchange research has addressed the question of
how leader-member exchange relationships are related to organisational variables (see
e.g. Liden et al., 1997, Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These studies have normally shown
that individuals in high-quality leader-member exchange relations have more positive
job attitudes and engage in more positive behaviours than those in lower-quality
relationships engage. The majority of these studies have focused on leader-member
exchange effects on follower attitudes and behaviours and not on outcomes for leaders
and the organisation (Liden et al., 1997).
Regarding follower attitudes and perceptions, support has been found for the relation
between leader-member exchange and overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with leader,
satisfaction with pay, co-worker satisfaction, perceptions of organisational climate (for
reviews see Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe &
Wayne, 1997), as well as organisational commitment (e.g. Settoon et al., 1996),
perceived organisational support (e.g. Wayne et al., 1997), perceived empowerment
(Gomez & Rosen, 2001) perceptions of communication satisfaction (Mueller & Lee,
2002) and procedural and distributive justice (e.g. Scandura, 1999). More recently,
LMX has been linked to followers’ feelings of reciprocity with respect to the
relationship with the leader, which in turn was found to mediate the relationship
between LMX quality and follower absenteeism (van Dierendonck, Le Blanc & van
Breukelen, 2002).
38
Leader-member exchange has also been found to be related to the nature of followers’
work activities and behaviours such as boundary spanning, decision making,
communication, liaison activities, innovative behaviours, turnover, and organisational
citizenship behaviour (for reviews see Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;
Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997). In addition, leader-member exchange has been
linked to outcomes provided by the organisation such as promotions, bonuses and salary
increases (e.g. Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984) as well as selection for international
assignments (Varma & Stroh, 2001). Finally, as mentioned earlier, supervisory
performance ratings have been positively correlated with leader-member exchange in
some studies (e.g. Duarte et al., 1994: Wayne et al., 2002) whereas weaker correlations
have been found when using objective measures of performance (Liden et al., 1997).
The results obtained by Kraimer, Wayne and Jaworski (2001) indicate that the quality
of the LMX relationship expatriates have with their leaders influenced expatriate task
and contextual performance (rated by leader). Dunegan, Uhl-Bien and Duchon (2002)
explain the inconsistent findings with regard to the linkage between LMX and
performance by the moderating effects of task characteristics such as role conflict, role
ambiguity and intrinsic task satisfaction. In a similar vein, Schriesheim, Castro and
Yammarino (2000) examine the impact of span of supervision and influence tactics in
moderating relationships between LMX and both performance and commitment. In
addition, differences in organisational tenure between leader and follower have been
found to moderate the relationship between LMX and organisational commitment, job
satisfaction and well-being (Epitropaki & Martin, 1999). Contextual factors do not
hence only influence the formation of LMX relationships as discussed in the section
above, but also the outcomes of these relationships.
It should be noted that in addition to having a direct effect on various outcomes, LMX
quality could act as a moderator. For instance, Erdogan, Kraimer and Liden (2002)
found LMX to moderate the relationship between person-organisation fit (measured as
the correlation between individual culture preferences and organisational culture
profiles) and both job and career satisfaction.
The linkage between leader-member exchange and organisational citizenship behaviour
(OCB) will be in focus in the present study. This is due to the alleged importance of
organisational citizenship behaviours for the functioning of the company.
39
2.3 THE INTERCULTURAL
FRAMEWORK
CHINESE
CONTEXT
AND
THE
LMX
A Western-owned subsidiary located in China is influenced by both host and home
country cultures and involves interpersonal interactions between people with different
cultural backgrounds. The subsidiaries represent Western companies and are often
managed by Western expatriates using Western procedures. The Western influence is
hence likely to be significant. However, as the subsidiaries are located in China and
mainly employ Chinese people, the Chinese influence is also likely to be strong. The
interpersonal interactions that are of interest in the present study take place between
Western expatriates and local Chinese employees as well as between local Chinese
leaders and followers. Some of these employees may have experienced various degrees
of acculturation: Western expatriate managers may assimilate Chinese cultural values
while the Chinese employees could assimilate Western values. This leads to a truly
multicultural and intercultural West-China environment that could have varying levels
of “East” and “West” in it.
This intercultural Chinese context is likely to have some specific influences and place
some specific demands on the leader-follower relationships under examination.
Knowledge of this context should help us make the judgement whether the leadermember exchange framework is suitable for this context. Furthermore, this knowledge
should facilitate the selection of the most relevant factors and the identification of
possible additional factors that should be examined empirically in the present study. The
focus in this section is on the cultural context in recognition of the fact that individuals’
interpersonal interactions and organisational behaviours are affected by cultural
influences. Adler and Bartholomew (1992) found in their survey of academic and
professional journals that 70 percent of all international organisational behaviour and
human resource management articles included the concept of culture. Of these, almost
all (93.8 percent) concluded that culture was important and made a difference to the
organisational behaviour and human resource management issues being studied.
The conceptualisation of culture was discussed in the Chapter 1 (see p. 14). In sum, the
focus in the present study is foremost on the interacting individuals and not on the
“cultures” they represent. However, it is recognised that interpersonal dynamics are
influenced by cultural influences. In identifying which particular influences and
manifestations of culture would be relevant to study in the present context, literature
that could be broadly classified as cross-cultural management and psychology as well as
literature on Chinese psychology and social relationships has been reviewed. Cultural
influences and cross-cultural differences identified in the literature review that appear to
be most relevant for understanding leader-follower relations are presented in this
chapter. These influences stem partly from the interaction between the Chinese and
Western cultures and the resulting intercultural environment and partly from the
Chinese context. It is not possible to include all of these potentially important factors in
the empirical part of the study, but their presentation is relevant as a basis for selection
of variables for the present study. Furthermore, as knowledge of these potential
influences facilitates the interpretation of results and identification of alternate
explanations.
40
Describing Chinese cultural influences without discussing Western influences under a
separate heading appears to reflect some cultural bias from my part: China is considered
“different” and hence worthy a separate discussion whereas own Western values are
more taken for granted. The rationale behind this is that it is hoped that the leadermember exchange framework meaningfully and sufficiently represents what is
important in leader-follower relations in a Western context and that “Western culture”
hence is implicitly considered. Furthermore, Chinese cultural influences are discussed
by contrasting them to Western influences. In any event, it is hoped that by considering
intercultural and Chinese aspects the Western leader-member exchange framework can
be expanded to better suit the present intercultural Chinese context. Furthermore, this
contextual knowledge will facilitate the interpretation of the empirical results obtained
in the present study.
This section begins with a discussion about possible cross-cultural differences that are
likely to influence the quality of leader-follower relationships in the present intercultural
context (section 2.3.1). Then, influences pertaining to the specific Chinese context will
be discussed (section 2.3.2). The last section (2.3.3) deals with the acculturation
phenomenon, which has implications for the convergence of values and the applicability
of the LMX framework in the present context.
2.3.1 Cross-cultural differences
The interaction between East and West in the subsidiaries under examination is likely to
result in different types of cross-cultural differences. In this context, successful
interaction especially between the expatriate managers and local followers requires
intercultural competence. These issues will be discussed in this section.
a) Differences in values, cognition and behaviour
Although this study does not attempt to generate knowledge about any specific culture,
it is based on the assumption that one could expect there to be more differences on some
characteristics between the Western and Chinese groups of individuals than within these
groups. This assertion could be justified, despite the extremely rough West-China
division, as studies conducted e.g. by Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) and Hofstede and
Bond (1988) indicate that these regions have very different cultural profiles. In other
words, Western and Chinese individuals allegedly represent different and distant
cultural groups, which should increase diversity in the intercultural dyads. It is likely
that the existence of differences in themselves (in e.g. values, cognitions and
behaviours), rather than the prevalence of specific characteristics in a certain group,
could cause specific and additional challenges for the development of high quality
leader-follower relations in the intercultural situation.
Many of the ‘universalist’ researchers comparing cultures have derived dimensions of
values for comparing cultures, agreeing that values are the heart of culture and central
for various behaviours (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1992). The widely used
Hofstede construct (1980), comprising the dimensions of power distance, uncertainty
41
avoidance, masculinity, and individualism, has been used by many as a starting point in
developing frameworks for contrasting cultures (cf. Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra, &
Yu, 1999). Hofstede (1984), and others have organised countries according to these four
dimensions. One result of these efforts was the clustering of countries on dimensions
that yielded general definitions of "Western" and "Eastern" cultures (cf. Ralston,
Cunniff & Gustafsson, 1995). Using Hofstede’s cultural cluster concepts many Asian
countries, including China, have been identified as belonging to the same cultural cluster
characterised by low individualism and high power distance, whereas the West is
characterised by high individualism (e.g. Hofstede & Bond, 1988). One could hence
expect the values of the Chinese and Western respondents to differ. These values and
value differences could have an impact on leader-member exchange quality due to the
importance values play in behaviour. For instance, Schwartz (1997, 1999) defines
values as conceptions of the desirable that guide the way social actors (e.g.,
organisational leaders, individual persons) select actions, evaluate people and events,
and explain their actions and evaluations. Based on this definition, it seems evident that
values and value differences could have a significant effect on the quality of leadermember exchange relationships. Therefore, measures of values and value differences
will be included in the present study (see p. 71 for a more elaborate discussion on the
hypothesised linkage between values and LMX).
Cross-cultural differences that could influence leader-member exchange are likely to
exist not only at the level of values. Differences in cognitive structures could also have
an impact. Cognitive structures affect the leader and follower expectations of their
dyadic partner (Feldman, 1986; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997) and are hence related to
leader-follower relations. Congruence of cognitive structures are theorised to be critical
determinants of liking and exchange processes (Engle & Lord, 1997). This, first of all,
because congruence in cognitive structures may influence perceived similarity and
identification with the dyadic partner, which have been found to be positively correlated
to high-quality leader-member exchange relations. Second, Engle and Lord (1997)
argue that since cognitive structures guide both behaviour and social interpretations of
behaviour, when congruence exists, the actual behaviour of both dyad members is likely
to align with expectations and both parties are likely to interpret behaviour similarly.
Third, congruence is argued to permit more automatic, intuitive social interactions,
allowing processing resources to be directed toward other tasks. In combination, these
three processes should according to Engle and Lord (1997) produce greater liking and
higher-quality leader-member exchange where congruence in cognitive structures
exists. Some evidence exists that cognitive leader and member structures have a cultural
component, meaning that the content and complexity of prototypes may differ across
cultures (e.g. Ah Chong & Thomas, 1997; Shaw, 1990). Shaw’s (1990) model attempts
to explain the impact of culture on cognition by focusing on the interaction, over time,
between a foreign manager (expatriate) and a host country subordinate. According to
this model, the impact of culture occurs through three basic mechanisms: 1) differences
in the content of employee/manager schemata and behavioural scripts, 2) differences in
the structure of schemata, and 3) differences in the extent to which individuals process
information in an automatic or controlled manner. Support for the existence of cultural
differences in cognitive structures and leader prototypes between Chinese people and
people in the United States as well as among the social groups within China was found
by Ling, Chia and Fang (2000). These cognitive structures also influence our
42
perceptions of culturally divers others and stereotypes. Stereotypes are most generally
defined as "beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviours of members of
certain groups" (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996, p. 240, as cited in Khan, 2002).
Stereotypes are related to one's overall attitude towards a particular group and therefore
influence behaviour (cf. e.g. Khan, 2002).
In sum, this means that in an intercultural interaction situation, different leader/follower
prototypes as well as stereotypifications may guide leaders and followers. As a result,
the meaning of a leader’s/follower’s behaviour may be ambiguous since the
interpretations made by the partner representing another culture may not match the
intentions of the person exhibiting the behaviour. The fact that culturally different
leaders/followers may not exhibit the behaviour expected can be detrimental to
intercultural leader-follower relationships as it, for instance, can cause communication
problems, reduce effectiveness, lower work satisfaction, increase the likelihood of
conflict (Ah Chong & Thomas, 1997) and decrease organisational attachment (Pelled &
Xin, 1997). The bottom line is that satisfaction is a result of the fulfilment of
expectations of behaviour, which is more likely to occur when the leader and follower
prototypes are similar. Furthermore, social interaction is guided by people’s ability to
read the interpretations others make of them and their actions and adjust their behaviour
to correspond in a meaningful way to those expectations (Marshall & Boush, 2001),
which is more difficult in a intercultural context. Cognitive structures and expectations
will not be studied directly in the present study, but it is expected that cognitive
structures and differences will be reflected in some of the personal and interpersonal
characteristics that are measured (e.g. perceived similarity and differences in values).
Furthermore, an awareness of possible cognitive differences is important for the
interpretation of results of the present study. It is also predicted that cognitive structures
and expectations and the ability to deal with differences in these will require some form
of intercultural competence that is influenced by cultural knowledge. These issues will
be discussed below.
b) The expatriate situation and intercultural competence
The intercultural interactions under examination in the present study take place between
Western expatriates and local Chinese followers. An understanding of the particular
expatriate situation is hence relevant. What reduces the usefulness of the expatriation
literature in trying to understand leader-follower relations is, as noted earlier, that the
expatriation literature has largely focused on the characteristics of the expatriate
manager, while ignoring the local employee (cf. Vance & Paderon, 1993). A further
problem with the studies on expatriation with regard to their usefulness in
understanding leader-follower relations is that although they underline the importance
of relational skills, they mostly do not clearly define what relational skills really consist
of or what kind of personality traits and qualities could be good indicators of relational
skills. An exception is provided by Arthur and Bennett (1995), who identify the
following attributes: respect, courtesy and tact, display of respect, kindness, sincerity,
empathy, nonjudgementalness, integrity, patience, tolerance, confidence, and ethnic
tolerance. Furthermore, according to Rehfuss (1982), relational abilities involve
adaptability, flexibility, high levels of interpersonal trust, sincerity and neuroticism.
Closely related to relational skills is what Rehfuss calls cultural empathy, including
43
willingness to adapt to a foreign environment, to accept other cultures as a fact of life
and to approach problems in a pragmatic fashion. These lists of attributes contributing
to relational skills seem to incorporate a large number of qualities including personality
traits and attitudes. Some of these qualities appear to be close to those required for
intercultural competence.
Larsen and Gertsen (1993) define intercultural competence as the ability to function
effectively in other cultures. According to Berry (1999), there are several psychological
and social requirements for personal intercultural competence (i.e. positive intercultural
relations at the individual level as a distinction from group level intercultural
competence). The requirements for personal intercultural competence include,
according to Berry (1999), the following: a willingness to accept cultural diversity and
willingness to interact with others, a high level of tolerance, meaning low ethnocentrism
and positive mutual attitudes, minimal discriminatory behaviour, and willingness to
engage in intercultural communication. (These requirements are close to what Arthur
and Bennett [1995] classify as relational skills). According to Brake, Walker and
Walker (1995) intercultural competence also entails open attitudes in order to recognise
cultural differences by not assuming that “we are the same” and the willingness and
knowledge to be able to adjust one’s behaviour according to the requirements of the
situation. Adler (1997) also recognises cultural blindness (lack of attention to cultural
assumptions), lack of cultural self-awareness (ignorance associated with not knowing
one’s own cultural conditioning) and projected similarity (the belief that people are
more similar to oneself than they actually are). According to Berry (1999), the
individual level processes of a) cultural transmission (including enculturation and
acculturation), b) selection and c) training influence the requirements for intercultural
competence. Intercultural competence can hence be considered as a result of both
dispositional and acquired traits and skills. Given this distribution of qualities,
dispositional or learned, it is possible to select individuals who are likely to be
successful in intercultural relations or to train them.
The ability to develop high-quality intercultural leader-follower relationships could
hence be seen as a sign of both intercultural competence and expatriate relational skills.
Therefore, these discussions about relational skills and intercultural competence have
been considered when selecting the specific personal characteristics to be included in
the present study. These considerations will be presented in conjunction with the
hypothesis presented in Chapter 3. Cultural knowledge, obtained either through training
or experience, is a factor that has not been examined in previous intracultural LMX
research but that seems closely linked to intercultural competence. Cultural knowledge
will hence be included in the present study. The more detailed hypothesised relationship
between cultural knowledge and LMX will be presented in Chapter 3 (see p. 76).
2.3.2 Chinese cultural influences
Despite differing levels of acculturation and Westernisation of the China-located
Western subsidiary, the Chinese context and the fact that all the followers examined in
the study are Chinese is likely to exert some influence on the leader-follower relations
44
under examination. In this section, some China-specific influences that could be related
to the quality of leader-follower relations are presented. This discussion should help us
make the judgement whether the leader-member exchange framework is suitable for the
Chinese context and what types of factors should be examined to explain and
understand leader-follower relations in a Chinese context. The section starts with a
presentation of the general Confucian influence and continues with a discussion about
Chinese social relationships.
a) Confucianism
The Confucian philosophy is by many considered to have a high influence on Chinese
behaviour. The Confucian ethical system regulating social behaviour has three principal
ideas: ren (benevolence), yi (righteousness or justice), and li (propriety or courtesy)
(Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996). According to Gabrenya and Hwang (1996), rules
regulating social interaction are crucial in the Chinese society, where relationships are
collectivist, involuntary and permanent. Yeung and Tung (1996) identify the following
characteristics of Confucianism, which in my view could have implications for leadermember exchange-type relationships:
1) Motives for social interactions: role obligations vs. self-interest
One basic tenet of Confucianism stresses the importance of an individual's place in the
hierarchy of social relationships: individuals are part of a system of interdependent
relationships, not isolated entities. The Chinese tend to be rather sensitive to their
hierarchical position, and they will behave in a way that displays, enhances and protects
both the image and the reality of this position (Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996). A person's
fulfilment of the responsibilities of a given role ensures the smooth functioning of
society. Gabrenya and Hwang (1996, p. 313) use the phrase “harmony within hierarchy”
to characterise social behaviour in Confucian societies. (The system of Chinese social
relationships or wu lun and its relation to leader-follower relations will be discussed
more in detail in the next subsection, see p. 47). In the West, however, the primary
influence on human behaviour is self-interest. This dissimilarity between the two
cultures has led to the development of very different attitudes about reciprocation
(Yeung and Tung, 1996). According to Tsui and Farh (1997), Chinese often view
themselves as interdependent with the surrounding social context, and it is the self in
relation to the other that becomes the focal individual experience. This view of the
interdependent self is in sharp contrast with the Western view of an independent self,
and according to Tsui and Farh maybe one of the most fundamental differences between
East and West in social relations as it has implications on a variety of basic
psychological processes.
Emic studies on Chinese communication have found that the relational aspect of self is
important not only in the Chinese self-definition, but also in any description of Chinese
communication processes (Gao et al., 1996). Because of the relational aspects of self,
verbal exchanges are means of expressing affect and of strengthening relationships.
Argumentative and confrontational modes of communication are avoided.
Communication is contained, reserved, implicit, and indirect. Non-verbal
communication is important. It should also be remembered that it is the prescribed role
of an individual, not the self, which is the main determinant of the behaviour. Therefore,
45
communication is not primarily used to affirm self-identity or to achieve individual
needs and goals. Personal emotions are not expressed openly. The primary functions of
Chinese communication are to maintain existing relationships and to reinforce role and
status differences by acting appropriately and to preserve harmony within the group.
(Gao et al., 1996). There are also specific rules for communication with in-group and
out-group members. Gao et al. (1996) also discuss the role of speakers and listeners,
which is determined by existing status and role relationships. It is argued that in Chinese
culture, not everyone is entitled to speak and people only voice their opinions when
recognised on the basis of expertise or a power position. A spoken voice means
seniority, authority, knowledge, and expertise. The ability to listen is therefore an
important communicative activity for those with a lower hierarchical position. This rule
also applies to work relationships, where the superior speaks and the subordinate listens.
A good employee does what he or she is told, has the willingness to meet others'
expectations and to accept criticism. Oral skills are not important for a subordinate who
is not expected to give feedback. The speaker’s role is to see if a message has been
received and accepted using different methods, including the interpretation of nonverbal cues. The ongoing exchange of politeness and face-directed communication
strategies are also important in communication processes (Gao et al., 1996). Differing
communication behaviour could affect the leader-member exchange relationships and
judging the leader-member exchange relationship by looking at the communication
between the leader and member could be misleading. Intensive communication between
leader and member is often seen as a positive thing in the Western world, but something
that should maybe not be expected in a Chinese context. Interaction intensity, which
will be examined in the present study, could hence have a different impact in
intercultural and Chinese dyads.
2) Reciprocation: self-loss vs. self-gain
Confucianism encourages each individual to become a yi-ren (righteous person) (Yeung
and Tung, 1996). To become a yi-ren, a person must repay favours and increase the
value of the favour given. This could mean that in Chinese leader-follower dyads,
obligation and reciprocation could play a larger role than in Western dyads.
3) Time orientation: long-term vs. short-term perspective
According to Yeung and Tung (1996), strategic management thought in East Asia
includes an understanding of the relationship between situations and time. This
perspective stems from the East Asian belief that duality and contradictions (yin/yang)
are inherent in all aspects of life. Members of Confucian societies assume the
interdependence of events, and understand all social interactions within the context of a
long-term balance sheet. For instance, in a guanxi relationship (to be discussed more in
detail in the following section, see p. 47) the debit and credit sides of this balance sheet
are never in equilibrium, since such a status often means the end of a guanxi
relationship. Guanxi is maintained and reinforced through continuous, long-term
association and interaction. In contrast, social transactions in the West are usually seen
as isolated occurrences and symmetrical short-term reciprocation in exchange
relationships is emphasised (Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996). The objective is to maintain
balance in each transaction, with great emphasis placed on immediate gains from the
interaction.
46
4) Power differentiation: xia vs. power
According to Yeung and Tung (1996), another basic tenet of Confucianism is xia, a
term that carries the same connotations as "knight" in the Western world. In striving to
become a "righteous individual," each person must become a knight, and attempt to
right the wrongs of the world. Thus, those in positions of power and authority must
assist the disadvantaged. In return, the former gains face and a good reputation. This
perspective on the appropriate relationship between the strong and the weak explains, in
part, why the Chinese often feel that investors from industrialised countries should
make concessions to help developing nations. While social conscience may be strong in
the West, the powerful are under no obligation to assist those who are disadvantaged.
This could mean that in Chinese leader-member exchange relations, the leader plays a
larger role in determining the quality of the leader-member exchange relationship.
Furthermore, if leader assistance is taken for granted, the follower could be less prone to
reciprocate leader assistance by engaging in extra-role behaviours and by doing favours
for the leader that are not considered part of the job.
5) Nature of power: personal power vs. institutional authority
Under Confucianism, according to Yeung and Tung (1996), governance by ethics (li
zhi) is preferred over governance by law (fa zhi). This accounts for the general aversion
to law and litigation in Confucian societies. The disregard for institutional law means
that those who occupy positions of authority (ren zhi) have power of influence.
Emphasis on personal power promotes the practice of guanxi, since an individual (rather
than institutional authority) defines what is permissible in a given context at a particular
time. This could imply that the leader-member exchange relationship does not suffer
from the leader taking justice into his own hands and making decisions without
consulting the member? But, do Western leaders have the same rights and do they get
the same “automatic respect” as Chinese leaders do?
6) Sanction: shame vs. guilt
The West, under the influence of Judeo-Christianity, operates primarily on the basis of
guilt (Yeung & Tung, 1996). Because of an internalised understanding of sin,
individuals feel guilty if their behaviour deviates from the cultural standards of
morality. In Confucian societies, the primary deterrent against immoral or illegal
behaviour is shame (Yeung & Tung, 1996). According to Yeung and Tung (1996), two
factors have contributed to this: (1) the absence of indigenous religions such as Judaism
and Christianity, and (2) the emphasis on "face" and "face-saving." The notion of face
permeates every aspect of interpersonal relationships in China (Gao et al., 1996). Face
implies more than reputation. People who have lost face in Confucian societies are more
than social outcasts: a loss of face brings shame not only to individuals, but also to
family members. Because of this shame, the family members are unable to function in
society. In Confucian societies, face is contextual; it can be given and taken away only
within the broader context of social interactions. Thus, to maintain guanxi for instance,
extra care must be taken in the acquisition and maintenance of face. The importance of
reciprocity in the giving and receiving of face, and the instrumentality of face-concerns
as a method of achieving business goals has also been recognised (Smith & Wang,
1996).
47
The Confucian influence may cause additional demands on intercultural leader-follower
relationships by increasing cross-cultural differences. This would lead us to expect that
higher leader-member exchange quality will be perceived by individuals in intracultural
Chinese dyads than by individuals in intercultural dyads. Furthermore, as a result of
Confucian influences, the factors included in the present study may have a different
impact in intercultural and intracultural dyads.
b) Chinese social relationships
The importance of personal relationships and social networks in China has been stressed
by many researchers (e.g. Goodwin & Tang, 1996). In a relation-centred world,
relationships are often seen as ends in themselves rather than being means for realising
various individual goals (Tsui & Farh, 1997). Gabrenya and Hwang (1996: 311) argue
that “Chinese social interaction is stereotypically ‘collectivist’ (co-operative or
harmonious) in certain social contexts but in others exhibits an ‘individualist’
(competitive, agonist) style”. According to Chen et al. (1998), people from
individualistic societies typically distinguish the autonomous self from others, either as
individuals or as groups, whereas collectivists typically draw the distinction between
those they are personally related to (in-groups) and those they are not (out-groups). In
Chinese societies, a clear distinction between in-group members (zijiren) and out-group
members (wairen) is made (Tsui & Farh, 1997; Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996; Goodwin &
Tang, 1996).
According to Tsui and Farh (1997), the tendency of treating people differently
depending on one’s relationship to them constitutes the basic reason why guanxi is of
such importance in China. Xin and Pearce (1996) describe guanxi relationships as
dyadic relationships that are based implicitly (rather than explicitly) on mutual interest
and benefit. Depending on the bases of guanxi, an interpersonal relationship could fall
into different categories. Many guanxi researchers have measured guanxi by looking at
the existence of these guanxi bases, such as former classmate, relative, same last name,
former boss/subordinate etc (e.g. Farh et al., 1998). Yeung and Tung (1996) identify
five fundamental dimensions of guanxi: instrumentalism, personal relationships, trust,
reciprocity, and longevity. These dimensions seem to be related to the leader-member
exchange dimensions of affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect; could
LMX and guanxi be overlapping to some extent? Law, Wong, Wang and Wang (2000)
argue that the strength of supervisor-subordinate guanxi is a theoretically distinct
concept from leader-member exchange quality, measured with the one-dimensional
LMX7 measure, as the latter is claimed to be restricted to strictly work-related
exchanges whereas guanxi is more non-work related in nature. Law et al. found support
for their assertion of conceptual distinctiveness in their study, where guanxi was defined
more broadly as connection between two individuals and measured as the strength of
guanxi ties from a behavioural perspective (i.e. by looking at the interaction between the
individuals and not the existence of guanxi bases). Law et al. (2000) also showed that
leader-member exchange and guanxi are highly correlated. As the multidimensional
view on leader-member exchange endorsed in this study and especially the affect
dimension of leader-member exchange extends the LMX concept from the pure work
context, one could expect guanxi and leader-member exchange to be more closely
related in this study than in studies employing the one-dimensional measure. In this
48
way, some of the factors that influence guanxi relationships could also influence leadermember exchange quality in the Chinese context. According to Yeung and Tung (1996)
there are essentially four strategies for maintaining guanxi relationships: a) tendering
favours, b) nurturing long-term mutual benefits, c) cultivating personal relationships,
and d) cultivating trust. These strategies could be related to LMX quality.
A measure of the strength of guanxi ties would have been very relevant for the present
study. However, when the measures for the present study were collected, all guanxi
measures available focused on the existence of guanxi bases. In the Western subsidiary
context, and especially regarding the relationship between expatriates and local
employees, one is not likely to find other guanxi bases than the boss/subordinate
situation and this type of measurement would hence not make much sense (cf. Xin
2000, personal communication).
Quite a few Chinese guanxi researchers (e.g. Farh, Tsui, Xin, and Chen 1998, Hui &
Graen, 1997) seem to share the rather deterministic view of guanxi, linking it with the
role obligations prescribed by wu lun. In other words, once the type of guanxi base has
been defined, wu lun prescribed behaviour suitable for that particular type of guanxi
relationship will follow. This could also be relevant for leader-follower relations. The
wu lun, or five fundamental relationships puts people at appropriate levels: emperorsubject (individual to government, superior to follower), father-son, husband-wife,
elder-younger siblings, and friend-friend. Associated with each relationship is a set of
role requirements and prescriptions from which deviation is not expected from a moral
person (Hui & Graen, 1997). Wu lun hence stresses the importance of an individual's
place in the hierarchy of social relationships: individuals are part of a system of
interdependent relationships. In each case, the lesser follower of the dyad owes the other
total loyalty, obedience, and respect (Xin, 1997). However, these “unequal” interactions
are not one-sided, as both sides are morally obligated to reciprocate in the appropriate
form (Goodwin & Tang, 1996). This creates a network of role interdependency within
Chinese societies. According to Hui and Graen (1997), cross-cultural differences
regarding the relational components can produce misunderstanding and conflict, and the
deterministic Confucianism supported feudal/family -based relationships can to some
extent affect the organisation career-based leader-member exchange relationships.
What would be interesting to know is the extent to which guanxi and wu lun guide
interaction between Chinese and a non-Chinese dyadic partner. The Chinese hardly
expect their Western interaction partners to behave in a Chinese way, but do they also
alter their own, wu lun -prescribed behaviour when dealing with westerners?
Hui and Graen (1997) more specifically address the question of how guanxi (of the
deterministic, wu lun -based type) is related to leader-member exchange. They argue
that the most important difference between LMX-type relationships and guanxirelationships is that the former is of a broader and “freer” nature while the latter is very
particularistic and deterministic. Guanxi is network specific (those who share guanxi
bases belong to the same network and are strongly bonded, have clear role obligations
and “automatic levels of trust, loyalty and altruism) and does not according to Hui and
Graen require personal relationships. However, it has been argued that as the individual
freedom has risen, the potential for interpersonal attraction in the out-group category
49
becomes increasingly important (Tsui & Farh, 1997). This means that even when
someone is characterised as a stranger, there is a possibility for friendship formation if
there is a basis for common identity (e.g. demographic similarity) leading to social
identification. Furthermore, Tsui and Farh (1997) suggest that modern Chinese tend to
assimilate Western values, and that individual differences in cultural values may
fundamentally alter the behavioural pattern of contemporary Chinese people. In
addition, a study conducted by Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra, and Yu (1999)
examined the recent evolution in work values among Chinese managers. The findings
suggest that the New Generation manager is more individualistic although not forsaking
their Confucian values. Thus, they may be viewed as crossverging their Eastern and
Western influences.
In sum, what is implied in these studies is that decreasing traditionality and increasing
modernity should reduce the importance of deterministic guanxi ties, which will be
replaced by more individual factors and mutual affect, i.e. factors that are related to
leader-member exchange quality. This implies that the LMX framework would be
useful in the Chinese context. Guanxi and LMX-type relationships could also be seen as
parallel processes, where guanxi could set the basis for personal relationships (the
existence of guanxi bases could thus be an antecedent to LMX).
2.3.3 Acculturation
Acculturation is an additional factor that could have an impact on leader-follower
relations in the present intercultural context. Acculturation could reduce cross-cultural
differences and influence the perceptions of culturally diverse others and facilitate the
expatriate adjustment process. In fact, the term acculturation is often used
interchangeably with the adjustment term in the expatriation literature. However, in this
study, acculturation and expatriate adjustment are not considered to signify the same
thing. Redfield, Linton and Herskovits (1936, pp. 149-152; as cited in Berry, 1999,
chapter 2, p. 1) define acculturation as “..those phenomena which result when groups of
individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with
subsequent changes in original cultural patterns either in one or both groups…” In the
intercultural Chinese context of the present study, various forms and degrees of
acculturation are likely to take place.
Berry's conceptual framework of acculturation is the most widely used framework in
acculturation research (Berry et al., 1992). Berry identified four modes of acculturation
on the basis of how the acculturating individuals and groups respond to two central
issues (Berry, 1999). The first issue is whether cultural identity and characteristics are
of value and should be maintained. The second issue is whether relationships with other
groups are of value and should be sought. The responses to these two central issues
result in the four modes of acculturation; namely, assimilation, integration, separation
and marginalisation (Berry, 1999). In assimilation, one's original cultural identity is
relinquished and the individual opts to move into the larger, dominant society. In
integration, on the other hand, one opts to maintain one’s cultural identity while moving
to become an integral part of the larger, dominant society. In separation, as opposed to
50
assimilation, one opts to maintain one’s original cultural identity and group and
withdraws from the larger, dominant society. Marginalisation is characterised by one
having lost essential features of one’s culture, but not having replaced them as a result
of entering the larger, dominant society. The individual in this case experiences
alienation and is dysfunctional in both societies.
Berry and Kim (1988) see acculturation as a process that takes place over time, or a
series of phases. Starting from the precontact phase, the contact phase ensues when the
groups meet and interact. Usually, the interaction that occurs leads to a conflict phase,
when tensions build up and pressures are experienced, especially by the non-dominant
group, to change their way of life. Continuous build up of tensions and pressures may
lead to a crisis phase, in which the conflict comes to a head and a resolution is required.
A successful resolution of the conflict leads to the adaptation phase, wherein group
relations are clearly defined and stabilised in one form or another. Relating to the earlier
four modes of acculturation discussed, this adaptation phase can take the form of either
assimilation, integration or separation. However, when the conflict remains unresolved
marginalisation occurs.
Concerning the first issue in the present context, there are likely to be individual
differences in the extent to which Western or Chinese manifestations of culture are
valued (a study conducted by Ralston et al. [1999] shows that Chinese managers
assimilate increasingly Western values). Regarding the second issue, interaction
between the cultural groups seems unavoidable in the intercultural subsidiary context.
Assimilation and integration appear to be the main possible outcomes, as it seems
unlikely that a cultural group can completely withdraw from interacting with the other
in the present context. In the subsidiary context, it is difficult to determine which culture
is the dominant one (the home or host country culture) but it should suffice to say that
both cultural groups could assimilate values from the other group. Acculturation could
hence lead to diminishing cultural differences.
Demographic variables, personality, education, recency of arrival, social interaction,
attitudes toward the host society, attitudes toward traditional values and language skills
are individual-level factors that have been linked to the process of acculturation (e.g.
Swaidan, Marshall and Smith, 2001; Zakaria 2000). In the present study, many of the
individuals under examination, both Western and Chinese, have been educated abroad,
received cross-cultural training and worked with individuals and in countries with very
different cultural backgrounds for extensive periods of time. The employees have hence
most likely assimilated values from different cultures and undergone various levels of
acculturation. This underlines the importance of examining values at an individual level
in the present context without taking for granted that the respondents will endorse
values that are typically considered to represent their respective home cultures.
It could be mentioned that in addition to acculturation, the company’s selection policy
could have an impact on the level of diversity in the company. Multinational companies
may deliberately attempt to recruit individuals whose values and characteristics
converge with those valued in the company, which could be related either to the homeor host-country environment. In this case we would be dealing with interpersonal
interaction in a intracultural setting, where the new “culture” has emerged through
51
acculturation and selection. The emergence of a unique value system that that is
different from any of the original cultures is in line with the claims of the crossvergence
school of thought (Beals, 1953, as cited in Boon, 2001). In contrast, the convergence
school of thought proposes that individuals in industrialised nations will embrace
common attitudes and behaviours despite cultural differences (Kerr et al., 1964, as cited
in Boon, 2001) and the divergence school (Lincoln et al., 1978, as cited in Boon, 2001)
that as cultural heritage, not economic ideology, drives values, the value systems will
remain different for different cultures. By testing the differences in individualism and
collectivism, the level of convergence can be examined.
2.3.4 The applicability of the LMX framework in the intercultural Chinese context
The aim of the examination of the intercultural Chinese context is not only to serve as
an aid in hypothesis development, but also to help us make the judgement whether the
leader-member exchange framework is suitable for the present context. To study leaderfollower relations in this context requires a theoretical framework that is applicable both
in the West and in China.
It has been asserted that valid leadership studies in Chinese cultures require measures
which address dimensions of leadership which are ignored by Western measures, or
which represent those dimensions in ways that have better local validity (Smith &
Wang, 1996). The central thought is that although leadership per se may be a universal
phenomenon, conceptions of it and the styles and practices associated with it are not
(Westwood, 1997). However, others like Dorfman et al. (1997) argue that in some
cases, the similarities and differences between cultures can be meaningfully integrated
within contemporary theoretical frameworks and simultaneously make sense for the
specific cultures under study. As mentioned earlier, the leader-member exchange
framework has Western (US) origins and it has mainly been used in a Western setting.
What are hence the reasons to believe that the leader-member exchange framework has
universal characteristics that makes it applicable to an intercultural Chinese context?
Aryee, Tan and Budhwar (2002) argue that a relational approach to leadership like
leader-member exchange is particularly suited to the relationship-oriented Eastern
cultures. For instance, Wakabayashi and Graen used the LMX framework in Japan
(1984), Aryee, Tan and Budhwar (2002) and Bhal & Ansari, (1996) in India, and Hui,
Law, and Chen (1999) in China. Furthermore, Pelled and Xin (1997) used the LMX
framework in a Mexican contest. These studies indicate that the concept has some face
and content validity in a non-western and Asian context. Furthermore, Lam et al.
(forthcoming) used the multidimensional measure (LMX-MDM; Liden & Maslyn 1998)
in China and made an attempt to modify it to better suit the Chinese context. However,
they found the original dimensions to be more applicable in the Chinese context. This
gives further support for a certain level of construct validity. Furthermore, the studies
mentioned above have shown that leader-member exchange in a non-western context is
related to the same type of factors as in the Western context (cf. Aryee et al., 2002), thus
establishing predictive validity of the leader-member exchange construct. (These
different types of validity will be discussed more in detail in Chapter 4, see p. 121).
52
These studies provide some support for the applicability of the LMX construct in an
intercultural Chinese context. The underlying assumption in this study is hence that the
leader-follower relationship has some universal characteristics, and that it is meaningful
to describe leader-follower relations in terms of affect, loyalty, contribution, and
professional respect in the present Chinese context. This is in line with the
predominantly etic research approach of this study described in Chapter 1 (see p. 16).
Using the Western LMX construct in the present context seems defendable also from an
acculturation and Westernisation perspective. The organisational behaviours and
expectations of the Chinese employees could be affected by Western influences, as the
discussions in this chapter have indicated. This Westernisation could be happening on a
national, subsidiary or individual level. On a national level, studies conducted e.g. by
Tsui and Farh (1997) and Ralston et al. (1999) suggest that modern Chinese tend to
assimilate Western values. On a subsidiary level, the Chinese employees are likely to
have undergone a certain degree of Westernisation through the influence of Western
work routines and colleagues as well as through cross-cultural training. Furthermore,
multinational companies may deliberately attempt to recruit individuals whose values
and characteristics converge with those valued in the company, which could lead to
increased Westernisation of values within the subsidiary. The Westernisation of values
could also have occurred on a more individual level and prior to entry into the company.
As an example, around 20 percent of the Chinese respondents in the present study have
been educated abroad, and 90 percent speak English. Although the result of joint
Western and Chinese cultural influences may be closer to crossvergence than
convergence (it is possible that Western expatriate managers assimilate Chinese cultural
values while the Chinese employees assimilate Western values resulting in a “new”
culture”), it seems to be a fair assumption that the Chinese respondents could have
assimilated some Western values. As a consequence, the Western subsidiary may not
provide the most suitable context for the use of indigenous Chinese measures of
organisational behaviours. It follows that Western constructs, such as LMX, could be
suitable for this context.
In sum, taking into consideration both the previous use of the LMX construct in China
and the possible assimilation of Western values by Chinese employees in Western
subsidiaries in China, the LMX framework seems to be applicable in the present
Chinese subsidiary context. Furthermore, it seems that applying the leader-member
exchange framework to this new intercultural context could make a contribution to the
expatriation literature that has suffered from lack of consideration for the local
employees interacting with the expatriates.
53
2.4 SUMMARY: LEVEL OF ANALYSIS, LMX DEFINITION, AND INCLUDED
VARIABLES
After reviewing leader-member exchange research it can be concluded that the field has
spread into many directions, which enables many interesting lines of research but also
creates many potential pitfalls. The leader-member exchange framework encompasses
many theoretically sound sub-components, but it does not constitute a well-defined
whole that is easy for a researcher to employ. The purpose of the previous sections in
this chapter was to clarify and discuss the stances taken in the present study to some of
the controversies surrounding leader-member exchange theory. In this section, the
previous discussions are summarised as an attempt to underline and clarify even further
which aspects of the leader-member exchange approach this study draws upon.
First, as should be clear by now, the leader-follower dyad is in the centre of attention in
the present study. The relationship between the leader and the follower as well as the
specific individuals forming the dyads is in focus. However, as Dansereau (1995),
Dansereau et al. (1995) and Schriesheim et al. (1999) correctly point out, the
examination of the linkage or relationship between a leader and a follower can actually
occur at different levels of analysis. In the present study, the LMX phenomena under
study are mainly expected to hold in dyads independent of groups. The view of the dyad
is hence identical to the one in Dansereau’s individualised leadership (IL) approach.
This view is different from at least some of the leader-member exchange research,
where it is asserted that because of time pressure, the leader develops a close and highquality leader-member exchange relationship between only a few key followers (Graen,
1976, as cited in Dienesch and Liden, 1986) forming the so-called in-group whereas the
others form the so called out-group. The stance taken in the present study is that such a
division in in- and out-groups must not necessarily occur, it all depends on the
individuals forming the dyads. What differentiates this study from the IL approach is
the studied linkage between leader and follower and hence the focal variables. Within
the IL approach, support of self worth, performance and satisfaction have been in focus
whereas this study relies on the quality of the exchange relationship and the levels of
affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect between the parties. Hence, the
view of each dyad as independent of other dyads is the same as in the IL approach
whereas the focal variable used to examine the linkage between the leader and the
follower is adopted from leader-member exchange research. As the present study
examines both leader and follower perceptions and characteristics and relates them to
each other, it is suggested the term individual within dyad corresponds most closely to
the level of analysis in the present study.
The focal variable of interest in this study is the quality of the leader-member exchange
relationship, which has been conceptualised in different ways by different researchers.
In the present study, leader-member exchange quality is conceptualised as a
multidimensional construct in accordance with Liden and Maslyn (1998). This
multidimensional conceptualisation is combined with the view of leader-member
exchange quality as perceptions of the quality of the relationship that reside within the
individual independently of the perceptions of the quality of the relationship of the
dyadic partner. This entails that leader and follower perceptions are separate constructs
54
that do not require mutuality. However, what should be noted is that even if the
perception of leader-member exchange quality resides within the individual and is not
similar to the dyadic partner, it has been formed as a result of dyadic interaction and the
interplay between leader and follower characteristics. This implies that leader and
follower perceptions are likely to influence each other and be mutually reinforcing.
The following working definitions of leader-member exchange quality have been
developed for the present study
Follower LMX quality is defined as the combination of: 1) the level of affection the
follower has for the leader, 2) the follower’s perception of leader loyalty towards
follower, 3) the follower’s perception of own work contribution toward leader, and 4)
the level of follower respect for leader’s professional skills.
Leader LMX quality is defined as the combination of: 1) the level of affection the leader
has for the follower, 2) the leader’s perception of follower loyalty towards leader, 3) the
leader’s perception of follower’s work contribution toward leader, and 4) the level of
leader respect for follower’s professional skills.
Leader-member exchange quality has been linked to a large number of potential
antecedent and outcome variables in previous research. In line with previous LMX
research, personal, interpersonal and behavioural antecedents will be included in the
present study. Taking into consideration both the previous use of the LMX construct in
China and the possible assimilation of Western values by Chinese employees in
Western subsidiaries in China, the LMX framework seems to be applicable in the
present intercultural Chinese context. Contextual considerations have together with the
leader-member exchange framework described in this chapter influenced the hypothesis
formulation and choice of variables to be examined in this study. The number of
variables that could be examined to fulfil the research aims is significant, and they could
not all be covered within a single study. When selecting the variables to be included in
the study, the following criteria have been used: a) the relevance of the variables should
have been proven in previous leader-member exchange research, b) the variables should
be relevant in the Chinese context, and/or c) there should be indications that the
variables are of importance in intercultural interactions (especially related to expatriatelocal employee interaction). All variables selected meet at least one of these criteria.
The discussions in this chapter have suggested that the cultural context within Western
subsidiaries in China can be characterised as intercultural. This is a result of the fact that
the subsidiaries generally are influenced both by Chinese host- and Western homecountry cultures and involve interpersonal interactions between people with both
Western and Chinese cultural backgrounds. Increased cross-cultural differences, the
expatriate situation, intercultural competence and the acculturation process were
identified as possible influences on leader-follower relations in this context. Cultural
knowledge and values are examples of factors that have not been examined in extant
leader-member exchange research, but that appear to be important in the present
context. Cultural knowledge is a factor that seems relevant for all employees in the
subsidiary, not just those employees who work in intercultural dyads. This is due to the
general intercultural character of the subsidiary. Examining values seems especially
55
important in the present context, not only because of the potential direct impact of
certain values on leader-follower relationships, but also due to the expected crosscultural differences in values. What distinguishes intercultural dyads from intracultural
dyads seems to be mainly increased differences, both actual and perceived.
The leader and follower personal characteristics that have been chosen for the present
study based on theoretical and contextual considerations include personality, values,
cultural knowledge and demographics. It should be noted that some of the studied
characteristics are dispositional or rather stable (such as personality) some acquired
(such as cultural knowledge). Some of these personal characteristics exert direct
influence on leader-member exchange quality. Neuroticism, for instance, could have a
direct negative effect on leader-member exchange quality no matter what characteristics
the dyadic partner possesses. Other personal characteristics, as for instance age, may not
exert strong direct influence on leader-member exchange quality but could become
important in terms of the level of similarity with dyadic partner as well as in terms of
perceptions of similarity. In this case, the interplay between characteristics is relevant.
These types of factors are referred to as interpersonal characteristics. Interpersonal
characteristics that will be examined in the present study include personality, value, and
demographic differences as well as perceived similarity. In addition, leader and follower
behaviours will be included in the study. These are follower performance and fair
treatment provided by leader (i.e. interactional justice). Organisational citizenship
behaviour constitutes the main outcome of leader-member exchange that will be
examined in the present study. The control variables included in the analyses will be
presented in the following chapters including the mediators and moderators of the
relationship between leader-member exchange and organisational citizenship behaviour.
56
3 PERSONAL, INTERPERSONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL ANTECEDENTS OF
LMX
The antecedents of leader and follower leader-member exchange quality that have been
chosen for the present study based on theoretical and contextual considerations have
been categorised as personal, interpersonal and behavioural antecedents (see p. 31). The
leader and follower personal characteristics that will be examined include personality,
values, and cultural knowledge. Interpersonal characteristics that will be examined
include differences in personality, values, and demographics as well as perceived
similarity. In addition, leader and follower behaviours will be examined. These are
follower performance and fair treatment provided by the leader (i.e. interactional
justice). Hypotheses linking these antecedents to leader-member exchange quality are
presented in this chapter. First, personal antecedents will be discussed including
personality (section 3.1), values (section 3.2), and cultural knowledge (section 3.3).
Then, the interactional variables, namely actual and perceived similarity are presented
(section 3.4). Thereafter, hypotheses regarding the behavioural antecedents will be
developed beginning with interactional justice (section 3.5) and continuing with
follower inrole performance (section 3.6). Then, the control variables are presented
(section 3.7). Finally, the chapter is summarised by listing all the hypotheses developed
(section 3.8) and by providing an overview of the hypotheses in figure format.
As leader LMX and follower LMX are conceptualised as separate multidimensional
constructs, dimension-specific hypotheses are developed for leader and follower leadermember exchange separately. The hypotheses concerning leader and follower leadermember exchange are very similar but not completely identical due to the different roles
the leaders and followers occupy in the dyad. The literature review indicates that all the
hypotheses should be relevant both in intercultural and Chinese dyads. However, it is
expected that the relative importance of different factors will differ according to dyad
type.
It should be noted that a positive influence on any of the LMX dimensions is expected
to have a positive effect on overall leader-member exchange quality although this is not
specifically mentioned in the hypotheses.
3.1 PERSONALITY AND LMX
Previous studies have shown that personality affects workplace behaviours (e.g.
Caldwell & Burger, 1998) and leader-member exchange (e.g. Phillips & Bedeian, 1994;
Bauer & Green, 1996). Personality factors are hence also expected to influence the
quality of intercultural leader-follower relationships involving expatriates and local
employees. Personality traits have been examined as determinants of leader-member
exchange in only few studies. These traits include follower introversion/extroversion
(Phillips & Bedeian, 1994), leader and follower negative/positive affectivity (Bauer &
Green, 1996), follower growth need strength (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994), and follower
locus of control (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994). Although the argument that personality
57
affects leader-member exchange seems logical and strong support has been found for
the relationship between extroversion and negative affectivity and leader-member
exchange, one could, however, question why these particular personality traits have
been examined and whether there are other personality traits that are more relevant to
leader-member exchange in an intercultural Chinese context.
To deal with the question expressed above, a more comprehensive view of different
personality traits is required as well as an understanding of the personality traits
required to ensure successful expatriate-local employee interactions. Before discussing
personality more in detail, a few words about the definition of personality should be
said. According to Jackson (1993), there is no universally accepted definition of
personality. This study endorses the trait psychological view of personality where a
distinction between personality traits and their overt manifestation is made. Traits are
“dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of
thoughts, feelings, and actions” (McCrae & Costa, 1990, p. 23). Traits show some
degree of consistency across situations and considerable stability over time. Personality
traits are in this study considered to be endogenous dispositions expressed in culturally
determined forms (this is different from the view that personality is the outcome of a
life-long process of interaction between organism and environment). In other words,
there are personality traits and factors that reflect some basic tendencies of all humans,
which together with the external influence of culture affect behaviour. Personality is
hence not the product of culture (culture and personality co-determine characteristic
adaptations and behaviours). This transcultural view on culture is consistent with the
views expressed in evolutionary personality psychology that there are biologically
based universals in human nature (cf. MacDonald, 1998).
The variety of individual personality differences is almost endless, but the most
important differences can be encoded into specific categories (cf. e.g. Antonioni, 1998).
A five-factor model (“the Big Five”; Goldberg, 1990, also called the FFM) has emerged
to convincingly organise a multitude of Western personality traits (McCrae & Costa,
1987; McCrae & John, 1992; Goldberg, 1990) and the Chinese Personality Assessment
Inventory (CPAI; Cheung et al., 1996) has been used to measure Chinese personality.
Both the five-factor model of personality and CPAI models of personality will be
discussed in this section before arguing for the importance of specific personality traits
in predicting leader-member exchange.
3.1.1 A Western model of personality: the five-factor model
The proponents of the five-factor model of personality argue that virtually all
personality measures can be reduced or categorised under the umbrella of this model
(e.g. Digman, 1990). The five-factor model of personality represents a taxonomic
scheme for describing at a global level the basic dimensions of normal personality
(Schaub & Tokar, 1999). The traits of the five-factor model of personality are typically
labelled as follows (Neuman et al., 1999): a) extroversion (e.g., social, talkative,
assertive, active versus retiring, sober, reserved, cautious), b) agreeableness (e.g., goodnatured, gentle, co-operative, hopeful versus irritable, suspicious, uncooperative,
58
inflexible), c) conscientiousness (e.g., self-disciplined, responsible, organised,
scrupulous versus lacking self-discipline, irresponsible, disorganised, unscrupulous), d)
neuroticism (also called emotional stability, e.g., calm, enthusiastic, poised, secure
versus anxious, depressed, emotional, insecure), and e) openness to experience (e.g.,
imaginative, sensitive, intellectual, curious versus down-to-earth, insensitive, simple,
narrow). These five major trait dimensions have been postulated to encompass
individual differences in enduring motivational, attitudinal, emotional, and interpersonal
styles (Schaub & Tokar, 1999). The dimensionality of the five-factor model of
personality has been found to generalise across cultures and to remain relatively stable
over time (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick., 1999). Furthermore, the relationship
between the five-factor model of personality traits and job performance at the individual
level has been supported in two meta-analyses (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson,
& Rothstein, 1991). It should also be noted that in general, no important differences in
mean scores on the five-factor model of personality between young and old adults or
males or females have been found (Moberg, 1999).
Of course, there are also those who criticise the five-factor model of personality (e.g.
Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1993; McAdams, 1992; the last two as cited in Moberg, 1999).
The critics include the concerns that the five-factor model of personality is too simple to
summarise what is known about individual differences in personality, that there may be
more factors buried in the residual of the factor solutions, and that there are too many
factors (Moberg, 1999). However, none of the alternative models have shown the
robustness of the five-factor model of personality (Moberg, 1999). The five-factor
model of personality has also been criticised for being atheoretical by incorporating
almost no personality theory (Block, 1995). Rather, it is based on words used by nonprofessionals in judging themselves (through questionnaires) and others (through
ratings). According to this critique, there is thus the possibility that the five-factor
model of personality is nothing more than a reflection of ordinary people’s cognitive
biases. The proponents of the five-factor model of personality counter that the model is
similar to existing models of personality derived in other ways even though it has never
purported to explain the origins or development of personality (Goldberg & Saucier,
1995; as cited in Moberg, 1999). They also underline the impressive evidence about the
model’s validity and explanatory power when other languages are used (Moberg, 1999).
The five-factor model of personality has also been criticised for considering character
and not the environment as the most important behavioural determinant (Moberg,
1999). Healthy controversy thus surrounds the five-factor model of personality model.
The advantage of the use of the five-factor model of personality model is that it so
widely used in psychology that both its strengths and weaknesses are well reported.
As the present study examines the personalities of both Western expatriates and Chinese
leaders and followers, a few words about the applicability of the five-factor model of
personality in China should be said. Proponents of the five-factor model of personality
have elevated the model to the level of universality as the five-factor structure has been
recaptured through analyses of trait adjectives in various languages, factor analytic
studies of existing personality inventories, and decisions regarding the dimensionality of
existing measures made by expert judges (cf. McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland &
Parker, 1998). According to Moberg (1999), the five-factor model of personality has
been demonstrated among German, Hungarian, Japanese, Chinese, and Dutch samples
59
in their original languages. This supports the view that the traits in the five-factor model
of personality exist in an array of different cultures and that the five-factor model of
personality model could have some universal qualities. Evolutionary psychologists (e.g.
MacDonald, 1998) also argue for the universality of the five-factor model of personality
claiming that the universality of the mechanisms underlying personality psychology
reflects a fundamental similarity of human interests related to negotiating status
hierarchies, affiliating with others, preserving in long-term goals etc. However, in the
study conducted by De Raad et al. (1998), where indigenous Dutch, German,
Hungarian, Italian, Czech, and Polish trait taxonomies were compared to the American
English five-factor model of personality taxonomy, none of the factors in any of the six
languages shows identity, in a strict sense, to the American English factors. This raises
the important question concerning the degree of congruence, which is necessary for
claims of universality to be made. As the five-factor model of personality has been
applied in China and modified to better suit the Chinese context, one could claim that
initial steps have been taken in order to develop a derived etic and detect underlying
universals (results concerning the applicability of the five-factor model in China will be
discussed more in detail in Chapter 4, see p. 157).
However, the fact that the five-factor model of personality can be replicated in China to
some extent does not necessarily mean that it provides the most natural or useful way to
describe personality in Chinese populations or that the five factors are fully
comprehensive. There might be additional factors in Chinese personality not found in
the West that are more important, as e.g. the study conducted by Cheung, Leung,
Zhang, Sun, Gan, Song, Xie, and Dong (2001) indicates. In other words, indigenous
Chinese personality inventories should also be considered. The purpose of developing
indigenous instruments is according to Cheung and Leung (1998) not confined to the
provision of useful tools for local practitioners, but they provide a means to examine the
broader theoretical question of the universality and relevance of current Western
personality theories. Indigenous Chinese personality measures will be discussed in the
next sub-section, including the way in which they relate to the Western five-factor
model of personality. Furthermore, it should be remembered that personality traits
might have a different significance in different cultural context. The five-factor model
of personality hence does not preclude some cultural diversity in personality.
3.1.2 Chinese perspectives on personality: the CPAI
In most Western conceptions of personality, the person is seen as independent, and the
person is assumed to enter into social relationships on the basis of need and by mutual
consent with other individuals. In contrast, Markus and Kitayama (1998) argue that in
many Asian cultures, personality is constructed on the basis of the interdependent
person, who cannot be separated from others and the surrounding context. This means
that personality is experienced as behaviour that is characteristic of a person in
relationship with others in particular social contexts. According to Markus and
Kitayama (1998), personalities in Asian cultural contexts may include both aspects of
social roles and those of personalities as traditionally and typically conceived in the
European American social sciences literature. According to these authors, anecdotal
60
reports from Japan, China, and Korea note that individual differences are of concern but
that fewer American-style, dispositional attributes (e.g. friendly, optimistic, lively) are
used in everyday discourse about people. People who are desired for jobs, friends, and
marriage are those who have attributes that reflect and are a result of a history of good
relationships, of meeting obligations and of fitting one’s self to appropriate expectations
and roles. Sinha and Sinha (1997) are on similar lines in their comparison of Western
and Asian psychologies by claiming that the Western psychology mainly is concerned
with the personality growth of the individual whereas Asian psychology is concerned
with man’s harmony with his fellow man, society, nature and the cosmos (Ho, 1998).
The Chinese personality structure could hence be very different from the Western fivefactor model of personality.
More recently, indigenous Chinese personality measures have been developed using a
combined emic-etic approach. Here culturally relevant items are generated to assess
dimensions of emic concepts for individual cultures. These emic dimensions are then
examined across cultures by juxtaposing the factor structures of the combined item pool
from the individual cultures. The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI;
Cheung et al., 1996) discussed below has been developed using this emic-etic approach.
According to Cheung and Leung (1998), only three large-scale indigenous personality
inventories have to date been developed for the Chinese people, although scales on
single personality dimensions or specific aspects of values are also available. The largescale Chinese personality inventories include Ko’s Mental Health Questionnaire
(KMHQ; Ko, 1977, 1981; as cited in Cheung & Leung, 1998), the Multi-Trait
Personality Inventory (MTPI; Cheung et al., 1992; as cited in Cheung & Leung, 1998),
and the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI; Cheung et al., 1996). The
KMHQ has only been applied in Taiwan and reported in Chinese publications. The
application of the MTPI has been limited to the original study with little having been
published since then. The CPAI seems to provide a convincing basis for Chinese
personality assessment and it has been more widely used than the other personlaity
inventories. Furthermore, the CPAI has been compared to the NEO-PI measure of the
five-factor model of personality. It hence seems defendable to use the CPAI in the
present study.
The CPAI is a multiphasic personality inventory that covers personality characteristics
for normal as well as diagnostic assessment (the diagnostic personality characteristics
are not relevant for the present study and will not be discussed here). The purpose of
this personality inventory is to provide a reliable and valid assessment instrument
relevant specifically to the Chinese people (Cheung et al., 1996). A combined emic-etic
approach was adopted to include scales of particular interest to the Chinese culture as
well as scales believed to be universal across cultures. According to Cheung and Leung
(1998), the personality constructs included in the CPAI were derived from traditional
and contemporary Chinese literature, person descriptions by Chinese people from
different sectors, and recent personality research on the Chinese people. These
constructs were combined according to similarity in meaning. A panel of psychologists
from Hong Kong and the PRC developed scales. In addition to etic constructs, scales
that are supposed to be of specific interest to the Chinese people but which cannot be
found in translated personality inventories include harmony, ren qin (relationship
orientation), modernisation, thrift-extravagance, Ah-Q-mentality (defensiveness),
61
graciousness-meanness, veracious-slickness, face-family orientation and somatisation.
For the personality scales, four principal factors emerged as a result of a factor analysis:
dependability, Chinese tradition (later renamed Interpersonal relatedness), social
potency, and individualism. The Interpersonal relatedness factor was characterised
mainly by the culture-related scales developed for the CPAI, and it shows that emic
scales form an important component of the personality structure of the Chinese people.
This factor has not according to Cheung and Leung (1998) been identified in other
personality inventories and it was initially labelled Chinese tradition because it depicts
the traditional values of harmony and frugality, and the emphasis is on implicit rules of
the Interpersonal relatedness factor has according to Cheung and Leung (1998) been
confirmed in a number of follow-up studies (these results will be discussed more in
detail in Chapter 5, see p.158).
Cheung and Leung (1998) raise the question as to whether the Interpersonal relatedness
factor is unique to the Chinese culture or whether it is also a universal domain useful in
understanding key interpersonal aspects of personality that have been left out of
Western personality inventories. The authors argue that this blind spot may be the result
of the introspective and intrapersonal orientation of Western psychology and they
suggest that the strong emphasis on interpersonal relationships in China could provide
an input to the interpersonal dimension of personality. The Interpersonal relatedness
factor could hence be important in understanding not only Chinese leader-member
exchange relationships but also Western leader-member exchange relationships.
According to Cheung and Leung, an English version of the CPAI has been developed
and will be tested with overseas Chinese and Americans to see whether the
Interpersonal relatedness factor is relevant to understanding both Chinese in a nonChinese cultural context and non-Chinese in an American cultural context (Preliminary
tests on a Hawaiian sample have been run, Cheung: personal communication
3.11.2000).
To sum up the discussion about personality and leader-member exchange, this study
agrees with the view that the differing Asian and Western perspectives on personality
and psychology constitute alternative and complementary approaches, which both are
useful (cf. Sinha & Sinha, 1997). There are cases in which Asian and Western views
seem to correspond to each other (but similarities between points of view might be
difficult to detect due to differing names of concepts) and cases in which they could
complement each other. In other words, some of the personality factors seem to have
universal qualities whereas others are more emic and culture specific. Extroversion,
neuroticism, conscientiousness and agreeableness appear to be personality traits with
some universal qualities whereas openness to experience and Interpersonal relatedness
have a more culture-specific meaning. Personality measurement will in this study hence
be based on the five-factor model of personality model due to its wide use. However, in
order to complement the five-factor model of personality framework, the Interpersonal
relatedness factor of the CPAI will be included as it seems to be a very important
influence on Chinese social relationships.
62
3.1.3 Linking specific personality traits to LMX
In this section, an attempt is made to discuss and theoretically argue for how specific
personality traits could affect the quality of the leader-member exchange relationship
measured from both leader and follower perspectives. Formulating LMX dimensionspecific hypotheses has been difficult as very few studies have examined the influence
of personality traits on leader-member exchange and no studies have related personality
traits directly to the different leader-member exchange dimensions. However, the
discussions in this section will suggest how specific personality traits could be linked to
the specific leader-member exchange dimensions. A further constraint in the
development of hypotheses is that no studies applying the five-factor model of
personality framework to an intercultural context have been found and the personality
traits identified in the expatriate adjustment and intercultural competence literatures
have not been well defined (there appears to be little distinction between skills,
behaviours and personality traits [cf. Newman & Rowland, 1991]).
a) Extroversion
Extroversion is a prominent factor in personality psychology, as evidenced by its
appearance in most personality measures and its important role in major taxonomies of
personality (Judge et al., 1999). Extroversion is typically considered to consist of
sociability, but is a broad construct that also includes other factors. The reason for using
the extroversion dimension as an indicator of social interaction skills (Caldwell &
Burger, 1998) is that highly extroverted individuals have been found to be likely to talk
more, to be more expressive and generally provide more information about themselves
through verbal and non-verbal sources than highly introverted people. Caldwell and
Burger (1998) argue that extroversion is the most accessible of the five-factor model of
personality dimensions to the observer, and that that it can be rather easily assessed
during rather short-term social interactions such as job interviews. Due to the “visible”
nature of extroversion, one could expect it to be of rather high importance in nonintense leader-member exchange relationships, where the interaction between leader and
follower is not very frequent: there my not be sufficient interaction for the other
personality traits to surface. However, extroversion is likely to be of importance in more
intensive leader-member exchange relationships as well due to the fact that extroverts
have the social skills and desire to work with others (Antonioni, 1998). In addition to
being sociable and seeking interaction with others (McManus & Kelly, 1999), research
on the introversion/extroversion dimension indicates that extroverts also seek novel
experiences and complex, varied, and intense stimuli, whereas introverts tend to prefer
their own company or that of habitual companions, follow predictable paths, and
avoiding excessive sensory input (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). Furthermore, extroverts
have been described as being more active and impulsive, less dysphoric, and less
introspective and self-preoccupied than introverts are (Watson & Clark, 1992; as cited
in Judge et al., 1999). Thus, extroverts tend to be socially oriented (outgoing and
gregarious) but also surgent (dominant and ambitious) and active (adventuresome and
assertive). A study conducted by McCrae and Costa (1986, as cited in Moberg, 1999)
also showed that extroverts handle stressful events more adaptively than introverts and
they tend to experience more subjective well-being than introverts (McCrae & Costa,
1991; as cited in Moberg, 1999). Previous research has also found that extroverts are
63
more likely than introverts to take on leadership roles and to have a greater number of
close friends (Watson & Clark, 1992; as cited in Judge et al., 1999) and that they prefer
a collaborative style of managing conflict (Mills et al., 1985; as cited in Antonioni,
1998).
The study conducted by Phillips and Bedeian (1994) showed that follower extroversion
is positively related to overall leader-member exchange quality. The authors give the
following explanations for this. First, follower extroversion may make followers’
relevant talents and motivations obvious to leaders. Second, high-quality leader-member
exchange relationships tend to be more frequent in interactions and extroverted
members may attempt a high level of interaction with their leaders. Third, extroverted
individuals’ desire for novel experiences may make them more likely to negotiate with
leaders for increased responsibility, which is characteristic for members in high-quality
leader-member exchange relationships. Extroversion could also be important as a leader
characteristic as it is often the leader who is expected to take the initial step in leadermember exchange development (Bauer & Green, 1996). Extroversion could hence be
linked to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader-member
exchange.
Assertiveness, meaning that individuals stand up for their needs, has been linked to
extroversion and could also affect leader-member exchange quality. If assertiveness is
combined with a respect for the needs of others, it could have a positive effect on
leader-member exchange quality, as the partners then know where they stand with each
other. This provides a linkage to loyalty dimension of leader-member exchange.
Furthermore, Zhang (1997) found that the extroversion factor had significant effects on
the general trust trait across all situations of trusting behaviours in a Chinese setting.
This further supports the linkage between extroversion and the loyalty dimension of
leader-member exchange, as trust and loyalty where found to be treated interchangeably
by the respondents in Liden’s and Maslyn’s study (1998).
Furthermore, extroversion has been linked to positive affect and the two terms are
sometimes even used interchangeably (see e.g. Duffy, Ganster & Shaw, 1998). Watson
and Clark (1992, as cited in Judge et al., 1999) note that extroversion is closely linked to
positive affectivity, which in turn expresses itself in positive moods, greater social
activity, and more rewarding interpersonal experiences (Judge et al., 1999). This
provides a clear linkage to the affect dimension of leader-member exchange measured
both from own and dyadic partner’s perspectives. Furthermore, one could hypothesise
that extroversion is linked to a variety of other job attitudes.
The extroversion factor hence meets the criterion of having being established as a
determinant of leader-member exchange in previous studies and there are some
indications from the literature that extroversion could be linked to all the dimensions of
leader-member exchange measured from both a leader and follower perspective. In light
of this discussion, it is hypothesised that:
64
Follower LMX hypothesis 1: follower extroversion will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX
Follower LMX hypothesis 2: leader extroversion will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 1: leader extroversion will be positively related all
dimensions of leader LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 2: follower extroversion will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX
The expatriation literature also speaks for the inclusion of the extroversion factor. First,
it seems to be the factor most closely related to the others-oriented adjustment
dimension in the Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) framework, which encompasses
attributes that enhance the expatriate’s ability to interact and communicate effectively
with host nationals. Second, extroversion could also be related to the self-oriented
adjustment dimension (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985), which includes the ability to deal
with stress, which in turn has been linked to extroversion (McCrae & Costa, 1991; as
cited in Moberg, 1999). Extroversion could contribute to intercultural competence and
especially to the set of qualities Kealey (1996) calls cross-cultural skills. This is because
extroverts tend to seek novel experiences and complex and varied stimuli, which could
be related to tolerance and acceptance of diversity and novelty, which Kealey identifies
as being qualities associated with cross-cultural skills. Involvement and interest in the
new culture, which also is a part of cross-cultural skills, could be related to the active
and adventuresome nature of the extrovert. Extroversion could also be related to the set
of qualities Kealey refers to as adaptation skills, encompassing such qualities as positive
attitude and stress tolerance as extroversion has also been related to stress tolerance and
the experience of subjective well-being. Furthermore, the relevance of extroversion has
been demonstrated in China (e.g. Zhang, 1997).
b) Neuroticism
The neuroticism dimension of the five-factor model of personality is often also labelled
“emotional stability” (e.g. Judge et al., 1999). Costa and McCrae (1992) break
neuroticism into six facets: anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness,
vulnerability and impulsiveness. According to Costa and McCrae (1988, as cited in
Judge et al., 1999) neuroticism is the most pervasive trait across personality measures as
it is prominent in nearly every measure of personality. Neuroticism refers generally to a
lack of positive psychological adjustment and emotional stability, and is related to how
individuals tend to deal with anxiety (instability and stress proneness) and addresses
their well-being (personal insecurity and depression) (Judge et al. 1999).
According to McManus and Kelly (1999) emotionally stable individuals should have an
easier time with the amount of rejection commonly experienced at workplaces. Previous
research has indicated that emotionally unstable (or neurotic) individuals experience
chronic negative emotions (Judge et al., 1999), low esteem, poor control of impulses,
and ineffective coping. Judge and Locke, 1993; as cited in Judge et al., 1999) found that
65
neurotic employees were also more likely to experience dysfunctional job-related
thought processes (over-generalisation, perfectionism, dependence on others) and hence
lower job satisfaction. People experiencing frequent negative emotions at work have
also been found to act in ways that estrange them from their co-workers (Brief et al., as
cited in Judge et al.,1999). As suggested by Antonioni (1998), low neuroticism should
help create relaxed interaction, thus promoting the capability to work together to handle
interpersonal conflicts. This discussion indicates the neuroticism could have an effect
especially on the affect and loyalty dimensions of LMX as well as on professional
respect, both regarding how one perceives others and how one is perceived by others.
Negative affectivity is according to Judge et al. (1999) commonly seen as a facet of
neuroticism. Duffy et al. (1998) go even further and equal negative affect with
neuroticism. A person who scores high on negative affectivity can be described as
experiencing, compared to a person who scores low on this dimension, greater distress,
discomfort and dissatisfaction over time and in different situations (Watson & Clark, as
cited in Skarlicki, Folger & Tesluk, 1999). People with high negative affectivity also
tend focus on negative elements in their lives and to dwell on their mistakes and
shortcomings (Skarlicki et al., 1999). Negative affectivity has been found to increase a
person’s susceptibility or responsiveness to stimuli that generate negative emotions as
well as sensitivity to fairness issues (Skarlicki et al., 1999). Individuals high on negative
affectivity have also been found to be less inclined to seek direct control of their work
environments (Judge, 1993, as cited in Skarlicki et al., 1999). Hui et al. (1999) argue
that if a person tends to view life negatively, this person may be less likely to build
effective work relationships (high-quality leader-member exchange relationships) with
others. Leaders may also have a less favourable view of employees with high negative
affectivity due to their overall negative orientation and outlook (Skarlicki et al., 1999).
According to Organ and Konovsky (1989) available research indicates that negative
affectivity is a dispositional variable to a larger extent than positive affectivity, which is
more determined by situational factors. If neuroticism indeed captures the negative
affect dimension, it could be related to all types of job attitudes and all the leadermember exchange dimensions measured from the person’s own perspective, with the
exception of follower contribution (as neuroticism may not be as likely to affect a
follower’s perceptions of his or her own contribution negatively) both regarding how
one perceives others and how one is perceived by others. This further supports the
hypotheses that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 3: follower neuroticism will be negatively related to the
affect, loyalty, and professional respect dimensions of follower LMX
Follower LMX hypothesis 4: leader neuroticism will be negatively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 3: leader neuroticism will be negatively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 4: follower neuroticism will be negatively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX
66
The expatriation literature also speaks for the importance of the neuroticism factor.
Neuroticism seems to correspond to Selmer’s (2002) description of psychological
adjustment, which refers to the expatriate’s subjective well-being and mood states. This
is very much alike the self-oriented adjustment dimension in the Mendenhall and Oddou
(1985) framework encompassing attributes that strengthen the expatriate’s selfconfidence, self-esteem, and ability to deal with stress. Psychological adjustment, in
turn, corresponds almost directly to the description of the set of qualities related to
intercultural competence called adaptation skills (including positive attitude toward the
experience, flexibility and ability to compromise, stress tolerance, patience, emotional
maturity, inner security and acceptance of oneself. The tolerance for ambiguity, which
Larsen and Gertsen (1993?) found to be an important component of intercultural
competence, also appears to be related to neuroticism.
c) Agreeableness
A person who scores high on agreeableness can be characterised as highly co-operative
(Caldwell & Burger, 1998), likeable (Judge et al., 1999), sociable, and emphatic to
others, whereas a person low on this dimension can be labelled antagonistic,
temperamental, argumentative and emotional (Skarlicki et al., 1999) as well as rude,
insincere and unsympathetic (Antonioni, 1998). Agreeableness also reflects an
individual’s disposition to avoid arguments and motivation to actively advocate their
positions on controversial issues and attack another person’s position (Skarlicki et al.,
1999). Highly agreeable people are also less likely to demonstrate high emotion and
might be harder to soothe than less agreeable people when distressed (Skarlicki et al.,
1999). It has been suggested that agreeableness may originate in emotional
responsiveness to others’ needs (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; as cited in Moskowitz &
Coté, 1995) and be related to the tendency toward altruism (Wiggins, 1980; as cited in
Moskowitz & Coté, 1995). Recent studies have shown that individuals who score high
on agreeableness might find it easier to build trusting relationships with others
(McManus & Kelly, 1999) and tend to prefer negotiation to power assertion (Antonioni,
1998). A positive correlation between agreeableness and problem solving has also been
found (Antonioni, 1998). Furthermore, agreeableness has been associated with both
positive affect and more inclusive measures of life satisfaction (McCrae & Costa, 1991;
as cited in Moberg, 1999).
The empathic nature of agreeable individuals and their responsiveness to others’ needs
in combination with the ability of building trusting relationships are qualities, which
could very well be positively related to leader-member exchange quality, and especially
to the dyadic partner’s perceptions of affect, loyalty and contribution. However, no
studies examining agreeableness as a determinant of leader-member exchange have
been found. The fact that extremely agreeable individuals might sacrifice their success
in pleasing others and that they might have difficulties in standing up for their own
interest in conflict situations (Judge et al., 1999) could in my opinion also influence
leader-member exchange. Agreeable persons may not experience higher leader-member
exchange relationships themselves but the dyadic partner may have a more positive
perception of the relationship with an agreeable person than with a less agreeable
person.
67
Follower LMX hypothesis 5: leader agreeableness will be positively related to the
affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 5: follower agreeableness will be positively related to the
affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of leader LMX
Agreeableness could be important in collectivist societies such as China, where facesaving is important, and this factor could hence be more important to the Chinese
respondents than to the Western respondents. Zhang (1997) found that the
agreeableness factor from the NEO-FFF measure of the five-factor model of personality
had (in addition to the extroversion factor and the Interpersonal relatedness factor of the
CPAI) significant effects on the general trust trait across all situations of trusting
behaviours, which provides a linkage to the loyalty dimension of leader-member
exchange. It should, however, be noted that power distance in China is traditionally
rather high (e.g. Hofstede & Bond, 1988), which means that leaders might not be
expected to be as agreeable as the followers are.
The expatriation literature also speaks for the inclusion of the agreeableness factor to
the research model, mainly as it has been found to be related to empathy. Larsen and
Gertsen (1993) consider empathy to be an important personality trait related to
intercultural competence and it seems closely related to what Mendenhall and Oddou
(1985) call “desire to understand and relate to host nationals”, which should enhance the
expatriate’s ability to interact and communicate effectively with host nationals including
local followers. Many of the attributes associated with agreeableness are also the same
as Arthur and Bennett (1995) identify as attributes related to relational skills (respect,
courtesy and tact, display of respect, kindness, sincerity, empathy, nonjudgementalness,
integrity, patience, tolerance, confidence, and ethnic tolerance, the six first attributes
being most closely related to agreeableness). Agreeableness could also be a part of what
Kealey (1996) calls partnership skills, as this dimension of intercultural competence
includes such qualities as empathy, respect and building relationships.
d) Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness has emerged as the five-factor model of personality dimension most
consistently related to performance across jobs (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Conscientiousness is manifested in three related facets (Judge et al., 1999): achievement
orientation (hardworking and persistent), dependability (responsible and careful), and
orderliness (planful and organised) and is hence related to an individual’s degree of selfcontrol and need for achievement, order and persistence. It has also been suggested that
people who are on the high end of the conscientiousness dimension are likely to engage
in extensive amount of information gathering (Caldwell & Burger, 1998). Conscientious
individuals are also likely to have the self-discipline required to work independently and
plan and use one’s time effectively (McManus & Kelly, 1999). The importance of
conscientiousness in work situations has also been shown in previous empirical studies
linking conscientiousness to counterproductive work behaviours, effective job-seeking
behaviour, retention, and attendance at work in addition to its link to performance
(Judge et al., 1999). Furthermore, there are indications that conscientious people tend to
68
regulate themselves in instances of frustration (McCrae & Costa, 1991; as cited in
Moberg, 1999).
The achievement orientation of those individuals scoring high on conscientiousness
indicates that this factor could be related to the ‘growth need strength’ factor examined
in previous leader-member exchange research. Growth need strength is a personal
attribute that concerns a person’s desire to grow and develop as an individual, but strong
support for the relationship between this personality trait and leader-member exchange
was not found by e.g. Phillips and Bedeian (1994).
The conscientiousness dimension appears to be highly task-related, and hence most
relevant to the professional respect and contribution dimensions of leader-member
exchange, both when it comes to the leader’s perceptions of follower contribution and
the follower’s perceptions of own contribution. Furthermore, the fact that conscientious
individuals by their nature may do a good job of preparing for mutual problem solving
as well as mutually searching for solutions that satisfy both parties (Antonioni, 1998),
indicates that conscinetiouness could be related to the loyalty dimension of leadermember exchange quality (regarding the dyadic partner’s perceptions). This discussion
supports the following hypotheses:
Follower LMX hypothesis 6: follower conscientiousness will be positively related
to the contribution dimension of follower LMX
Follower LMX hypothesis 7: leader conscientiousness will be positively related
to the loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 6: leader conscientiousness will be positively related to
the contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 7: follower conscientiousness will be positively related to
the loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX
If conscientious individuals indeed are patient, this could have a positive effect on
intercultural leader-member exchange as patience is a quality identified by Arthur and
Bennett (1995) as being an attribute related to relational abilities. The propensity to
engage in extensive information gathering could also affect the intercultural leadermember exchange relationship if the dyadic partners have collected information about
their dyadic partner’s culture and likely behaviour. The cultural knowledge dimension is
also recognised by Larsen and Gertsen (1993) as a dimension of intercultural
competence.
e) Openness to experience
Openness to experience is characterised by intellectance (philosophical and intellectual)
and unconventionality (imaginative, autonomous, and non-conforming (Judge et al.,
1999). Individuals high on this dimension can also be described as reflective, creative
and comfortable with theory (Antonioni, 1998) and they are characterised by intellectual
curiosity (Caldwell & Burger, 1998) whereas those low on this dimension demonstrate a
69
preference for routine (Caldwell & Burger, 1998) and can be described as conservative
in opinions, set in ways, and practical (Antonioni, 1998).
Openness to experience has not, to my knowledge, been examined as an antecedent to
leader-member exchange, but it could be positively related to leader-member exchange
quality, as this personality trait describes individuals who are likely to be interested in
hearing other people’s points of view and engage in divergent thinking to get at the
issues and interests of both parties (Antonioni, 1998). However, the openness to
experience factor does not seem to be one of the personality traits most important to
leader-member exchange in an intercultural context and will hence not be examined in
this study. Furthermore the openness to experience factor has not demonstrated as high
universal characters as the other factors (cf. Cheung & Leung, 1998). (It could be
mentioned that data on this factor was gathered as it was suggested that the complete
five-factor model of personality measure always should be used, but that this measure
demonstrated very low reliability with α= .32 in this sample. Furthermore, no
correlation between leader-member exchange and this unsatisfactory measure was
found).
f) Chinese Interpersonal relatedness
The Interpersonal relatedness factor is characterised by positive loadings on harmony,
ren qin and thrift, and negative loadings on flexibility and modernisation (Cheung et al.,
1996). Harmony measures one’s inner peace of mind, contentment, as well as
interpersonal harmony and is also related to conflict avoidance. Ren qin, or relationship
orientation has been described by Hwang (1983, 1987, as cited in Cheung et al., 1996)
as social favours that are exchanged in the form of money, goods, information, status,
service, and affection according to an implicit set of rules. These rules are dependent
upon the category of social ties between the individuals involved in the interaction. The
ren qin scale measures the individual’s adherence to cultural norms of interaction based
on various standards of social exchange. The forms of interaction involve courteous
rituals, exchange of resources, reciprocity, maintaining and utilising useful ties as well
as nepotism. The bipolar thrift-extravagance scale covers the tendency to save rather
than to waste, carefulness in spending and the willingness to spend money for pleasure
and entertainment. Thrift is a virtue in the traditional Chinese agricultural society and
according to PRC psychologist an important indicator of social adjustment. The
flexibility scale is not described by Cheung et al., which indicates that it is a concept
adopted from Western personality measures. The modernisation scale covers attitudes
toward traditional Chinese beliefs and values in the areas of family relationship,
materialism, hierarchical order, rituals, and chastity. (Cheung et al., 1996)
The Interpersonal relatedness factor seems to be very broad as some of the scales seem
to measure something that appears to be close to the five-factor model of personality
traits (harmony could based on its description be related to neuroticism and
agreeableness) whereas the modernisation and ren qin scales seem to measure
something that it closer to values than personality traits. The fact that these scales
encompass attitudes that have a very Chinese origin also raises the concern whether
they can capture Western attitudes and if they can be used on Western respondents
70
successfully. In any case, these scales are expected to be of higher relevance to the
Chinese respondents.
The Interpersonal relatedness factor scales have been used in a number of studies to
better understand the predictive functions of social relationships, which indicates that
some of the scales could be relevant for understanding (Chinese) leader-follower
relations. In his dissertation study, Zhang (1997) used the Interpersonal relatedness
factor to examine the underlying structure of the general trait of trust, target-based trust
and trusting behaviour. He found that the Interpersonal relatedness factor had, in
addition to the factors of agreeableness and extroversion from the NEO-FFF measure of
the five-factor model of personality, significant effects on the general trust trait across
all situations of trusting behaviours. In terms of target-based trust, trust of intimate
persons who could be considered as one’s in-group was positively related to harmony,
whereas trust of strangers who could be considered as one’s out-group was negatively
related to ren qin. Trust is an important component of leader-member exchange and
related to the loyalty-dimension, indicated by the fact that during the development of
the multidimensional measure of leader-member exchange (LMX-MDM; Liden &
Maslyn, 1998), the loyalty dimension of leader-member exchange was found to
correspond to perceptions of trust. This indicates that there could be a strong linkage
between the harmony scale (not ren qin as the LMX relationship cannot be categorised
as a relationship between strangers) and the loyalty dimension of leader-member
exchange when both are measured from the same perspective.
Furthermore, in addition to the possible relationship between harmony and trust, to the
extent that the harmony scale could based on its description capture something related
to emotional stability and agreeableness, one could expect this scale to be positively
related to all leader-member exchange dimensions measured from both perspectives.
Hence, it is hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 8: follower harmony will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX
Follower LMX hypothesis 9: leader harmony will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 8: leader harmony will be positively related all
dimensions of leader LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 9: follower harmony will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX
Although harmony is the only facet of Interpersonal relatedness that is predicted to have
a direct effect on LMX quality, the whole factor is hypothesised to be an important
interpersonal variable as differences in Interpersonal relatedness are expected to
influence LMX quality. This hypothesis is developed in section 3.4.1 (see p. 85).
Furthermore, ren qin is expected to moderate the relationship between LMX and
organisational citizenship behaviour (see p. 102).
71
3.2 VALUES AND LMX
The unique value priorities held by individual organisational members are an additional
source of influence on organisational behaviour that should not be overlooked (cf. Sagiv
& Schwartz, 2000). Schwartz (1997, 1999) defines values as conceptions of the
desirable that guide the way social actors (e.g. organisational leaders, individual
persons) select actions, evaluate people and events, and explain their actions and
evaluations (cf. Schwartz, 1992). Individual value priorities are a product both of shared
culture and of unique personal experience. According to this view, values are
transsituational criteria or goals (e.g. security, hedonism) ordered by importance as
guiding principles in life. Values are not considered to be an extension of personality.
Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, and Knafo, (2002) define traits as enduring dispositions (what
people are like) and values as enduing goals (what people consider important).
Furthermore, the authors argue that values, and not traits, serve as standards for judging
the behaviour of self and others. According to Sagiv and Schwartz (2000), each
follower brings the value priorities that serve as guiding principles in her life into the
organisation and is influenced by them in her work behaviour.
3.2.1 Schwartz value theory
This study will rely on Schwartz’ (1992) theorisation regarding the content and
structure of individual values. According to Ralston, Cunniff, and Gustafson (1995),
Schwartz' research regarding the content and structure of values has advanced crosscultural values investigation by providing two important contributions to the crosscultural assessment of values. First, the Schwartz measures move the level of analysis
from the society down to the individual. This is an important step forward from the
Hofstede research. Hofstede himself (1980) noted that since his dimensions were
relevant only at the societal level, assessment at the individual level was not
appropriate, limiting the usefulness of his research. It should be noted that the Schwartz
theory can also be used at a societal level and dimensions of values for comparing
cultures have been derived by considering the basic issues or problems that societies
confront in order to regulate activity (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). However, only the
individual-level dimensions of culture are relevant in this study and will be presented
further below. Second, and equally important according to Ralston et al., 1995),
Schwartz developed a universal and comprehensive individual-level values structure
that was derived from subjects' evaluations of questions relating to three universal
requirements: biological needs, social interaction needs, and survival and welfare needs
(Schwartz, 1992). Schwartz argues that for individuals to co-ordinate their pursuit of
these goals they must express them as values. Individual differences in the importance
of particular values derive from each person’s unique combination of biological
endowments, social experiences, and cultural definitions of the desirable. People’s value
priorities reflect strategies adopted to cope with these universal requirements (Schwartz,
1992). The Schwartz theory has been tested in more than 200 samples from over 60
countries (Roccas et al. 2002). This study will rely on Schwartz’ theorisation regarding
the content and structure of individual values for the reasons presented above.
72
In the Schwartz value theory, numerous single values are organised into a set of ten
value types that form a systematic and potentially comprehensive circular structure. In
this structure, the ten value types are ordered as follows: 1) power (social status and
prestige, control or dominance over people and resources), 2) achievement (personal
success through demonstrating competence according to social standards, 3) hedonism
(pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself), 4) stimulation (excitement, novelty,
and challenge in life), 5) self-direction (independent thought and action-choosing,
creating, exploring), 6) universalism (understanding, appreciation, tolerance and
protection for the welfare of all people and for nature) 7) benevolence (preservation and
enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact, 8)
tradition (respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional
culture or religion provide the self), 9) conformity (restraint of actions, inclinations, and
impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms), and
10) security (safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self).
While all ten motivational dimensions or values are found in every culture, the level of
importance of each dimension varies from one culture to the next. According to Schwartz
(1999), there are stable, strong differences in the value priorities of people from different
cultures: values are hence clearly influenced by culture.
Some of these ten values (or value types) have been found to be compatible with one
another while others conflict. The pattern of relations among values yield a circular
structure where values that share compatible motivational goals correlate most
positively and emerge in close proximity in going around the circle. After clustering
relationships of these ten motivational dimensions, a typology or structure of values
emerged (Schwartz, 1992). According to this typology, a dichotomy can be drawn
between collectivistic and individualistic orientations. Collectivist values include
benevolence, tradition, and conformity. The collectivism dimension indicates an
individual’s orientation toward others, especially those within the individual’s in-group
and implies behaviour that subordinates personal goals to the goals of the in-group
(Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988; Yang & Bond 1990., 1988).
Individualist values include self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and
power. This dimension indicates an individual’s perception of self-reliance and focus on
attaining personal needs. Likewise, individualism implies competition, rather than cooperation in business (Hui & Triandis, 1986). Universalism and security serve as
buffers or transition areas between the individualistic values of Western culture and
collectivist values of Eastern culture (Ralston et al., 1995).
3.2.2 Individualism/collectivism
Research during the last two decades has identified the individualism/collectivism
construct (henceforth I/C) as a powerful indicator of differences among societies
(Ronen & Shenkar 1985; Triandis et al., 1998) and it is the variable most frequently
used to study cultural differences (Kagitcibasi, 1997). The I/C construct has consistently
been acknowledged as perhaps the best means to measure value differences across
73
cultures, especially between Eastern and Western cultures (cf. e.g. Ralston, Holt,
Terpstra & Yu, 1997; Tung, 1981; Yang & Bond, 1990). Therefore,
individualism/collectivism will be included in the present study. Individualism has been
defined as a self-orientation that emphasises self-sufficiency and control with value
being given to individual accomplishments. Conversely, collectivism has been defined
as the subordination of personal goals to the goals of the (work) group with an emphasis
on sharing and group harmony (cf. e.g. Morris, Davis & Allen, 1993). However, it
should be noted that the "group" referenced in the collectivism definition is the ingroup, which may include family, friends and/or work associates (Triandis et al., 1988).
In an extensive review of the literature, Triandis (1995) summarises four defining
attributes of individualism/collectivism:
a) Conceptions of the self: individualists define the self as an autonomous entity
independent of groups, whereas collectivists define the self in terms of its connection to
others in various in-groups;
b) Goal relationships: personal goals have priority over group goals in individualism,
but they are subordinated to the collective goals in collectivism, when there are conflicts
between individuals' self-interest and the collective interest, individualists find it
permissible to give priority to self-interest, whereas collectivists feel obliged to give
priority to collective interests;
c) Relative importance of attitudes and norms: social behaviours of collectivists are
more likely to be driven by social norms, duties, and obligations, whereas those of
individualists are more likely to be driven by their own beliefs, values, and attitudes;
d) Emphasis on relationships: individualists are more oriented toward task achievement,
sometimes at the expense of relationships, whereas collectivists put more emphasis on
harmonious relationships, sometimes at the expense of task accomplishment.
Triandis et al. showed that individualism and collectivism may be better viewed as
independent continua (Triandis et al., 1988). The separated dimensions capture the
nuances lost by “averaging” them in with one another. Subsequent research, while not
conclusive, tends to support the Triandis et al. perspective that individualism and
collectivism are better viewed as separate dimensions (Egri, Ralston, Murray &
Nicholson, forthcoming; Ralston, Nguyen & Napier, 1999). In the present study,
individualism and collectivism will be regarded as separate constructs. Based on
Schwartz (1992) value theory, the individualism dimension indicates an individual’s
perception of self-reliance and focus on attaining personal needs. The collectivism
dimension indicates an individual’s orientation toward others, especially those within
the individual’s in-group and implies behaviour that subordinates personal goals to the
goals of the in-group. What could be noted is that while individualism/collectivism is
the best-known name for this construct, idiocentrism/allocentrism is the individual-level
equivalent for Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism construct, which was developed
for a societal level analysis (Triandis et al. 1988). Technically,
idiocentrism/allocentrism is the construct that is used in the present study as it will be
measured at an individual-level. However, individualism/collectivism has become the
terminology generally used for comparing self versus group orientation, whether at the
societal or individual levels (Ralston et al, 1997). Thus, the more familiar terms
74
individualism/collectivism
idiocentrism/allocentrism.
are
used
in
the
present
study
instead
of
Differences in individualism and collectivism form an interpersonal variable that is
predicted to have an effect on LMX quality (see p. 86). Furthermore, individualism and
collectivism are expected to exert influence on organisational citizenship behaviour (see
p. 108). Regarding the direct effect of values on LMX, as subfacet of individualism,
namely self-enhancement, is predicted to be linked to LMX quality as explicated below.
3.2.3 The self-enhancement facet of individualism
The individualist values in the Schwartz conceptualisation can be combined into the
openness-to-change and self-enhancement subfacets (Schwartz, 1992). The opennessto-change facet identifies the degree to which individuals follow their own intellectual
and emotional interests, and thus, the degree to which they are receptive to different
methods. It consists of the stimulation and self-direction sub-dimensions. The selfenhancement facet of individualism identifies the degree to which individuals promote
self-interest and personal gain. Self-enhancement consists of the power, achievement
and hedonism sub-dimensions.
The self-enhancement facet of individualism could have an influence on leader-member
exchange as it identifies the degree to which individuals promote self-interest and
personal gain, even when doing so may have negative repercussions for others (Ralston,
Yu, Wang, Terpstra, & He, 1996). Hui, Yee and Eastman (1995) argued and found
support for their hypothesis that the striving to preserve interpersonal harmony had a
positive effect on job satisfaction whereas the individualist pursuit of own goals and
interests can result in conflicts and hence dissatisfaction. Further, it was argued that
showing friendly and non-confrontational behaviour (the opposite of self-enhancement)
also triggers reciprocation gestures by co-workers, which should increase job
satisfaction. One could draw parallels from this discussion to the leader-member
exchange development process, where self-enhancement could influence negatively the
dyadic partner’s perceptions of affect and loyalty. This provides initial support for the
hypotheses that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 10: high leader self-enhancement values will be
negatively related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 10: high follower self-enhancement values will be
negatively related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of leader LMX
Follower self-enhancement could be especially negative in Chinese dyads as the
Confucian collectivism traditionally does not promote self-enhancement or self-interest.
One could also expect self-enhancement to reduce the fairness of interpersonal
treatment. This assumption further supports the mediating role of interactional justice
between various personal characteristics and leader-member exchange quality.
75
However, as the self-enhancement facet comprises achievement or personal success
through demonstrating competence, it could have positive effect on the contribution and
professional respect dimensions. Leader self-enhancement could be especially related to
follower professional respect for leader as it also comprises power, or social status and
prestige and control or dominance over people and resources, which could be
considered as a part of the leader’s role. Hence, it is hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 11: high leader self-enhancement values will be
positively related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of
follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 11: high follower self-enhancement values will be will be
positively related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of
leader LMX
76
3.3 CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND LMX
The intercultural context of the present study was discussed in Section 2.3 (see p. 39). It
was argued that the Western subsidiary in China is influenced by both host and home
country cultures, and that as a result of cultural background, selection and acculturation,
leaders and followers could be guided by different cognitive prototypes, resulting in
differences in expectations, behaviours and procedures. Furthermore, it was argued that
the fact that culturally different employees may not exhibit the behaviour expected
could be detrimental to intercultural leader-follower relationships. In this intercultural
context, it seems likely that for all employees, knowledge of both the Western and
Chinese cultures has a favourable impact on the effective functioning in the company,
including the ability to form high quality leader-follower relationships.
Based on the literature review, it seems that cultural knowledge could influence leaderfollower relations mainly in two ways: by enabling the individual to make accurate (and
positive) interpretations of the culturally different dyadic partner, and by enabling the
individual to adjust his or her behaviour in accordance with the perceived expectations
of the dyadic partner. Furthermore, it seems that cultural knowledge constitutes an
important part of intercultural competence. These more specific ways in which cultural
knowledge could affect leader-member exchange will be discussed below, beginning
with the influence of cultural knowledge on cognitive processing and continuing with
the influence on adaptive behaviours. Finally, the linkage between cultural knowledge
and intercultural competence will be discussed. This discussion is presented mainly to
explain how cultural knowledge is conceptualised inthe present study
3.3.1 Influence on cognitive structures and processing
The extent of familiarity with other cultures, and hence cultural knowledge, has been
found to influence cognitive structures and how individuals process information about
persons or objects from other cultures (cf. Shaw, 1990).
Regarding cognitive structures, Shaw (1990) argues that more complex and accurate
cognitive schemata usually exist for well-known objects and persons than for less wellknown objects and persons. One could thus hypothesise that an employee who has
worked with managers of different nationalities in several multinational firms, has
travelled extensively, and/or has been educated abroad might have very different and
more complex leader schemata than an employee who is working for a multinational
firm for the first time and has not travelled outside his or her own home country. The
schemata of the less experienced employee is likely to be more simple and stereotypical
when it comes to foreign colleagues, and hence less accurate. The same would be true
for a manager who has managed employees in a variety of different cultures versus a
manager on his or her first overseas assignment. The complexity of schemata could in
turn lead to a specified search for information, as people cannot be categorised easily. In
sum, it seems that cultural knowledge could lead to more complex and hence more
accurate schemata based less on stereotypical preconceptions.
77
Regarding cultural knowledge and cognitive processing, Larkey (1996) suggests that
people’s perceptions of culturally diverse others are influenced by two processes:
categorisation and specification. The categorisation process operates by placing persons
into broad categories such as gender or race (this process is similar to the one Cronshaw
& Lord [1987] call automatic processing). The second process, which Larkey calls
specification, is used as a person takes information about another person one piece at a
time and composes a profile of the individual based on the unique set of observed
characteristics (this process is similar to the one Cronshaw & Lord [1987] call
controlled processing). According to Larkey (1996), enduring characteristics of
organisational (and corresponding workgroup) diversity climates are likely to determine
the dominance of categorisation or specification processes among workgroup members.
In this discussion, Larkey uses the classification of Cox (1991, as cited in Larkey,
1996), where organisations are ordered along a continuum from monolithic to
multicultural, indicating their level of integration of diverse populations. Larkey
suggests that categorisation is likely to dominate in monolithic workgroups where
members lack experience in dealing with and recognising cultural difference.
Categorisation is also likely to dominate in plural organisations, where there is
increasing contact between diverse populations but no real integration. Specification is
according to Larkey, more likely to occur in multicultural organisations reflecting
egalitarianism and appreciation for differences. According to Larkey (1996), the type of
cognitive processing (categorisation or specification) affects the interactions in the
work-group. It is theorised that specification usually leads to more favourable outcomes
such as inclusion (of minorities into networks of information and opportunity), positive
evaluation (in contrast to the mainly negative stereotypical ascriptions), adjustment of
communication style to match one’s partner, varied ideation (culturally different
expressions of opinions or points of view are accepted), and understanding. It seems to
be likely that the type of cognitive processing could influence leader-member exchange
quality, with specification having a positive effect on leader-member exchange quality.
Cultural knowledge is one factor that could affect whether the dyadic partner is
categorised “stereotypically” or in a more specified way.
Cultural knowledge could also influence cultural group identity and perceived
discrimination as will be discussed below. Shared sets of cultural background and
behaviour has been reported to translate to group identity such that individuals perceive
themselves as group members in relation to other groups (Larkey, 1996). In addition to
evoking the sense of belonging to a group, this group identity also evokes perceptions of
others not belonging to that group as out-group members (Larkey, 1996). According to
Larkey, individuals vary in their expression of this identity, depending on the context of
interaction. In her study on communicative interactions in culturally diverse
workgroups, Larkey deals with the question why awareness of another’s cultural
identity create positive perceptions and reactions in one case and negative perception
and reaction in another case. It has, for instance, been suggested that different
perceptions of difference affect work-group behaviour. Ferdman (1992, as cited in
Larkey, 1996) suggests that work-group members who perceive differences to be
simply individual variation are expected to view those differences as neutral and
positive, but when awareness of identity group is evoked, the “other” is seen as having
negative characteristics and lesser status than self. In other words, the decisive factor on
78
whether positive or negative responses occur is whether one notices the cultural
category of the other. However, Ferdman and Cortes (1992, as cited in Larkey, 1996)
note that awareness of cultural category may also enhance views of the other as cultural
knowledge allows those who do the interpreting to understand behaviour in a more
informed context of expectations. This discussion implies that cultural knowledge is
likely to influence cultural identification but that it is not evident whether cultural
identification has positive or negative effects in multicultural work groups.
Cultural group identity also affects perceived discrimination. Individuals who perceive
that they are treated unfavourably because of their membership in cultural group or
other social category would experience feelings of inadequacy and personal conflict
(Sanchez & Brock, 1996). Perceived discrimination, representing an individual’s
perception that selective and differential treatment is occurring because of the
individual’s ethnic group memberships, has been found to be an important work stressor
negatively affecting organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and work tension
(Sanchez & Brock, 1996). Acculturation (integration into the mainstream culture
through exposure to the culture), social support (enhanced opportunities to interact and
receive support from own subgroup), perceived control (gained by high pay), and job
experience (learning to cope) were found to moderate the effects of perceived
discrimination on employee outcomes (Sanchez & Brock, 1996). Although the linkage
between perceived discrimination and leader-member exchange has not, to the best of
my knowledge, been studied, it is possible that such a linkage exists. It seems logical
that a person who experiences discrimination, from the part of his or her supervisor, will
experience lower quality leader-member exchange-relations with his or her supervisor.
(Discrimination from subordinate’s behalf is naturally also possible, which would have
the same negative effect on LMX quality).
Stereotypifications and perceived discrimination will not be examined in the present
study. However, the above discussion indicates that cultural knowledge could reduce
stereotypification and the negative effects of perceived discrimination. In sum, cultural
knowledge is likely to induce a beneficial specified search for information increasing
the complexity and accuracy of cognitive schemata affecting the perceptions of the
culturally different dyadic partner in a mostly positive way. In light of this argument, it
is hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 12: follower cultural knowledge will be positively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 12: leader cultural knowledge will be positively related to
all dimensions of leader LMX
3.3.2 Influence on adaptive behaviour
One leader-member exchange and cultural knowledge -related question identified in the
expatriation literature is whether expatriates adapt their behaviour to fit a foreign
79
culture. Thomas and Toyne (1995) suggest that expatriate mangers with long-term
assignments possessing cultural knowledge based on experience, might adapt their
behaviour to fit the norms of the foreign location. Adapting one’s behaviour to more
closely approximate that of the other party is an often advocated strategy for bridging
cultural distance in cross-cultural interactions (Thomas & Toyne, 1995). Thomas and
Toyne (1995) argue that the interdependent nature of the leader-follower relationship
suggest that both parties have a strong interest in explaining each other’s behaviour and
in adapting their behaviour to reflect their perception of behaviour that will be
favourably perceived by their dyadic partner. This process is referred to as a form of
impression management that aims at increasing perceptions of similarity. It is hence not
only one dyadic partner’s expectations and stereotypifications of the other party that are
important but also the individual’s perceptions of what is expected of him or her.
But do such adaptations take place? Ralston, Terpstra, Cunniff, and Gustafson, (1995),
use the debate on the convergence, divergence or crossvergence of values as a
theoretical foundation to look a expatriates' influence tactics and the level of their
adaptation to the local culture. The results of the study support the divergence view,
suggesting that a person's culture, not the work environment, is the main determinant of
a person’s values and behaviour. The authors, however, expected that expatriate
mangers with long-term assignments might move from a pure divergent perspective to a
more crossvergent one. The studies conducted by Suutari, Raharjo and Riikkilä (2002)
and Brew and Cairns (2002) show that expatriates adjust their leadership to the local
style in order to be able to lead foreign followers more successfully. Furthermore, the
results obtained by Thomas and Toyne (1995) indicate that moderately culturally
adaptive behaviour of expatriate (Japanese) managers was positively related to
perceptions of similarity by (American) followers and that this induced higher trust and
perceived effectiveness. The authors speculate the optimal level of adaptation depends
on the general tolerance of foreign behaviour and the level of admiration of the other
culture. Overall, this discussion suggests that a certain level of adaptation could have
favourable outcomes on intercultural leader-follower relations and that the duration of
the foreign assignment, which constitutes a form of cultural knowledge, could influence
the level of adaptation. In other words, cultural knowledge could influence both the
leaders’ and followers’ ability to adopt their behaviour in accordance with the
expectations of their dyadic partners. This is in line with the argument that cultural
knowledge helps people to cope with unexpected events, and to be more capable in their
interaction with foreign people (e.g. Early, 1997). Cultural knowledge could hence have
a positive impact on the dyadic partner’s perceptions regarding all leader-member
exchange dimensions, and it is hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 13: leader cultural knowledge will be positively related
to all dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 13: follower cultural knowledge will be positively related
to all dimensions of leader LMX
80
3.3.3 Cultural knowledge and intercultural competence
Cultural knowledge seems closely linked to intercultural competence, as mentioned in
the earlier general discussion about intercultural competence (see p. 42). The
importance of knowledge about other cultures is stressed as an important factor of
intercultural competence by a number of authors (e.g. Brake et al, 1995; Triandis, 1977;
as cited in Larsen and Gertsen (1993). It is generally assumed that increased knowledge
of another culture implies increased understanding of ways of thinking and behaving in
the culture in question (Larsen & Gertsen, 1993) Knowledge of culturally acceptable or
unacceptable behaviour is necessary in many intercultural situations, as also most likely
in leader-member exchange relationships.
An understanding of factors that contribute to intercultural competence is useful to
enable the identification of different types of cultural knowledge that could influence
intercultural leader-follower relations. According to Berry (1999), the processes of a)
cultural transmission (including enculturation and acculturation), b) training, and c)
selection influence the requirements for intercultural competence. The processes of
cultural transmission and training are relevant with regard cultural knowledge will be
presented more in detail below (adopted from Berry, 1999):
a) Cultural transmission: According to Berry (1999), the most fundamental process in
meeting the requirements for personal intercultural competence is the way individuals
are raised and incorporated into their cultural group through the process of cultural
transmission. This is because people are not born with all the characteristics influencing
intercultural competence such as culture, attitudes and language. Instead, they are
learned from the individual’s own culture and environment through the processes of
enculturation and socialisation. This general enculturation and specific socialisation
occurs both vertically (learning aspects of culture from one’s parents), horizontally
(learning from one’s peers) and in the form of oblique transmission (learning from other
adult members and institutions of the culture). This cultural transmission usually takes
place within one cultural group, although an increasing number of people are now
exposed to more than one culture through work or studies. This leads to a kind of
double cultural transmission involving both the individual’s primary culture and a
secondary one. In this situation, the major challenge is to make sense of these multiple
sources of cultural transmission. In the present study, cultural transmission from other
cultures is expected to contribute to cultural knowledge and will be measured by
including the individual’s education and work experience abroad.
b) Training: Berry (1999) argues that although people with the desired qualities can be
selected, intercultural competence can further be enhanced through training. A
distinction can be made between training programmes that seek to train people to be
competent in any or all cultures (culture-general programmes) to those that train for
competence in a single culture (culture-specific programmes) (Brislin, 1986, as cited in
Berry, 1999). However, insight into one other culture usually transfers to intercultural
understanding more generally (Berry, 1999). Therefore, measures of cross-cultural
training will be included in the present study.
81
In sum, this discussion implies that cultural knowledge, which contributes to
intercultural competence, encompasses both knowledge of a specific country and
general intercultural experience, which can be acquired either through training or from
previous international assignments and intercultural interactions. As it was argued that
insight into one other culture usually transfers to intercultural understanding more
generally (Berry, 1999), it is not just knowledge of the Chinese context that is important
here but general intercultural experience as well. The literature review speaks for the
inclusion of the following factors as indicators of cultural knowledge: leader time
working in China, follower time working in company, experience of working in
intercultural dyads, education abroad, time spent on international assignments, different
types of cross-cultural training, language skills.
Cultural knowledge may seem especially relevant for the expatriate leaders and their
local Chinese followers, in other words in intercultural dyads. However, it is possible
that cultural knowledge is of importance in Chinese dyads as well. Cultural knowledge
could have a very general positive influence as studies have shown that education and
exposure to foreign culture and business practices reduce cognitive differences between
individuals from different countries (Shaw, 1990). Based on the earlier discussions, it
seems that cultural knowledge would make the cognitive structures more complex, with
the beneficial outcomes discussed above. Furthermore, cultural knowledge could be of a
more specific importance in the present context. This is due to the general multicultural
environment, where, for instance, Chinese managers could be expected to adopt the
same procedures as the expatriate managers. Furthermore, the company’s selection
policy could result in the recruitment of Chinese employees (both leaders and followers)
whose values and characteristics converge with those valued in the headquarters and by
the expatriate managers. If the result, with the additional effect of acculturation, is some
extent of Westernisation, the Chinese leaders or followers would benefit from cultural
knowledge to deal with these Westernised employees. In sum, cultural knowledge is
expected to be of importance in both intracultural and intercultural dyads.
82
3.4 SIMILARITY AND LMX
An examination of similarity between individuals in the workplace has been theorised
as critical to understanding organisational behaviour (Deluga, 1998). This approach
relies on the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971, as cited in Wayne & Liden,
1995) for its theoretical foundation. According to this theory, individuals who possess
similar individual characteristics and attitudes will perceive one another as similar and
will be attracted to each other. Social psychology research supplies substantial evidence
for the strong link between shared attitudes, parallel demographic characteristics, and
personality trait similarity with interpersonal attraction, higher levels of trust and
confidence, delegation, mutual behavioural predictability, and favourable performance
ratings (Deluga 1998). Conversely, reactions are typically negative toward dissimilar
others and to those who do not share common goals (Deluga, 1998).
Previous research also supports a connection between subordinate-supervisor similarity
and leader-member exchange (e.g. Liden et al., 1993; Phillips & Bedeian, 1994).
Empirical studies have, for instance, found associations between leader-member
exchange and supervisor-subordinate agreement on job-related matters (Graen &
Schiemann, 1978) and positive affectivity similarity (Bauer & Green, 1996; Deluga,
1998). Subordinate-supervisor similarity may, for instance, promote process outcomes
including interpersonal comfort, compatibility, and work co-ordination. The subordinate
then obtains informative feedback and a clear understanding of supervisor performance
expectations.
Several mechanisms may be working together to create the positive effect of similarity
(Wayne & Liden, 1995). The first mechanism is that similarity may enhance
behavioural predictability, which could increase the ease and quality of the interactions
between the parties. The second mechanism is similar interpretations of events and a
common system of communication. Another potential mechanism is supervisors seeing
similar subordinates having high potential because they are like themselves.
Theoretically, these mechanisms are an important part of the leader-member exchange
development process because they can contribute to a growing sense of trust in the
relationship, and they make for more stable interpersonal relationships in general
(Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
According to Thomas and Toyne (1995), similarity has in addition to attraction been
related to other positive outcomes including increased frequency of communication,
technical communication, friendship ties and social integration (these could, however,
be the result of increased attraction between the parties and similarity could hence
moderate the relationship between e.g. communication frequency and leader-member
exchange).
A distinction between actual similarity and perceived similarity should be made.
Although the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971, as cited in Wayne & Liden,
1995) states that individuals who possess similar individual characteristics and attitudes
will perceive one another as similar it is not certain that these are strongly related. The
level of actual similarity will be examined in this study by looking at both demographic
83
similarity and similarity in personality and values. Perceived similarity is concerned
with one person’s perceptions of similarity with other party. Hypotheses regarding these
different types of similarity will be presented below, beginning with actual similarity
and continuing with perceived similarity.
3.4.1 Actual similarity
The impact of actual similarity will be investigated by assessing the level of
demographic similarity, similarity in personality, similarity in Interpersonal relatedness
and similarity in values (measured as similarity in individualism and collectivism).
a) Demographic similarity
Demographic variables, such as age, gender, and tenure, are often used to profile groups
and they are usually the bases for an initial impression of an individual (Tsui & Farh,
1997). Demographic cues are used to categorise people into various social groups, and
stereotypes about the person’s likely attitudes, behaviours, beliefs, and actions are
invoked (Tsui & Farh, 1997). Bauer and Green (1996) proposed that leader and follower
characteristics would influence initial interactions between a leader and a follower.
Early in the relationship, when the leader and follower have limited information about
one another, these characteristics will be salient and set the stage for later interactions.
Some researchers have suggested that it is not demographic factors as such which are
important in social interactions, but the level of similarity between the interacting
parties. This approach is termed relational demography and it has investigated age and
tenure, race and education (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), and gender (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly,
1989; Wayne & Liden, 1995). Tsui and O'Reilly (1989) reported that follower-leader
demographic similarity was significantly associated with leader ratings of affect toward
followers and the extent to which followers had achieved role and responsibility
expectations. Demographic similarity could hence be linked to the affect dimension of
leader-member exchange.
Moreover, Green, Anderson, and Shivers (1996) described how leader-member
exchange is likely to be of lower quality when followers and leaders are of different
genders. Conversely, Liden et al. (1993) found that leader-follower demographic
similarity had no significant effects on quality of leader-member exchange and Bauer
and Green (1996) reported no relationship between the quality of leader-member
exchange and gender. In sum, the support for the relationship between demographic
similarity and overall leader-member exchange has not been very strong. However, due
to the positive effects of similarity in general reported by Wayne and Liden (1995)
listed earlier including behavioural predictability, similarity in interpretations and
supervisors seeing similar subordinates having high potential because they are like
themselves, demographic similarity could have a positive effect on also the loyalty,
contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader-member exchange. Hence, it
is hypothesised that:
84
Follower LMX hypothesis 14:the level of demographic similarity between leader
and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 14: the level of demographic similarity between leader
and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX
Tsui and Farh (1997) argue that to the extent that individuals in any social cultural
context may be characterised by demographic factors, the idea of demography may be a
universal concept that has relevance for understanding work behaviour in different
cultural settings although most research to date on relational demography (demographic
similarities and differences) has been conducted in a US setting. Farh et al. (1998) argue
that relational demography has the same effect in China as in the Western world,
meaning that the similarity-attraction dynamic also operates in the Chinese context.
Tsui and Farh (1997) looked at relational demography in a Chinese context, where
socio-economic backgrounds and family origins are particularly important factors in
interpersonal relationships. The authors compared the Western idea of relational
demography to the Chinese concept of guanxi and discussed how and when each will
matter most in influencing interpersonal relationships and work outcomes in China. (In
an earlier study, the authors had found that the work outcomes influenced most directly
by guanxi and relational demography are interpersonal trust, interpersonal liking,
frequency of communication, favourable evaluations of each other by members who
share some tie or connection and preferential actions. The authors argue that these
outcomes are meaningful at the interpersonal level in either vertical (leader-member) or
horizontal dyads). Tsui and Farh (1997) hypothesise that social identification based on
demographic similarity is more important with strangers than with family members.
This means that strangers with similar identity are put in more favourable light than
strangers with whom a common basis of social identity is not shared. With family
members, role obligation plays a more significant role than social identification. This
means that in the dyads where the leader and follower represent different cultures and
the existence of other guanxi bases than the leader-subordinate situation are unlikely,
relational demography could play a bigger role than in the Chinese dyads.
b) Personality similarity
In addition to demographic similarity, personality or attitudinal similarity could
influence leader-member exchange. Previous research has shown that when dyad
members have similar outlooks owing to similar personalities, leaders may be inclined
to view members' performance more positively, to trust them more, and to delegate
more to them. (cf. Wayne & Liden, 1995). A field study conducted by Phillips and
Bedeian (1994) revealed that leader-member exchange quality was positively connected
with leader-follower attitudinal similarity. Other empirical studies have found
associations between leader-member exchange and positive affectivity similarity (Bauer
& Green, 1996, Deluga, 1998).
In his discussion about similarity in positive affectivity, Deluga (1998) argues that
enthusiastic, energetic people should want to be around other enthusiastic, energetic
people, and view them more favourably than those who differ from themselves.
85
Dissimilarity in affectivity might well lead to differences of opinion about the work
context that could create social distance between leader and follower, lower trust, and
increase misunderstandings. Misunderstandings on either side of the leader-follower
relationship can lower its quality, which is a mutually negotiated outcome. Bauer and
Green (1996) found that similarity in positive affectivity was related to performance
judgements made by the leader. The authors suggest that personality similarity may
predispose a leader to see a follower in a positive light, or it may be that personality
similarity actually facilitates follower performance. What personality similarity means
in terms of actual performance is, however, harder to determine. Previous research
suggests that certain personality traits may enhance performance when the work team
(and why not dyad) is homogenous, whereas other traits may enhance performance
when the team is diverse (Neuman et al., 1999). Personality similarity and compatibility
between the actors could enhance performance by facilitating communication between
the actors and the motivation to work together. In light of these arguments and the
expected general positive effect of similarity discussed earlier, it is hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 15: the level of personality similarity between leader
and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 15: the level of personality similarity between leader and
follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX
Personality similarity will be measured as differences in neuroticism, extroversion,
agreeableness and conscientiousness from the five-factor model of personality.
c) Differences in Chinese Interpersonal relatedness
Hui and Graen (1997) suggest that cross-cultural differences in traditional Chinese
values regarding the rules of social relationships prescribed by guanxi and wu lun can
produce misunderstanding and conflict. Chinese social relationships were discussed in
Section 2.3.2 (see p. 47). This indicates that the level of similarity between leader and
follower in the endorsement of traditional values could have a positive effect on leadermember exchange quality and all its dimensions. As the Interpersonal relatedness factor
from the Chinese Personality Inventory encompasses attitudes that have a very Chinese
origin it will be used in the present study to measure the level of endorsement of
traditional Chinese values. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Follower LMX hypothesis 16: a high level of similarity between leader and
follower in Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on follower LMX
quality and all its dimensions
Leader LMX hypothesis 16: a high level of similarity between leader and follower
in Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on leader LMX quality and
all its dimensions
86
d) Differences in individualism/collectivism
As values are conceptions of the desirable that guide the way social actors select
actions, evaluate people and events, and explain their actions and evaluations (cf.
Schwartz, 1992), one could assume that differences in values would lead to increased
difficulties in evaluating and explaining other people and their actions, which is an
important aspect of social interaction (cf. Marshall & Boush, 2001) Furthermore, as
individuals’ organisational behaviours are influenced by the value priorities that serve
as guiding principles in their lives (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000), differences in values are
likely to result in differences in behaviours. As values have been found to be influenced
by culture (e.g. Schwartz, 1999), more significant value differences could be expected
in intercultural than in intracultural dyads. Although no previous research has been
found that directly links value differences to leader-member exchange, one could
hypothesise that similarity in values has the same effect as similarity in general
including demographic and personality similarity. That is, value similarity could
increase perceptions of similarity and attraction, enhance behavioural predictability and
hence trust, increase similarity in the interpretations of events and facilitate
communication (Wayne & Liden, 1995). Value similarity will be assessed by through
the individualism and collectivism dimensions as the importance of these dimensions
has been established in previous research (these dimensions were discussed in Section
3.2). The following hypotheses are hence presented:
Follower LMX hypothesis 17:a high level of similarity in individualism and
collectivism between leader and follower will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 17: a high level of similarity in individualism and
collectivism between leader and follower will be positively related all dimensions
of leader LMX
3.4.2 Perceived similarity
Perceived similarity has been found to influence leader-member exchange (Liden et al.,
1993; Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). Liden et al. (1993) found perceived similarity and
leader-member exchange to be related only when both variables were assessed by the
same source: leader reports of similarity were related to leader reports of leader-member
exchange but not to follower reports of leader-member exchange. Phillips and Bedeian
(1994), however, found leader reports of similarity to affect follower reports of leadermember exchange). The bottom line of similarity research seems to be that individuals
tend to like and trust people who are similar to themselves, and it has, for instance, been
suggested that affect and trust may influence the processing of performance information
(see earlier discussion). In line with the previous similarity-discussions it is hence
hypothesised that perceptions of similarity with dyadic will be positively related to the
all dimensions of leader-member exchange.
87
To recall, the similarity-attraction paradigm assumes that individuals who possess
similar individual characteristics and attitudes will perceive one another as similar and
will be attracted to each other. Perceived similarity is hence expected to be partly an
outcome of actual similarity, and could be seen as a mediator between actual similarity
and leader-member exchange. Furthermore, perceived similarity could mediate the
relationship between cultural knowledge and leader-member exchange. This is due to
the assumption that cultural knowledge increases specification and accurate judgements
and hence facilitates the ability to recognise cultural differences (Brake, 1995). Cultural
knowledge could hence also diminish what Adler (1997) calls cultural blindness (lack
of attention to cultural assumptions), lack of cultural self-awareness (ignorance
associated with not knowing one’s own cultural conditioning) and projected similarity.
Adler reports that intercultural interactions sometimes are distorted by the fact that
people with different cultural backgrounds often perceive each other more similar than
they actually are. This phenomenon is called projected similarity. In sum, it is
hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 18: follower perceptions of similarity with leader will
be positively related to all the dimensions of follower LMX, and perceived
similarity will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural
knowledge and all the dimensions of follower LMX
Leader LMX hypothesis 18: leader perceptions of similarity with follower will be
positively related to all the dimensions of leader LMX, and perceived similarity
will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural knowledge, and
all the dimensions of leader LMX
Finally, the discussions concerning similarity and LMX have indicated that in an
intercultural interaction situation, the interacting parties may have more different values and
cognitive structures and exhibit more different behaviours than in intracultural dyads. These
increased differences could be detrimental to the intercultural leader-follower relationship.
Hence, the following dyad-level hypothesis is presented:
Dyad-level hypothesis 1: intracultural Chinese dyads will demonstrate higher
LMX quality than intercultural Western-Chinese dyads
88
3.5 INROLE PERFORMANCE AND LMX
The early conceptualisations of leader-member exchange development as well as the
role-making model (Graen & Scandura, 1987) stressed the importance of follower
performance. It was suggested that the leaders assess the followers’ ability, performance
and competence through a series of assignments and eventually develop high-quality
exchanges with high-ability, competent, and high-performing followers. Dockery and
Steiner (1990) and Wayne and Ferris (1990) found empirical support for the association
between follower performance and leader perceptions of leader-member exchange
quality. Although the relationship between follower performance and the specific
dimensions of leader-member exchange has not been established in previous research,
follower performance is expected to influence all the dimensions of LMX due to its
central nature. Especially the work-related contribution and professional respect
dimensions are likely to be influenced by follower performance. In light of this
discussion, it is hypothesised that:
Leader LMX hypothesis 19: follower inrole performance will be positively related
to all dimensions of leader LMX
However, it should be noted that the direction of causality is difficult to establish due to
the dynamic nature of the relationship development. Inrole performance could also be
seen as the outcome of earlier LMX that influences subsequent LMX.
89
3.6 INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE AND LMX
Notions of justice are introduced in Homans' theory of social exchange (1961, 1974; as
cited in Keller & Dansereau, 1995). The basic premise of justice theories is that fair
treatment is central to people and a major determinant of their reactions to decisions
(Korsgaard & Schweiger, 1995). As noted by Graen and Scandura (1987), one of the
requirements for the development of high-quality relationships is that each party must
see the exchange as reasonably fair. A distinction between procedural, distributive and
interactional justice can be made (Leung et al., 1996). Distributive justice refers to the
perceived fairness of the amounts of compensation employees receive. Procedural
justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means used to determine those amounts
(McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Interactional justice is concerned with the quality of
treatment received from decision makers and the extent to which formal decision
making procedures are properly enacted (Leung et al., 1996).
Scandura (1999) asserts that previous research leaves it unclear whether organisational
justice is an outcome of leader-member exchange or a central element in leader-member
exchange development. Therefore she proposes a model of LMX development
incorporating different levels of analysis where each type of justice plays a different
role at different stages. According to Scandura’s model, interactional justice represents
an integrated part of the leader-follower relationship and the model suggests that
interactional justice should correlate closely and significantly with leader-member
exchange. In the present study, interactional justice is conceptualised as a leader
behaviour, measured from a follower perspective, that constitutes an antecedent of
follower leader-member exchange. Furthermore, Scandura proposes that higher quality
relationship will result in more rewards for followers and hence increased perceived
distributive justice. A high-quality relationship is also expected to entail better
communications regarding organisational justice concerns and hence increased
perceived procedural justice. This suggests that procedural and distributive justice could
be seen as outcomes of follower leader-member exchange (procedural and distributive
justice are predicted to mediate the relationship between LMX and OCB and will be
discussed on p. 106). The findings of the study conducted by Murphy, Wayne, Liden
and Erdogan (2003) support the propositions made by Scandura. A significant
relationship between interactional justice and LMX was found but distributive justice
was not found to be related to LMX. Again, all the dimensions of leader-member
exchange are expected to be influenced by the interactional justice provided by the
leader as a result of the central role of this factor. Based on this discussion, it is
hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 19: follower perceptions of interactional justice will be
positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX
The discussions in the last two sections above also imply that leader LMX quality and
follower LMX quality could be linked, and that this relationship could be mediated by
interactional justice and follower performance. It is predicted that follower performance
has a positive influence on leader LMX and that high LMX quality will increase the
90
fairness of treatment. This fairness (i.e. interactional justice) will in turn have a positive
influence on follower leader-member exchange quality, which should induce better
performance, which in turn should lead to higher leader LMX quality and so on. Hence,
it is hypothesised that:
Follower LMX hypothesis 20: overall leader LMX will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX, and interactional justice will mediate this
relationship
Leader LMX hypothesis 20: overall follower LMX will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX, and follower performance will mediate this
relationship
Due to the exploratory nature of these hypotheses, the influence of LMX will only be
examined at the level of overall LMX, not the individual dimensions (i.e. the effect of
overall LMX on the specific dimensions, not the effect of dimensions on dimensions).
As follower performance and leader LMX as well as fair treatment and follower LMX
seem to be closely related, it is possible that follower performance and interactional
justice do not only mediate the relationship between leader and follower LMX and its
dimensions, but also the relationship between additional antecedents and LMX. In other
words, some of the personal, non-behavioural antecedents of leader-member exchange
could influence leader-member exchange via the mediation of performance and fairness
perceptions. For instance, Organ and Konovsky (1989) suggest that the tendency to
perceive unfairness is, to some extent, a dispositional variable. Neuroticism has been
linked to interactional justice (Elfron et al, 2001), which indicates that interactional
justice could mediate the relationship between neuroticism and LMX. Furthermore,
Chiu and Hong (1997) argue that, in a Chinese context, perceptions of justice are
associated with the social role requirements for each individual (these role requirements
prescribed by wu lun and guanxi were discussed in Section 2.3, see p .43). Therefore,
perceptions of fairness depend upon the extent to which individuals interact in accord
with their role requirements. This argument does not influence the predicted
relationship between interactional justice and LMX, but it implies that if the leader and
follower have different views of the role requirements, this could have a detrimental
effect on interactional justice. This means that interactional justice could mediate the
relationship between differences in Interpersonal relatedness and LMX (see Section 3.4,
p. 85). As a result, the mediating role of interactional justice and follower performance
will be examined using most of the antecedents of LMX as control variables.
91
3.7 CONTROL VARIABLES
The following additional influences on leader-member exchange quality that will be
included as control variables in the analyses have been identified:
a) Demographic factors
Demographic variables, such as age, gender, and tenure, are often used to profile groups
and they are usually the bases for an initial impression of an individual (Tsui & Farh,
1997). Demographic cues are used to categorise people into various social groups and
stereotypes about the person’s likely attitudes, behaviours, beliefs, and actions are
invoked (Tsui & Farh, 1997). Demographic factors have been linked to leader-member
exchange quality in previous studies (e.g. Tsui et al., 1996; Varma & Stroh, 2001) and
will thus be included as control variables.
b) Number of supervised employees
Dienesch and Liden (1986) suggest that if a leader supervises a large number of
followers, he or she may not have time and resources to develop high-quality
relationships with all of them.
c) Tenure
Tenure could influence the leader-member exchange relationships, as suggested by e.g.
Bauer & Green, 1996. The duration of employment in the company will be measured as
well as dyadic tenure measured as the number of months the leader and follower have
been working together.
d) Interaction intensity
Frequent and open communication has been found to influence leader-member
exchange quality (cf. Tanner, Ridnou, & Castleberry, 1997). (However, it is not clear
whether frequent communication is a result or outcome of the quality of the leadermember exchange relationship).
Furthermore, it should be noted that due to the closely related nature of leader-member
exchange and its mediators (i.e. perceived similarity, interactional justice and follower
performance), the analyses of mediation with the mediators as dependent variables will
be conducted including all leader-member exchange antecedents as control variables.
92
3.8 SUMMARY: ANTECEDENTS OF LMX
A total of 20 hypotheses concerning the effect of various personal, interpersonal and
behavioural antecedents on follower LMX quality and its dimensions have been
developed in this chapter. 20 hypotheses concerning the antecedents of leader LMX
quality and its dimensions have also been developed. These hypotheses are listed below.
An overview of the hypotheses is also provided in figure format.
For both leader and follower LMX, the 13 first hypotheses link various personal leader
and follower characteristics, including personality, values and cultural knowledge to
LMX quality. Hypothesis 14– 8 link interpersonal antecedents to LMX, including actual
and perceived similarity. Hypothesis 19 links behaviours to LMX, i.e. interactional
justice with regard to follower LMX and follower performance with regard to leader
LMX. Finally, Hypothesis 20 predicts a positive relationship between leader and
follower LMX and a mediating role of the behavioural factor. These hypotheses are
expected to be relevant in both intercultural Western-Chinese and intracultural Chinese
dyads.
3.8.1 Follower LMX: hypotheses
The 20 hypotheses pertaining to follower LMX quality are listed below.
Follower LMX hypothesis 1: follower extroversion will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX ........................................................................64
Follower LMX hypothesis 2: leader extroversion will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX ........................................................................64
Follower LMX hypothesis 3: follower neuroticism will be negatively related to the
affect, loyalty, and professional respect dimensions of follower LMX ........65
Follower LMX hypothesis 4: leader neuroticism will be negatively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX ........................................................................65
Follower LMX hypothesis 5: leader agreeableness will be positively related to the
affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of follower LMX......................67
Follower LMX hypothesis 6: follower conscientiousness will be positively related to the
contribution dimension of follower LMX .....................................................68
Follower LMX hypothesis 7: leader conscientiousness will be positively related to the
loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of follower LMX
.......................................................................................................................68
Follower LMX hypothesis 8: follower harmony will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX ........................................................................70
Follower LMX hypothesis 9: leader harmony will be positively related to all dimensions
of follower LMX ...........................................................................................70
Follower LMX hypothesis 10: high leader self-enhancement values will be negatively
related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of follower LMX .....................74
93
Follower LMX hypothesis 11: high leader self-enhancement values will be positively
related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of follower
LMX ............................................................................................................. 75
Follower LMX hypothesis 12: follower cultural knowledge will be positively related to
all dimensions of follower LMX .................................................................. 78
Follower LMX hypothesis 13: leader cultural knowledge will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX ....................................................................... 79
Follower LMX hypothesis 14:the level of demographic similarity between leader and
follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX ....... 84
Follower LMX hypothesis 15: the level of personality similarity between leader and
follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX ....... 85
Follower LMX hypothesis 16: a high level of similarity between leader and follower in
Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on follower LMX
quality and all its dimensions ....................................................................... 85
Follower LMX hypothesis 17:a high level of similarity in individualism and
collectivism between leader and follower will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX ....................................................................... 86
Follower LMX hypothesis 18: follower perceptions of similarity with leader will be
positively related to all the dimensions of follower LMX, and perceived
similarity will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural
knowledge and all the dimensions of follower LMX ................................... 87
Follower LMX hypothesis 19: follower perceptions of interactional justice will be
positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX.................................. 89
Follower LMX hypothesis 20: overall leader LMX will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX, and interactional justice will mediate this
relationship ................................................................................................... 90
An overview of the hypotheses is presented in a simplified format in the figure below.
94
Figure 1: Overview of follower LMX hypotheses
Follower personal
characteristics
(Hypotheses 1, 3,
6, 8, 12)
Cultural
knowledge
Personality
Values
Behaviour (Hyp.19)
Interpersonal
variables
(Hypotheses 14 18)
Leader personal
characteristics
(Hypotheses 2, 4,
5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13)
Actual
similarity
Perceived
similarity
Personality
Values
Interactional
justice
LMX quality
Follower
LMX
Cultural
knowledge
Leader LMX (Hypothesis 20) is omitted from the figure
3.8.2 Leader LMX: hypotheses
The 20 hypotheses pertaining to leader LMX quality are listed below.
Leader LMX hypothesis 1: leader extroversion will be positively related all dimensions
of leader LMX ...............................................................................................64
Leader LMX hypothesis 2: follower extroversion will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX............................................................................64
Leader LMX hypothesis 3: leader neuroticism will be negatively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX............................................................................65
Leader LMX hypothesis 4: follower neuroticism will be negatively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX............................................................................65
Leader LMX hypothesis 5: follower agreeableness will be positively related to the
affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of leader LMX .........................67
Leader LMX hypothesis 6: leader conscientiousness will be positively related to the
contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX................68
Leader LMX hypothesis 7: follower conscientiousness will be positively related to the
loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX...68
95
Leader LMX hypothesis 8: leader harmony will be positively related all dimensions of
leader LMX................................................................................................... 70
Leader LMX hypothesis 9: follower harmony will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX ........................................................................... 70
Leader LMX hypothesis 10: high follower self-enhancement values will be negatively
related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of leader LMX ........................ 74
Leader LMX hypothesis 11: high follower self-enhancement values will be will be
positively related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of
leader LMX................................................................................................... 75
Leader LMX hypothesis 12: leader cultural knowledge will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX ........................................................................... 78
Leader LMX hypothesis 13: follower cultural knowledge will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX ........................................................................... 79
Leader LMX hypothesis 14: the level of demographic similarity between leader and
follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX........... 84
Leader LMX hypothesis 15: the level of personality similarity between leader and
follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX........... 85
Leader LMX hypothesis 16: a high level of similarity between leader and follower in
Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on leader LMX quality
and all its dimensions.................................................................................... 85
Leader LMX hypothesis 17: a high level of similarity in individualism and collectivism
between leader and follower will be positively related all dimensions of
leader LMX................................................................................................... 86
Leader LMX hypothesis 18: leader perceptions of similarity with follower will be
positively related to all the dimensions of leader LMX, and perceived
similarity will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural
knowledge, and all the dimensions of leader LMX...................................... 87
Leader LMX hypothesis 19: follower inrole performance will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX ........................................................................... 88
Leader LMX hypothesis 20: overall follower LMX will be positively related to all
dimensions of leader LMX, and follower performance will mediate this
relationship ................................................................................................... 90
An overview of the hypotheses is presented in a simplified format in the figure below
.
96
Figure 2: Overview of leader LMX hypotheses
Follower personal
characteristics
(Hypotheses 2, 4,
5, 7, 9-11, 13
Cultural
knowledge
Personality
Values
Behaviour (Hyp.19)
Interpersonal
variables
(Hypotheses 14 18)
Leader personal
characteristics
(Hypotheses 1, 3,
6, 8, 12)
Actual
similarity
Personality
Perceived
similarity
Follower
performance
LMX quality
Leader
LMX
Values
Cultural
knowledge
Follower LMX (Hypothesis 20) is omitted from the figure
3.8.3 Dyad-level hypothesis
The following dyad level hypothesis was developed:
Dyad-level hypothesis 1: intracultural Chinese dyads will demonstrate higher LMX
quality than intercultural Western-Chinese dyads
97
4 LMX AND ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR
In order to ensure the successful functioning of the Western subsidiary in China, or any
organisation for that matter, it is important to understand how and why employees
contribute to their organisations. An underlying assumption of this study is that these
contributions are related to the quality of the leader-follower relationship. According to
the multidimensional view of individual contributions to organisations, productivity in
individually assigned tasks only represent a fraction of what employees render to their
workplaces (cf. Organ & Paine, 1999). As Organ (1990) points out, already Chester
Barnard (1939, as cited in Organ, 1990) recognised that the essential condition of
organisations is a “willingness of persons to contribute efforts to the co-operative
system”, which shows an appreciation of individual contributions other than those of
performing a particular task. Therefore, ‘performance’, with some form of leader ratings
as a proxy for measurable output, is not considered to be the best indication of
employees’ contributions to their organisation. Agreeing with this view, the concept of
organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB; Bateman & Organ, 1983) will be used to
examine employee contributions to their organisation in the present study.
A thorough and valid examination of the relationship between leader-member exchange
and organisational citizenship behaviour requires an analysis of potential mediating and
moderating factors and the inclusion of a sufficient number of control variables.
Through the mediating analyses, additional outcomes of leader-member exchange will
implicitly be examined. Perceived organisational support, organisational justice and job
satisfaction are examples of leader-member exchange related outcomes that are
expected to mediate the relationship between leader-member exchange and
organisational citizenship behaviour. Organisation-based self-esteem is an additional
hypothesised mediating variable that has not been directly linked to leader-member
exchange before. Organisational citizenship behaviour could hence be seen as “the
ultimate dependent variable” in the present study with which the organisational
relevance of leader-follower relationships will be investigated.
This section begins by defining organisational citizenship behaviour and identifying the
different dimensions of organisational citizenship behaviour. Then, the relationship
between leader-member exchange and organisational citizenship behaviour will be
examined and hypotheses regarding this relationship will be presented. Thereafter,
additional antecedents of organisational citizenship behaviour will be discussed and
hypotheses presented regarding factors that could mediate and moderate the relationship
between leader-member exchange and organisational citizenship behaviour. Finally, the
section is summarised by listing the hypotheses and presenting them in figure format.
4.1 DEFINITION AND DIMENSIONS OF OCB
The term “organisational citizenship behaviour” (OCB) was proposed by Bateman and
Organ (1983) to “denote those organisationally beneficial behaviours and gestures that
can neither be enforced on the basis of formal role obligations nor elicited by
98
contractual guarantee of recompense” (Organ, 1990, p.46). Deluga (1998) defines
organisational citizenship behaviour as spontaneous acts that go beyond prescribed job
requirements (in-role behaviours), whereby the follower performs non-obligatory extrarole behaviours. This is close to Organ’s (1988, p.4) definition of organisational
citizenship behaviour as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognised by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes
the effective functioning of the organisation”. This means that organisational citizenship
behaviour could be seen as informal contributions that employees can choose to make
or withhold without having to consider either sanctions or rewards. It should be noted
that organisational citizenship behaviour does not only involve making positive
contributions but it also includes forbearance or the willingness to endure the occasional
costs and inconveniences for the benefit of the collective good (Organ, 1990).
Organisational citizenship behaviours are considered as vital for productivity because
organisations cannot anticipate through formally stated in-role job descriptions the
entire array of follower behaviours needed for achieving goals (Deluga, 1998).
In order to clarify the meaning of the organisational citizenship behaviour construct and
its relationships to other constructs, it could be mentioned that according to Organ
(1990), organisational citizenship behaviour is not the only construct in current use
indicating an employee’s “willingness to co-operate” using Barnard’s terms. He
suggests that prosocial organisational behaviour (POB) and organisational commitment
(OC) are two others that partially overlap with organisational citizenship behaviour, but
which should be kept conceptually distinct using appropriate measures. POB has been
defined by Brief and Motowidlo (1986, p. 710) as “any behaviour enacted in an
organisational context that attempts to improve the welfare of the person or persons to
whom the behaviour is directed”. POB is hence a more inclusive construct than
organisational citizenship behaviour as the latter is restricted to extra-role behaviours
that should promote organisational effectiveness and not just personal well being. OC
has been generally been defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification
with and involvement in an organisation” (Mowday, Porteer & Steers, 1982, p. 20).
According to Organ, the linkage between organisational citizenship behaviour and OC
depends on if one considers the latter as a set of behaviours, behavioural intentions, an
attitude, or a calculated motivational force. It is argued that OC has been regarded as all
of these and that conceptual clarity of both organisational citizenship behaviour and OC
could be enhanced by regarding the former as a set of behaviours and the latter as a
sense of psychosocial attachment.
Organ (1988) identified five dimensions of organisational citizenship behaviour: a)
altruism, discretionary behaviour that has the effect of helping a specific other person
with an organisationally relevant task or problem; b) conscientiousness, discretionary
behaviour that goes well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organisation; c)
civic virtue, discretionary behaviour that indicates that the employee responsibly
participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the organisation; d)
courtesy, discretionary behaviour that is aimed at preventing work-related problems
with others from occurring; and e) sportsmanship, discretionary behaviour that indicates
the willingness of an employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without
complaining. The present study will rely on this conceptualisation of organisational
citizenship behaviour. However, the sportsmanship and courtesy dimensions will be
99
omitted from the present study for two reasons. First, these dimensions did no emerge in
the Chinese OCB scale developed by Farh, Early and Lin (1997, to be described below),
while the remaining dimensions showed more universal characteristics. Second, these
dimensions don’t seem most relevant for the present study as sportsmanship seems to
mainly cover negative attitudes in general and the courtesy dimension general
consideration for others. These dimensions hence seem less related to actual
contribution to the organisation.
A distinction between organisational citizenship behaviour directed towards individuals
(OCBI) and organisational citizenship behaviour directed toward the organisation can
be made (OCBO) (Williams & Anderson, 1991). The authors argue that that this
distinction is important to make as the two forms of organisational citizenship
behaviour could have different antecedents and consequences. The result of their study
showed that the extrinsic cognitive dimension of job satisfaction (the authors distinguish
between an affective or dispositional, and a cognitive or more evaluative component of
job satisfaction and within this last dimension between extrinsic and intrinsic job
cognitions) predicted OCBO while the intrinsic component of job cognitions predicted
OCBI. Concerning Organ’s (1988) organisational citizenship behaviour dimensions,
altruism and courtesy appear to represent OCBI while conscientiousness, civic virtue
and sportsmanship could be examples of OCBO. Despite of these suggestions, the
present study will rely on a one-dimensional conceptualisation of organisational
citizenship behaviour following the approach of most empirical studies.
The organisational citizenship behaviour concept, as most other concepts used in this
study, has been conceived in the US. Again, the question arises whether this concept is
applicable and relevant in other cultures. In China, organisational citizenship behaviours
may take a different form due to different rules of reciprocation and role obligations.
Farh et al. (1997) examined the relationship between organisational citizenship
behaviour and justice perceptions in the Chinese context and developed a Chinese
organisational citizenship behaviour measure. Three of the five dimensions in the
Chinese organisational citizenship behaviour scale turned out to be very similar to those
identified by Organ (1988) and operationalised by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman,
and Fetter (1990). These dimensions, which arguably could be etic or universal
dimensions, are identification with the company (usually referred to as civic virtue in
the literature), altruism towards colleagues, and conscientiousness. The Western
dimensions of sportsmanship and courtesy did not emerge in the Chinese organisational
citizenship behaviour scale while interpersonal harmony and protecting company
resources emerged as new dimensions. These dimensions hence seem to have a more
emic, or culture-specific, nature. The study conducted by Lam, Hui and Law (1999)
corroborated these findings through the indications in the data that participants in
different nations (US, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong) differed in the way they looked at
the Western emic dimensions of organisational citizenship behaviour, but not in the way
they looked at the etic dimensions. The authors see this as an indication that there could
be performance norms that transcend cultural values (etic OCBs) and performance
norms that are affected by particular cultural values. However, the overall conclusion
made in the study conducted by Lam et al. (1999) was that the participants across
nations could distinguish between Organ’s (1988) dimensions. Furthermore, Podsakoff
et al.’s scale (1990) based on Organ’s dimensions yielded acceptable psychometric
100
properties in terms of internal consistency and factor structure across the US, Australia,
Japan, and Hong Kong. This organisational citizenship behaviour scale has also been
successfully, and with minor modifications, used by other Chinese researchers in China
(e.g. Chen, Hui & Sego, 1998) in addition to the Chinese organisational citizenship
behaviour scale (e.g. Hui, Law & Chen, 1999). The Western conceptualisation will
hence be used in the present study.
An important issue in organisational citizenship behaviour research is the boundary
between in-role and extra-role behaviour and the extent to which what is measured as
organisational citizenship behaviour, or extra-role behaviour, in fact is part of the job or
so called in-role behaviour (see e.g. Morrison, 1994; Lam et al., 1999). It has been
argued that the boundary between in-role an extra-role behaviour varies across
employees (Morrison, 1994) and cultures (Lam et al., 1999) and that leaders and
followers tend to have different definitions of job roles (Lam et al., 1999; Morrison,
1994). Morrison (1994) points out that many organisational citizenship behaviour
studies have adopted the leader perspective and definition of organisational citizenship
behaviour, which is problematic when one tries to explain what motivates the
employees to perform organisational citizenship behaviour. The argument made is that
employees’ behaviour is influenced by whether they define a given activity as in-role or
extra-role and that this definition could differ from the one of their leaders. Activities
defined as in-role are according to Morrison more likely to be performed than extra-role
activities. This is due to the fact that extra-role behaviours are not, by definition,
organisationally rewarded. Therefore, leader ratings of extra-role behaviours or
organisational citizenship behaviours are dependent upon how broadly the employees
define their jobs. The broadness of follower’s work role definition is hence likely to be
positively related to follower organisational citizenship behaviours and will be included
as a control variable in the present study.
Morrison (1994) suggests that perceived job breadth is likely to depend on individual
factors such as values, attitudes and experience as well as contextual factors such as the
nature of the socialisation process and task characteristics in a given organisation.
Morrison’s results indicate that perceived job breadth is positively related to satisfaction
and to normative and affective commitment and negatively related to tenure. Affective
commitment had a very strong effect on perceived job breadth and the results indicate
that job definitions mediate the relationship between commitment and organisational
citizenship behaviour. In other words, commitment could cause employees to define
their job roles more broadly and hence induce them to engage in what others may
perceive as organisational citizenship behaviour. The results also indicated that the more
frequently an employee interacts with his or her leader, the more similarly the employee
and leader will define the employee’s job responsibilities. One could also hypothesise
that employees whose job definitions are similar to those of their leaders could have
broader job definitions than those with incongruent definitions. This is caused by the
fact that leaders tend to have broader job definitions than the followers (Lam et al.,
1999). This is arguably due to the fact that leaders’ main concern is their own
efficiency, which makes it advantageous to define job scope broadly to include
organisational citizenship behaviour. From the followers’ perspective, the concern is on
the exchange between the follower and the organisation, and “if organisational
citizenship behaviour is defined as part of one’ formal job roles, then the follower
101
would not be able to se organisational citizenship behaviour as a medium of exchange
with the organisation” (Lam et al., 1999, p. 595).
From the discussion above one could infer that most beneficial for the company and
satisfactory for the leader would be to have employees whose role definitions are broad
enough to include behaviours that could typically be regarded as organisational
citizenship behaviour. Another favourable option is to have employees who may not
have broad role definitions but who are willing to perform organisational citizenship
behaviours. The resulting behaviour could in these two cases be the same but the
motivational forces driving the behaviour could be different. It is possible that for
followers with broad work role definitions, attitudinal factors are less important in
determining organisational citizenship behaviours than for followers with narrow work
role definitions. In the former case, a person may feel obliged to “do one’s job” despite
negative job attitudes. In the latter case, where the same behaviours are considered as
extra-role, these behaviours may not be performed unless they were a way to reciprocate
for e.g. fair treatment or a high-quality relationship with the leader. This discussion
implies that perceptions of job breadth could have a moderating effect between leadermember exchange and organisational citizenship behaviour so that the organisational
citizenship behaviours of followers with narrow work role definitions will be more
affected by leader-member exchange quality than those with broad work role
definitions. Hence, it is hypothesised that:
OCB hypothesis 1: follower perceptions of job breadth will moderate the
relationship between follower LMX and follower OCB
102
4.2 EXPLORING THE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LMX AND OCB
Organ and Paine (1999) describe existing frameworks of organisational citizenship
behaviour and the examination of antecedents and outcomes of organisational
citizenship behaviour as “molar” or “midrange” theories. Organ and Paine argue that in
order to have greater utility for understanding organisations, such midrange theories
should do more than explain variance in the components constituting the theory.
Instead, linkages to other midrange theories should be established by offering new
perspectives on phenomena addressed by these other theories. The authors see obvious
parallels between organisational citizenship behaviour and leader-member exchange and
find it surprising that early organisational citizenship behaviour conceptualisations did
not borrow from the work on leader-member exchange. Both perspectives are based on
social exchange, and whereas organisational citizenship behaviour can be seen as an
employee’s contribution to the organisation resulting from a relationship of trust with
the organisation, the employee’s sentiments about the organisation could derive from
the exchange with the leader. Fairness perceptions appear to be central both to leadermember exchange (e.g. Scandura, 1999) and organisational citizenship behaviour (e.g.
Williams and Anderson, 1991; Moorman & Niehoff, 1993).
Other authors have also seen the utility of linking organisational citizenship behaviour
with leader-member exchange. On the basis of social exchange theory, Wayne et al.
(1997), expected that the quality of exchange that develops between a leader and
follower will influence the latter's behaviour toward the leader. According to Liden and
Graen (1980), employees reporting high-quality leader-member exchange relationships
make contributions that go beyond their formal job duties, and those reporting lowerquality leader-member exchange perform the more routine tasks of a work group. It
follows according to Wayne et al. (1997) that leader-member exchange should be
positively related to organisational citizenship behaviour, and results of field
investigations have provided evidence of this relationship (e.g. Wayne et. al, 1997,
Settoon et al., 1996). This argumentation seems to support the relationship especially
between follower reports of LMX quality and follower OCB and supports the general
hypotheses that:
OCB hypothesis 2: high follower LMX quality will be positively related to follower
OCB
There are no empirical studies to guide the hypothesis-development regarding the
influence of the different dimensions of leader-member exchange on organisational
citizenship behaviour. Wang, Law, et Wang (forthcoming) examined the mediating role
of leader-member exchange between transformational leadership and organisational
citizenship behaviour in the Chinese context using the multidimensional measure of
leader-member exchange, but they examined overall leader-member exchange and did
not investigate the effect of the individual dimensions. However, the discussions
provided by Dienesch and Liden (1986) and Liden and Maslyn (1998) concerning the
potential outcomes of leader-member exchange dimensions suggest that all of these
dimensions could be related to leader-member exchange. To recall from Chapter 2,
Dienesch and Liden (1986) hypothesised that the contribution dimension in a leader-
103
member exchange relationship should influence over the challenge and difficulty of
assignments assigned to and accepted by the follower. This is because the superior
should have confidence in the ability and willingness of the follower to successfully
complete difficult, extensive, or critical tasks. The follower should also be confident in
his or her own ability, be willing to accept a larger workload, and be confident that the
leader will provide an adequate level of support and advice. There is hence logical
support for the linkage between the contribution dimension of leader-member exchange
and organisational citizenship behaviour. Furthermore, Dienesch and Liden expect the
affect dimension to influence the work atmosphere in general and hence the level of
flexibility and emotional support provided to the follower. Once could hence expect the
follower to reciprocate to this general support by performing organisational citizenship
behaviours. The loyalty dimension is primarily concerned with the degree to which the
dyad members protect each other relative to those outside the relationship, and one
could hypothesise that performing organisational citizenship behaviours constitutes a
means of showing loyalty. Finally, Wang et al (forthcoming), suggest that the followers’
professional respect for their leader is a key condition for leaders to have an impact on
their followers and their performance. This discussion suggests that all the leadermember exchange dimensions could be related to OBC, and these dimension-specific
relationships will be empirically explored in the present study.
Regarding the relationship between leader-member exchange and organisational
citizenship behaviour in China, Hui et al. (1999) argue that as interpersonal
relationships and guanxi play an important role in China, leader-member exchange,
which is an interpersonal variable, should have a strong effect on the employees’
willingness to participate in organisational citizenship behaviours. The authors point out
that they expect leader-member exchange to have a similar effect on organisational
citizenship behaviour in China as in the United States. The empirical results supported
these assumptions. Wang, et al (forthcoming) examined the mediating role of leadermember exchange between transformational leadership and organisational citizenship
behaviour in the Chinese context using the multidimensional measure of leader-member
exchange, and found that leader-member exchange had a mediating role.
The ren qin scale of the Interpersonal relatedness factor of the CPAI (discussed earlier,
see p.69) seems to cover attitudes related to wu lun and guanxi discussed earlier in the
section dealing with Chinese social relationships (see p. 41). Examples of ren qin items
are ‘The more people I know and the better my relations with them, the easier it will be
for me to make it in society’ and ‘When people show me respect, I should show them
more respect in return’. What was implied in this discussion is that decreasing
traditionality and increasing modernity should reduce the importance of deterministic
guanxi ties, which will be replaced by more individual factors. One could hence
hypothesise that the level of endorsement of traditional Chinese values (measured with
the ren qin and modernisation scales) could moderate the relationships between
individual and attitudinal factors and traditional role obligations so that individual
factors play a more important role in “less traditional” dyads. This view is supported by
the study conducted by Farh, Early and Lin (1997), where the level of endorsement of
traditional Chinese values significantly moderated the relationship between
organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour, thus indicating that trust
and faith in one’s supervisor are built into the social structure. The level of endorsement
104
of Chinese values seems relevant mainly to the Chinese followers, due both to their
cultural background and their role as followers (with stricter role requirements). Thus, it
is hypothesised that:
OCB hypothesis 3: follower ren qin will moderate the relationship between follower
LMX and follower OCB
Past research on organisational citizenship behaviour has investigated both leader and
follower reports of OCB, without making a clear distinction between these two
perspectives. However, in both the leader and follower version of the OCB scale,
follower OCB is being evaluated. The problem with the use of self-reports is selfserving bias on the part of respondents who wish to appear to be good citizens (Organ,
1988). In order to get a deeper understanding of the relationship between OCB and
LMX, OCB will be measured from both leader and follower perspectives in the present
study, without taking for granted that OCB measured from two different perspectives
capture the same thing. However, as in both instances, the same follower’s behaviour is
being rated, it is hypothesised that:
OCB hypothesis 4: follower reports of OCB will be positively related to leader reports
of OCB
105
4.3 LMX AND OCB: MEDIATORS AND CONTROL VARIABLES
Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) identified three basic types of antecedents of
organisational citizenship behaviour, which need to be controlled for in order to
examine the effect of leader-member exchange on organisational citizenship behaviour:
1) personal factors, including an employee’s affective state of satisfaction with a broad
range of job-related dimensions and the individual’s dispositional tendency to approach
situations cynically, 2) employee perceptions of situational factors in a workplace,
including perceptions of an organisation’s values and perceptions of the motivating
potential of jobs, and 3) positional factors, which represent an individual’s membership
or position in an organisation and include organisational tenure and hierarchical level.
The present study includes measures from all these groups. Personality, values, job
satisfaction and leader-member exchange quality could be seen as belonging to the first
group. Job attitudes including perceived organisational support and organisation-based
self-esteem could be considered as belonging to the second group. Concerning the third
group, measures of tenure and work position will be included as control variables.
However, specific hypotheses will only be developed for factors that are expected to be
related both to leader-member exchange and organisational citizenship behaviour, i.e.
the mediators. These include organisational justice, perceived organisational support,
organisation-based self-esteem, and job satisfaction. Other variables will be included as
controls.
By the mid 1990s, a big portion of the empirical literature concerning organisational
citizenship behaviour had according to Organ and Paine (1999) concentrated on
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organisational citizenship behaviour. Two
hypotheses have guided this research: 1) organisational citizenship behaviour is in part a
function of stable dispositions, traits or temperament, and 2) organisational citizenship
behaviour depends on the individual’s satisfaction (Organ, 1990). The meta-analysis
conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995) showed that the attitudinal predictors including
job satisfaction, perceived fairness, affective commitment and leader supportiveness
were related to organisational citizenship behaviour. Organ (1990) has suggested that
when separate measures of satisfaction and perceived unfairness are considered, the
latter will explain more variance in organisational citizenship behaviour. In addition,
Moorman and Niehoff (1993) found no relationship between commitment and
organisational citizenship behaviour and satisfaction and organisational citizenship
behaviour once the relationship between justice and organisational citizenship
behaviour was controlled for. Furthermore, Williams and Anderson (1991) found
commitment to be unrelated to organisational citizenship behaviour and concluded that
organisational citizenship behaviours seem to be result of the fairness of the overall
treatment by the organisation. Wayne, Shore and Liden (1997) found that leadermember exchange and perceived organisational support are interrelated and that both
are related to organisational citizenship behaviour. Hence, there is some evidence that
job satisfaction, organisational justice, perceived organisational support, and leadermember exchange are related to organisational citizenship behaviour (while
commitment receives weaker support). Incidentally, these factors have also been found
to be outcomes of leader-member exchange (see Chapter 2, p. 37). These factors will be
106
included in the present study and their hypothesised mediating role will be discussed
more in detail below.
4.3.1 Organisational justice
Previous research has linked fairness/justice perceptions with leader-member exchange
and organisational citizenship behaviour (see e.g. Deluga, 1994; Scandura, 1999). As
discussed earlier (see p. 89), interactional justice is treated as an antecedent of leadermember exchange in the present study whereas procedural and distributive justice are
considered outcomes and grouped under the heading ‘organisational justice’.
In Deluga’s (1994) study, perceived fairness emerged as the leader trust-building
behaviour most closely associated with organisational citizenship behaviour. In line
with these findings, Organ and Konovsky (1989) hypothesise that the extent to which
organisational citizenship behaviour is given depends on the cognitive appraisal of
fairness of overall treatment by the organisation. Deluga also found a positive
relationship between leader-member exchange quality and organisational citizenship
behaviour. Furthermore, Moorman, Blakely and Niehoff (1998) found that procedural
justice affects organisational citizenship behaviour by influencing perceived
organisational support. In addition, previous studies have found that justice perceptions
are of importance in the Chinese context, and that they are related to organisational
citizenship behaviour (Farh et al., 1997).
Procedural and distributive justice have been linked to leader-member exchange by e.g.
Keller and Dansereau (1995). Mansour-Cole and Scott (1998) argue that a leader’s
influence on the formation of procedural fairness perceptions might best be understood
as one of a number of outcomes of the leader-member exchange development process.
The results of their study show that followers in high-quality leader-member exchange
relationships tend to have higher perceptions of procedural justice and further that highquality leader-member exchange also engenders high expectations for future fair
treatment. This means that along with the benefits provided by high-quality leadermember exchange relationships obligations accrue. Lee (2001) also found support for a
positive relationship between leader-member exchange and procedural and distributive
justice. Furthermore, according to Scandura’s model (1999), higher quality relationship
will result in more rewards for followers and hence increased distributive justice. A
high-quality relationship is also expected to entail better communications regarding
organisational justice concerns and hence increased procedural justice.
As leader-member exchange has been found to influence justice perceptions, and justice
perceptions have been found to influence organisational citizenship behaviour, it is
hypothesised that:
OCB hypothesis 5: follower organisational justice will mediate the relationship
between follower LMX and follower OCB
107
4.3.2 Perceived organisational support
Liden et al. (1997) argue for the importance of examining leader-member exchange
relationships along with other social exchange relationships in which organisational
participants may engage - such as perceived organisational support (POS; Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986) when trying to explain work-related outcomes
and why individuals contribute to their organisations. This is because support gained
from the organisation and not only the leader could create an obligation to reciprocate.
Wayne et al. (1997) found that leader-member exchange and perceived organisational
support are interrelated and that both are related to organisational citizenship behaviour.
The authors argue that leader-member exchange could be a predictor of perceived
organisational support as leaders often administer discretionary rewards linked with job
performance, which previous research has found likely to affect perceived
organisational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The authors regard perceived
organisational support as being based on a history of rewards that may be administered
by an immediate superior (past or present) as well as by managers at higher
organisational levels. However, perceived organisational support could also contribute
to leader-member exchange in the way that employees who have a history of feeling
supported by an organisation may be more likely than others to develop high-quality
exchange relationships with their leaders. In their study, Wayne et al. (1997) found
leader-member exchange mainly to influence perceived organisational support and not
vice versa. Both leader-member exchange and perceived organisational support were
found to affect organisational citizenship behaviour. Furthermore, in a more recent
study, the results obtained by Wayne et al. (2002) showed that perceived organisational
support is related to organisational citizenship behaviour. In light of these arguments, it
is hypothesised that:
OCB hypothesis 6: follower perceived organisational support will mediate the
relationship between LMX and OCB
4.3.3 Organisation-based self-esteem
An additional factor that could influence organisational citizenship behaviour is
organisation-based self-esteem (OBSE; Pierce, Gardner, Cummings & Dunham, 1989).
Organisation-based self-esteem represents self-esteem that is specific to the
organisational context. According to Pierce et al. (1989, p. 625) organisation-based selfesteem reflects “the self-perceived value that individual’s have of themselves as
organisation members acting within an organisational context…employees with high
organisation-based self-esteem should perceive themselves as important, meaningful,
effectual, and worthwhile within their employing organisation”. Past research indicates
that organisation-based self-esteem is related to organisational citizenship behaviour so
that high organisation-based self-esteem individuals are more likely to perform
organisational citizenship behaviour than low organisation-based self-esteem
individuals (Van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham & Cummings, 2000; as cited in
Aryee et al., 2002). Aryee, Tan and Budhwar (2002) linked organisation-based self-
108
esteem to leader-member exchange by proposing that organisation-based self-esteem
would moderate the relationship between leader-member exchange and organisational
citizenship behaviour and found partial support for their hypothesis. They argue that as
low organisation-based self-esteem individuals are more sensitive to external events and
more behaviourally reactive relative to high organisation-based self-esteem individuals,
low organisation-based self-esteem individuals are more sensitive to the perception of
the quality of the relationship with the follower when they consider citizenship
behaviours. However, one could also hypothesise that leader-member exchange
influences organisation-based self-esteem, as it is conceivable that an employee who has
a high-quality relationship with his or leader including mutual perceptions of affect,
loyalty, contribution and professional respect should perceive themselves as “important,
meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within their employing organisation”. Although
not empirically tested before, it is hence hypothesised that:
OCB hypothesis 7: follower organisation-based self-esteem will mediate the
relationship between follower LMX and follower OCB
4.3.4 Job satisfaction
As mentioned earlier, Van Dyne et al. (1994) identified personal factors, including an
employee’s affective state of satisfaction with a broad range of job-related dimensions
to form one group of antecedents of organisational citizenship behaviour. Furthermore,
the meta-analysis conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995) showed that the attitudinal
predictors including job satisfaction, perceived fairness, affective commitment and
leader supportiveness were related to organisational citizenship behaviour.
According to Tanner et al. (1997), satisfaction, with the job and with the manager, are
two important outcomes associated with the quality of the exchange relationship.
Tanner et al. (1997), expected that a person enjoying a high-quality relationship
dimensions would also be the most satisfied, while the person suffering in the lowest
quality relationship would be the least satisfied, with job and manager. As a result, it is
hypothesised that:
OCB hypothesis 8: follower job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between
follower LMX and follower OCB
4.3.5 Control variables
Only limited support for the linkage between personality factors and organisational
citizenship behaviour was found in the meta-analysis conducted by Organ and Ryan
(1995), and the data suggested that affectively toned dispositions predict organisational
citizenship behaviour only to the extent that they predict job attitude measures. Hui et
109
al. (1999) also argue that disposition may affect organisational citizenship behaviour via
employees’ organisational experiences or perception of organisational reality, as for
instance through leader-member exchange. In their study undertaken in a Chinese
context, Hui et al. found LMX to mediate the negative effects of negative affectivity on
organisational citizenship behaviour. These findings seem to partly contradict Organ’s
(1990) suggestion that employees’ dispositional tendencies tend to predominate in
determining organisational citizenship behaviour until the individual’s organisational
experiences force a conscious appraisal of the type of exchange, social or economic,
that defines the relationship with the organisation. As personality measures will be
included in the study, mainly as determinants of leader-member exchange, the effect of
the personality traits and values that seem most closely related to organisational
citizenship behaviour will be investigated.
To recall from the previous discussion regarding the antecedents of leader-member
exchange, conscientiousness has emerged as the personality dimension most
consistently related to performance across jobs (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991) and is
related to an individual’s degree of self-control and need for achievement, order and
persistence. Conscientious individuals are also likely to have the self-discipline required
to work independently and to plan and use time effectively (McManus & Kelly, 1999).
The importance of conscientiousness in work situations has also been shown in previous
empirical studies linking conscientiousness to counterproductive work behaviours,
effective job-seeking behaviour, retention, and attendance at work in addition to its link
to performance (Judge et al., 1999). Follower conscientiousness hence seems like an
important control variable.
Judge and Locke (1993, as cited in Judge et al., 1999) found that neurotic employees
prone to negative emotions were also more likely to experience dysfunctional jobrelated thought processes (over-generalisation, perfectionism, dependence on others)
and hence lower job satisfaction. People experiencing frequent negative emotions at
work have also been found to act in ways that estrange them from their co-workers
(Brief et al., as cited in Judge et al., 1999). It hence seems plausible that follower
neuroticism could have a negative influence on organisational citizenship behaviour.
Furthermore, neuroticism could influence the leader’s ratings of organisational
citizenship behaviours.
A person who scores high on agreeableness can be characterised as highly co-operative,
likeable, sociable, and emphatic to others (Judge e al., 1999). Furthermore, it has been
suggested that agreeableness may originate in emotional responsiveness to others’ needs
(Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; as cited in Moskowitz & Coté, 1995) and be related to
the tendency toward altruism (Wiggins, 1980; as cited in Moskowitz & Coté, 1995). It
is hence possible that follower agreeableness will have a positive impact on
organisational citizenship behaviour, and also influence the leader ratings of
organisational citizenship behaviour.
Moorman and Blakely (1995) as well as Organ and Paine (1999) have suggested that
the level of individualism-collectivism could affect the definition of and participation in
organisational citizenship behaviour. Moorman and Blakely (1995), who studied
individualism-collectivism within one culture as an indication of individual differences,
110
suggest and found support for the assumption that since organisational citizenship
behaviours are behaviours that support the well-being of the group and since
organisational citizenship behaviours usually require the subordination of self-interest,
employees who hold more collectivist values would be more likely to perform
organisational citizenship behaviours. Follower collectivism is hence expected to be
positively related to follower organisational citizenship behaviour, whereas follower
individualism is expected to be negatively related to follower organisational citizenship
behaviour.
Van Dyne et al. (1994) identified positional factors, which represent an individual’s
membership or position in an organisation and include organisational tenure and
hierarchical level as a group of organisational citizenship behaviour antecedents. Farh,
Zhong and Organ (forthcoming) argue that organisational contextual variables, such as
job function, managerial level and ownership, influence organisational citizenship
behaviour by defining the roles and responsibilities in a job and by providing or
constraining opportunities to perform organisational citizenship behaviours. As the
definition of job breadth is included in the analyses, the impact of some contextual
factors is hence indirectly measured. Regarding opportunities to perform organisational
citizenship behaviours, it is argued, for example that assembly workers have few
opportunities to perform organisational citizenship behaviour in the form of helping coworkers. Tenure and work position will hence be included as control variables.
In sum, the following follower characteristics will be included as control variables: age,
gender, conscientiousness, neuroticism, agreeableness, collectivism, individualism,
tenure and work position. The rater’s level of neuroticism and agreeableness will also
be measured.
111
4.4 SUMMARY: OCB RELATED HYPOTHESES
The eight hypotheses developed in this chapter regarding the relationship between
follower LMX and follower OCB measured from a leader’s perspective are listed
below.
OCB hypothesis 1: follower perceptions of job breadth will moderate the relationship
between follower LMX and follower OCB ................................................ 101
OCB hypothesis 2: high follower LMX quality will be positively related to follower
OCB ............................................................................................................ 102
OCB hypothesis 3: follower ren qin will moderate the relationship between follower
LMX and follower OCB............................................................................. 104
OCB hypothesis 4: follower reports of OCB will be positively related to leader reports
of OCB........................................................................................................ 104
OCB hypothesis 5: follower organisational justice will mediate the relationship between
follower LMX and follower OCB .............................................................. 106
OCB hypothesis 6: follower perceived organisational support will mediate the
relationship between LMX and OCB ......................................................... 107
OCB hypothesis 7: follower organisation-based self-esteem will mediate the
relationship between follower LMX and follower OCB ............................ 108
OCB hypothesis 8: follower job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between
follower LMX and follower OCB .............................................................. 108
An overview of the hypotheses is presented in the figure below.
112
Figure 3: Overview of OCB-related hypotheses
Follower LMX
Hypothesis 2
Moderators*
Hypotheses 1 & 3
Job breadth
Mediators
Hypotheses 5 - 8
Follower OCB
Hypothesis 4
Justice
POS
OCB, follower
perspective
Follower LMX
Satisfaction
Ren qin
OCB, leader
perspective
OBSE
* Moderators hypothesised to influence the direct relationship between LMX and OCB
113
5 METHOD
This chapter begins by describing the sample, including participating companies and
respondents, as well as the questionnaire administration procedure (section 5.1). Then,
measurement issues are addressed, including the measure-selection approach, validity
and reliability, cross-cultural equivalence and bias, and multidimensionality and
perspective (section 5.2). In the following section (5.3) the measures and their
validation through confirmatory factor analyses are presented. Finally, the analytic
procedures with the aid of which the hypotheses will be tested are described (section
5.4).
5.1 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE
Data were collected in the Shanghai area in July 2001. 13 companies and 318
employees took part in the study. In this section, the procedures related to the
administration of the questionnaire are described and information about the participating
companies and employees is given.
5.1.1 Participating companies
Data were collected from employees at 13 different companies in the Shanghai area.
Australian, British, Finnish and Swedish companies operating in China were selected to
represent “Western” companies.
Subsidiaries representing these countries were selected due to both convenience and
theoretical reasons. Convenient is the fact that the English language is either spoken or
widely learned in these countries. This facilitated the research process, as the
questionnaire did not have to be translated into many languages. The English and
Mandarin versions were judged to be sufficient. Access to Finnish companies was also
likely to have been facilitated by my Finnish origin. Furthermore, the selection of these
countries is in accordance with the purpose of the present study, which is to examine
intercultural interaction between culturally distant groups. Using e.g. Hofstede’s cultural
cluster concepts, many Asian countries, including China, have been identified as belonging
to the same cultural cluster characterised by low individualism and high power distance,
whereas the West (including Europe and Australia) is characterised by higher individualism
(cf. e.g. Hofstede & Bond, 1988). This study is based on the assumption that one could
expect there to be more differences on some characteristics between the Western and
Chinese groups of individuals than within these groups. This assertion could be
justified, despite the extremely rough West-China division, as studies conducted e.g. by
Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) and Hofstede and Bond (1988) indicate that these regions
have very different cultural profiles.
114
The China-location was chosen due to the alleged and above mentioned cultural
distance from the West, due to the great interest demonstrated by companies to invest in
China (which facilitates access) and due to the fact that there is some evidence that the
theoretical framework employed in this study is of relevance in the Chinese context (see
earlier discussion on p. 39). Due to convenience, it was decided to concentrate on
companies operating in the Shanghai area so that all companies could be personally
visited with greater ease and less costs. The diversity of China is a well-known fact (e.g.
Child & Stewart, 1997) and the Shanghai sample is not expected to be representative of
the entire Chinese population. What should be borne in mind, however, is that the focus
in the present study is not on Chinese behaviour per se but on leader-follower
interaction in an intercultural context. None of the individuals working in this
intercultural context are expected to represent their “typical” countrymen who are
working in their respective home countries. The individuals studied in the present study
form a particular subgroup that is well represented in the Shanghai area that currently
attracts a very large portion of foreign investments, foreign employees and employees
from other parts of China.
In an ideal case, a large number of respondents from each company would have been
obtained, as this would have enabled comparisons across companies and a more
thorough analysis of potential confounding variables. However, in practice Western
multinationals are increasingly decreasing the number of expatriates (e.g. Wang, 2001),
and most subsidiaries employ only a handful expatriates. Therefore, a large number of
companies had to be contacted. The decision was made to concentrate on studying
Western companies that had made large investments in China, and hence employ a
larger number of expatriates than e.g. sales subsidiaries often do. Therefore, companies
with mere sales subsidiaries but no production in China were excluded from the study.
The companies that were contacted about participation in the study hence mainly
belonged to the secondary industry, concerned with the refining, processing or
manufacturing of goods.
In order to identify potential companies to participate in the study, directories of
Australian, British, Finnish and Swedish companies operating in China were obtained
and Internet searches were carried out. Companies that filled the criteria mentioned
above were contacted via email or fax. Around 70 companies were contacted. In the
letter sent to the general manager, the research project was described briefly and the
practical implications of participation outlined. The companies that agreed to participate
were promised a general report of the outcomes of the study.
All in all, 13 companies agreed to take part in the study. These companies represented a
variety of industries from the secondary industry including telecommunications,
forestry, construction, engineering, chemicals, food and beverages. Five of these
companies were Finnish, four Swedish, two British and one Australian. As the number
of respondents from each company differed a lot, it seems relevant to describe the
companies in relation to the number of respondents. 55 percent of the studied dyads
worked in a Finnish company, 34 percent in a Swedish company, 8 percent in an
Australian company and 3 percent in a British company. The majority of the studied
dyads (33%) were from big subsidiaries employing over 650 persons. 26 percent were
from subsidiaries employing 141- 240 people, 11 percent from subsidiaries employing
115
81 – 140 people, 22 percent from subsidiaries employing 20 - 80 people and 7 percent
from subsidiaries employing under 20 people. Many of the respondents (74%) were
from subsidiaries employing 6-8 expatriates, 12 percent of the respondents were from
subsidiaries employing one expatriate, 9 percent of the respondents were from
subsidiaries employing 2-4 expatriates, and 5 percent of the respondents were from
subsidiaries employing more than 20 expatriates.
The inclusion of a large number of companies representing different countries and
industries creates the potential problem that differences and relationships detected
between the studied factors could be due to country, industry and company level
influences and not the individual-level influences that are in focus in this study. (As
mentioned earlier, an ideal case would have been to have a large number of participants
from each company). This is why the data stemming from different companies were
compared and checked to see whether large differences between companies could be
detected. This was done by calculating and comparing the standard deviations of the
major variables in the study. Alarmingly high differences between companies could not
be detected concerning the companies employing a large number of employees. More
variation vas found with regard to the very small companies, which could be expected
as the means in this case reflect the individual responses of a handful of employees that
can fluctuate dramatically. The fact that there are certain company-level differences
does not necessarily undermine the importance of the individual level influences that are
arguably important in this study. It could be that certain types of job attitudes and values
prevail in certain countries, industries and companies if these industries and companies
attract people with particular predisposition and attitudes. In this case, it is hoped that
the variables included in the study capture these individual differences that could be
reflected as company-level differences.
5.1.2 Questionnaire administration
Two types of questionnaires were used in this study: a leader version and a follower
version. The contents of these questionnaires were very similar and identical concerning
the items related to personality and values. Both questionnaires were available in
English and in Mandarin and contained around 350 questions (see Appendix 1, p. 277)
for the English versions of the questionnaires).
Measurement issues pertaining to the content of the questionnaire and the cross-cultural
validation of the items will be discussed in section 5.2. (see p. 120). Here it suffices to
say that each measure and hence all the items included in the questionnaires have been
carefully considered giving precedence to well-established and cross-culturally
validated measures over new and not cross-culturally tested measures. The majority of
the measures selected have Western origins, but most of them have been used in China
by Chinese researchers, which gives some assurance of cross-cultural applicability, or at
least face validity (although further tests of equivalence and validity will be undertaken
with the current sample). In practical terms, it means that the majority of the measures
were available both in English and in Mandarin at the start of the research. The
remaining measures were translated into Chinese and back translated into English.
116
Before distributing the questionnaires in China (Shanghai), brief preliminary tests were
conducted in Finland and Australia, in which a handful of Australian, Finnish and
Chinese respondents were asked to fill in the questionnaires and give feedback so that
any possible problems and ambiguities regarding the questionnaires could be detected.
As a result of these tests, minor alterations were made in wording and layout to improve
the legibility of the questionnaire and to facilitate its completion. The completion of the
final questionnaire required approximately one hour.
I personally visited all the participating subsidiaries in July 2001 in order to increase
commitment to and participation in the study. This way, the research purposes could be
clarified and the administration of the questionnaires facilitated. The normal procedure
was to meet the general manager of the subsidiary (or his representative) and to describe
the purpose of the study as well as the practical implications of participation. With
regard to the selection of participants, the primary aim was to get access to all
expatriates, simply due to the scarcity of expatriate managers. In addition to these
expatriate managers, the goal was to select around the same number of Chinese
managers occupying similar positions in the organisation as the expatriate managers in
order to facilitate comparisons between Western and Chinese managers by eliminating
known sources of bias. The employees working with these leaders who were included in
the study were selected randomly.
In the subsidiaries employing more than 20 employees, the general manager often
assigned a person to assist me in identifying the respondents and in distributing the
questionnaires. In the smaller companies, the subsidiary manager gave this assistance
personally. With the aid of the assisting person who knew who works with whom in the
company, a name list of participants was created. The list contained the names of the
leaders (both expatriate and local Chinese managers) matched with up to three Chinese
followers chosen randomly. Identification codes were also created to match the leader
and follower data during subsequent data analysis. After the creation of the list, the
names and the identification codes were written on the questionnaires. The
questionnaire contained both the name of the recipient of the questionnaire as well as
the name(s) of the persons the recipient was asked to evaluate. In many companies, the
questionnaires were distributed during my visit. In companies where the questionnaires
could not be distributed immediately, detailed written instructions concerning
questionnaire distribution were provided to the assisting person to ensure uniform
procedures in different companies. All respondents were given questionnaires with
envelopes to return to the researcher and confidentiality was assured. An advantage of
being closely involved in the questionnaire distribution process and having access to the
name list was that I was later able to contact the people to whom the questionnaires had
been distributed and urge them to respond when necessary.
Schaffer and Riordan (2001) stress the importance of ensuring equivalence of the
procedures related to questionnaire administration when conducting cross-cultural
research. This (and following a number of other recommendations) should increase the
likelihood that any differences detected between cultural groups are due to cultural
differences and not differing procedures. This is naturally of importance in any study
involving multiple companies, not just in cross-cultural research. In other words,
117
consistency in terms of questionnaire formats, timing, levels of rapport and technical
procedures should be assured. As indicated in the discussion above, consideration has
been given and measures have been taken in the present study to ensure uniform
procedures in the participating companies. What should also be noted is that as the
representatives from both cultures are from the same companies, there is not a
significant chance that individuals representing different cultures as a group would have
been treated differently during the research process. It is hence assumed that any
possible group-level inconsistencies concerning questionnaire administration would be
at a company-level.
5.1.3 Respondents
A total of 318 employees participated in the study, of whom 85 leaders (48 Chinese and
37 Western) and 233 followers (all Chinese). The response rate was 65 percent. Each
leader was asked to evaluate up to three followers and 232 matched manager-follower
dyads (154 completely Chinese and 78 Western-Chinese dyads) were obtained for
analysis (exact number varies somewhat due to missing values). The questionnaires for
which matching data from the dyadic partner was not obtained were used for individuallevel analyses.
Sample size will vary considerably with regard to leaders. This is a result of the fact that
each leader is asked to evaluate up to three followers. A leader’s perception of each of
the follower constitutes one observation and can hence be up to three times higher than
the number of leaders who participated in the study. This is the case for leader reports of
LMX and OCB. In other cases, the sample size is determined by the number of leaders
as individuals. This is the case in measures of values and personality as well as the
leaders’ perception of e.g. organisational support.
Demographic information regarding the respondents is given in the tables below,
followed by a brief description containing additional information. The Chinese
followers are described first continuing with the Western and Chinese leaders.
Table 1: Demographic information on the Chinese followers
Chinese followers
Gender
Age
Education
Education abroad
Language skills
Cross-cultural training
Position
Tenure in company
Intercultural dyad experience
Dyadic tenure
Interaction intensity, weekly
62% Male
65% <30 years
55% Bachelor
15% Yes
87% English
48% Yes
24% lower management
26 months, average
26 months, average
19 months
8 times
5% >40 years
11% Master
19 hours, average
36% technical experts
3 hours, average
118
The 233 Chinese followers who participated in the study were predominantly males and
between the ages of 20 and 56. The employees occupied positions at multiple levels in
the organisation: 24% lower management, 36% technical experts, 19% administrative,
and 4% workers. Almost half of the followers had received some form of cross-cultural
training and more specifically 25% language training, 16% cultural orientation, and
14% training in intercultural encounters. The average time for working in an
intercultural dyad (including earlier cross-cultural work relationships) was about two
years and two months (22% had never worked in an intercultural dyad, 18% under a
year, 19% for 1-2 years, 11% 2-3 years, and 26% for over 3 years). 63 % of the
followers could speak the mother tongue of their leaders and 60 % of the leaders could
speak the mother tongue of their follower (according to the follower reports). (These
relatively high numbers are naturally due to the large proportion of completely Chinese
dyads).
Table 2: Demographic information on the leaders
Gender
Age
Education
Education abroad
Language skills
Cross-cultural training
Position
Tenure in company
Internat. assignments
Intercultural dyad exp.
Dyadic tenure
Interaction intensity
Western leaders
Chinese leaders
98% Male
8% <30 years
30% Bachelor
46% Yes
40% Chinese
40% Yes
24% GM
3 ½ years aver.
2 years, aver.
4 years, aver.
1 ½ years
19 times
71% Male
48% <30 years
58% Bachelor
25% Yes
90% English
33% Yes
2% GM
3 years aver.
1 ½ years aver.
7 months aver.
1 ½ years
11 times
22% >50 years
38% Master
12 hours aver.
8% no previous
5 hours a week
4% >50 years
25% Master
7 hours aver.
40% no previous
4 hours a week
Of the 85 leaders who participated in the study, 56 % were Chinese and 44% Western
(35% of these Finnish, 19% Swedish, 16% had English as their mother tongue, and the
rest were from a variety of European countries). In both groups, the majority of the
leaders were males. The Chinese leaders tended to be younger than the Western leaders.
The Western leaders occupied the majority of the general manager positions whereas
Chinese leaders occupied the majority of the functional head positions. The remaining
leaders occupied middle and lower management positions. The Chinese leaders tended
to have spent less time in their positions: 19% had occupied their present position for 6
months or less when the corresponding percentage for the Western leaders was 11.
The Western leaders tended to be much more internationally experienced than the
Chinese leaders. The Western leaders had on average spent over two years on
international assignments before their present position (8% had no previous foreign
assignments and 25% over 4 years) and the Chinese leaders just under one and a half
years (40% had been on no foreign assignments and 4% over 4 years). On average, the
Chinese leader had been working in previous intercultural dyads for only about 7
119
months (67% never) and the Western leader for almost 4 years (35% never). With
regard to cross-cultural training, 33% of the Chinese and 40% of the Western managers
had received cross-cultural training (average time 7 hours for Chinese and 12 hours for
Western leaders) and more specifically 8% / 25% (first percentage for Chinese leaders,
second for Western leaders) environmental briefing, 10% / 19% language training, 17%
/ 22% cultural orientation, and 19% / 8% training in intercultural encounters. The
leaders had hence, in average, received fewer hours of cross-cultural training than the
followers had. An interesting discovery is also that followers report much lower
interaction frequency and duration than leaders.
120
5.2 MEASUREMENT ISSUES
This section begins with a brief description of the measure-selection philosophy in the
present study (section 5.2.1). The following section deals with the issue of validity
enhancement of the measures (section 5.2.2). Thereafter, the important concepts of
cross-cultural equivalence and bias of measures are discussed (section 5.2.3). Finally,
the multidimensionality of the employed measures and the measurement perspective is
discussed (section 5.2.4).
5.2.1 Western or Chinese measures?
The literature review resulted in an abundant number of measures that at first glance
seemed appropriate to capture the different concepts of interest in the present study. A
special effort was made to identify indigenous Chinese measures and measures that
have been used in a Chinese context in addition to the Western measures. This enabled
an interesting comparison between measures and resulted in a deeper awareness of
cross-cultural differences between measures (and their underlying concepts) as well as
of potential weaknesses within measures. This also contributed to a deeper
understanding of the concepts themselves.
However, as already mentioned in the discussion about the applicability of the LMX
framework in China (see p. 51) an opinion that started to take form during the research
process is that the Western subsidiary may not provide the most suitable context for the
use of indigenous Chinese measures (at least regarding the specific measures identified
for this study) due to possible acculturation taking place at the individual, subsidiary
and national levels. In fact, a Chinese professor in organisational behaviour stated that
he would expect the indigenous Chinese organisational behaviour measures to be “too
Chinese” for this context.
An additional point that was considered in the choice of measures was the unit of
analysis in the study: the dyad. The main unit of analysis in this study is the intercultural
dyad, involving both a Western and a Chinese respondent. A part of the study entails
establishing the degree of similarity between leader and follower and examining their
compatibility with each other. This process requires the use of the same measure for
leaders and followers instead of using, for instance, a Western measure for Western
respondents and a Chinese measure for Chinese respondents. Equivalence of measures
is also required for comparison of intracultural versus intercultural dyads. The decision
was hence made to use the same measures for Western and Chinese respondents. The
use of the same measure for Chinese and Western respondents raises the concerns for
cross-cultural bias and equivalence that will be discussed later in this section (see p.
126). What must also be ensured is that the measure is valid in both groups. It should be
noted that in the present study, good applicability within the cultural group is
considered to be of higher importance than modifying measures to show maximal crosscultural equivalence (and potentially losing cultural specificity). This is due to the fact
that the primary aim of this study is not to compare Chinese and Western individuals,
121
but the focus is on understanding leader-follower relations. Such a comparison would
naturally be of interest, but at this stage where the LMX construct has been used in the
Chinese context to a limited extent and never in an intercultural context, it seems more
relevant to develop measures that are relevant in either intracultural Chinese or
intercultural Western/Chinese dyads separately. The optimal solution, enabling both indepth analysis and cross-cultural comparison would naturally be to achieve
simultaneous equivalence and in-group applicability.
Although it was just argued that the present study is not a “China study” in a strict
sense, a few remarks concerning some empirical problems encountered by researchers
in China-related research could be made as the study still takes place in the Chinese
context. According to Goodwin and Tang (1996), method problems in China research
include the over-reliance on self-report methods instead of using behavioural measures,
the dependence on college students as respondents, the concentration on Maritime
China leaving the diversity of China highly unexplored, and the fact that the majority of
China research has been conducted by Americans. Smith and Wang (1996) raise
concerns for the validity of studies using Chinese respondents using concepts and
measures designed in Western cultures. Validity could also be affected by the low
Chinese familiarity with questionnaires and rating scales, which could lead the Chinese
respondents to choose central categories on rating scales in order not to take up extreme
positions. Furthermore, questionnaires may be filled invalidly or not at all if insufficient
trust has been established between the researcher and the respondent. How these
concerns are addressed in the present study is and has been reported in this chapter.
Each measure selected for this study has been carefully considered taking into account
the points made above and giving precedence to well-established and cross-culturally
validated measures over new and not cross-culturally tested measures. The majority of
the measures selected have Western origins, but most of them have been used in China
by Chinese researchers, which gives some assurance of cross-cultural applicability, or at
least face validity. Further tests of equivalence and validity will be undertaken with the
current sample. One indigenous Chinese personality measure (the CPAI) has been
included in the study, as the measurement of personality seems to be very culturebound. This measure has also been tested on Western respondents. (In the case of
personality, both a Western and Chinese measure was employed and both of the
measures were used on all respondents). Previous cross-cultural use is certainly no
proof of the universal nature of these measures, but the advantage of using these rather
well known measures is that their strengths as well as weaknesses are well reported. It is
not argued that the measures selected for this study are equally well suited for all
respondents with different cultural backgrounds. However, they should be of at least
some relevance to all respondents. Whether this results in derived etics, as hoped or
imposed etics, as feared, is for the reader to judge.
5.2.2 Validity and reliability
Validity and reliability are two related and important aspects of precision of
measurement. Reliability refers to the reproducibility of a measurement. Validity refers
122
to the agreement between the value of a measurement and it’s true value. These two
concepts are related: measurements can be reliable but not valid, but a valid
measurement must be reliable (e.g. Hopkins, 2000). However, reliability and validity
are often dealt with separately as bringing the two concepts together is mathematically
difficult (Hopkins, 2000). This section discusses validity and reliability in general, as
well as the procedures undertaken in this study to report and enhance validity and
reliability. The next section on cross-cultural equivalence and bias (see p. 126) deals
with these issues in the context of cross-cultural studies.
a) Validity
The methodological literature contains a wide variety of labels that are used to describe
the validity of measures. Validity was traditionally subdivided into three categories:
content, criterion-related, and construct validity (see e.g. Brown, 1996). However, all
three types of validity are now often taken to be different facets of a single unified form
of construct validity (cf. e.g. Trochim, 2003). Regardless of how construct validity is
defined, there seems to be no single best way to study it and it should be demonstrated
from a number of perspectives (c.f. e.g. Trochim, 2003).
Trochim (2003) makes a distinction between two broad categories of construct validity:
a) translation validity and b) criterion-related validity.
a) In translation validity the focus is on whether the operationalisation is a good
reflection of the construct. Face validity and content validity, where the
operationalisation is checked against the relevant content domain for the construct are
subcategories of translation validity. This approach is definitional in nature as it
assumes that one has a good detailed definition of the construct and that the
operationalisation can be checked against it. As the present study relies on previously
defined constructs and well-established measures that have been used both in the West
and China, it is assumed that evidence of sufficient translation validity exists.
b) In criterion-related validity, it is examined whether the operationalisation behaves
the way it should given the theory of the construct. This is a more relational approach to
construct validity, where the performance of the operationalisation is checked against
some criterion. Predictive, concurrent and convergent validity are regarded by Trochim
(2003) as different types of criterion-related validity. Predictive validity concerns the
operationalisation's ability to predict something it should theoretically be able to predict.
This type of validity can be assessed a posteriori regarding the LMX construct by
examining the extent to which support for the hypothesised outcomes is gained.
Predictive validity for the other operationalisations will not be established or discussed.
Concurrent validity concerns the operationalisation’s ability to distinguish between
groups that it should theoretically be able to distinguish between. This type of validity
cannot be assessed in the present study. Convergent validity concerns the degree to
which the operationalisation is similar to (converges on) other operationalisations that it
theoretically should be similar to. A common method for establishing convergent
validity is to compare factor loadings obtained from exploratory or confirmatory factor
analyses with factor loading that would be expected from theory (e.g. Liden & Maslyn,
1998). The confirmatory factor analysis approach that is implemented in the present
123
study is described later in this section. Convergent validity can also be tested by
examining the correlation between two measures that arguably measure the same
construct (e.g. De Vellis, 1991). Although this study is based on the multidimensional
measure developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998), the items of the widely used LMX7
measure were also included in the study for validation purposes. The high correlations
between the LMX-MDM and LMX7 measures (both the English and Chinese version
measured from both leader and follower perspective) gave some evidence of convergent
validity. (In this sample, the correlation between the LMX7 and LMX-MDM
composites was .54 for the Chinese leader measures and .67 for the English versions
and .70 for the follower measures). Discriminant validity concerns the degree to which
the operationalisation is not similar to (diverges from) other operationalisations that it
theoretically should be not be similar to. Discriminant validity is addressed through
confirmatory factor analyses in the present study. These will be discussed more in detail
below.
Both individual and overall confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using maximum
likelihood techniques with LISREL 8.3 were conducted to assess the factor structure
and convergent and discriminant validities of the perceptual constructs employed in the
study (i.e. LMX, OCB, perceived similarity, organisational justice, inrole performance,
perceived organisational support and organisation-based self-esteem). Separate
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for the English and Chinese measures (the
rationale behind this will be discussed in the next section). Confirmatory methods
instead of exploratory techniques are recommended when an a priori structure can be
hypothesised (cf. Liden & Maslyn, 1998) and were used since all these constructs and
their measures are well established. It could be noted that most of the a priori
theoretically defined multidimensional attitudinal constructs were identified in the
individual confirmatory factor analyses both for the Western and Chinese respondents.
However, in order to obtain more robust measures of constructs fitting the data better,
items with weak factor loadings, often combined with cross-loadings onto other
dimensions, were deleted from some measures. In the case of multidimensional
measures, the elimination of items was conducted so that one weakly loaded item per
dimension was deleted in order to keep the proportions of the scale intact. This
procedure, often combined with freeing some error covariances between items, usually
yielded acceptable fit statistics in terms of chi-square/df –ratio, RMSEA, CFI and GFI.
The p-value, however turned out to be low and did not exceed the recommended .05 in
most of the analyses, which means that the statistical significance of the results could be
questionable. Furthermore, it should be noted that freeing error covariances is not
unproblematic. The correlation of error terms could be interpreted to include common
method factors (Bollen, 1989), but it is however difficult to separate common method
errors from bad convergent and discriminant properties (cf. Ehrnrooth, 2002). Despite
these deficiencies with many of the models, the CFAs normally enabled an
improvement of the constructs. A further value in itself is openly demonstrating the
weaknesses of some measures.
Confirmatory factor analyses were not conducted for the personality and value measures
for two reasons: Firstly, the validity and cross-cultural generalisability of the five-factor
model of personality and Schwartz value-model has been demonstrated in a large
number of studies with a considerable sample size. Secondly, due to the large number of
124
items in the personality and value measures (the Chinese personality assessment
inventory, CPAI, has 90 items, the NEO-FFI measure of the five-factor model of
personality 60 items, and the Schwartz value survey 53 items) an inclusion of all of
them would have lead to an unacceptable sample-size-to parameter ratio and hence
potentially unreliable parameter estimates. A sample-size-to parameter ratio of 5 is
recommended by Bentler (1985, as cited in Settoon et al., 1996). In fact, the number of
parameters would have been greater than the number of respondents as only 37 Western
leaders and 78 intercultural dyads took part in the study. As a result, only those
personality and value factors for which very low internal consistency reliability
estimates (α) were obtained, were further examined in order to detect and correct some
of the reliability and validity problems with these measures. In these analyses, each
personality and value factor was analysed separately (i.e. as one-factor models).
In addition to examining the convergent validity of the employed perceptual constructs
through individual confirmatory factor analyses (i.e. measuring only one construct at a
time), the discriminant validities of the attitudinal measures (perceived similarity, LMX,
OSE, POS, justice, OCB) were assessed with overall confirmatory factor analyses that
included the items from a number of these measures in different combinations. The
ideal case would have been to include all items of all measures in one analysis, but this
would have led to an unacceptable sample-size-to parameter ratio. In these analyses, the
shortened versions (when relevant) of the constructs obtained through the individual
confirmatory factor analyses were used. In order to demonstrate discriminant validity,
comparative confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. In these analyses, a model
where the items loaded on the theoretically assumed factors were compared to a model
where all items (representing different constructs) loaded on the same factor. Support
for some level discriminant validity was gained if the multifactor model showed better
statistical fit than the one-factor model. As an example, Wayne et al. (1997) used this
procedure to demonstrate the distinctiveness of LMX and POS.
The use of confirmatory factor analysis for assessing construct validity is according to
my interpretation in line with the logic behind the pattern matching approach advocated
by Trochim (1985). Trochim (2003) describes a pattern as any arrangement of objects or
entities. All theories imply some pattern, but theories and patterns are not the same
thing. In general, a theory postulates structural relationships between key constructs. A
pattern of expectations can be developed from this formula by generating predicted
values for one of these variables given fixed values of the others. Not all theories are
stated in mathematical form, especially in applied social research, but all theories
provide information that enables the generation of patterns of predictions. The pattern
matching advocated by Trochim involves an attempt to link two patterns, where one is a
theoretical pattern and the other is an observed or operational one consisting of the data.
To the extent that the theoretical and observational patterns match, one can conclude
that the theory and any other theories that might predict the same observed pattern
receive support. Furthermore, pattern matching implies that more complex patterns, if
matched, yield greater validity for the theory (Trochim, 2003). Structural equation
modelling seems well suited for pattern matching, as the fit indices indicate how well
the model fits the data. Convergent and discriminant validity is established through
individual and overall confirmatory factor analyses and predictive validity through the
models that examine the relationships between the different constructs. According to
125
Trochim (2003), one advantage of the pattern matching approach is that it is more
general and flexible than e.g. the multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM, Campbell &
Fiske, 1959; as cited in Trochim 2003) as it does not require the measurement of each
construct with multiple measures. Second, it treats convergence and discrimination as a
continuum instead of treating it in a dichotomous way. Third, this approach makes it
possible to estimate the overall construct validity for a set of measures in a specific
context (instead of estimating the construct validity for a single measure).
b) Model fit
An indication of construct validity can be obtained by assessing and comparing the
coefficients in measurement models that show acceptable fit. Few researchers seem to
agree on which index provides the best estimation of model fit (cf. Gierl, Rogers &
Klinger, 1999). As a result, there is an increasing trend to utilise multiple fit indices that
reflect different aspects of the model fit.
The following criteria for assessing model fit will be used in the present study: χ2/df <3,
RMSEA <.08, GFI >.80, CFI >.80 (see Appendix 2, p. 312) for a presentation and
discussion of these fit indices). Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) suggest the following
additional criteria for judging confirmatory factor model satisfaction that will be used in
the present study: p-value for the chi-square statistics >.05, CN >N as well as item
R2>.20, and item estimate t-value >2.0. (at a significance level of 5%, at 10% t=1.64 is
the threshold value). A model that shows very good fit to the data is expected to meet
every criterion, but a model that meets most, but not all, of the criteria will not
automatically be rejected. Although the final model may not demonstrate perfect fit, at
least it will enable improvement of the measure as well as clarify its possible
deficiencies.
Regarding the problem of choosing from among two or more competing models, the
choice of which procedure to use depends on whether or not the competing models are
"nested" within one another (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Chi-square difference will be
examined for comparisons of nested models. In the general case of selection of one
model among several (more than two) models, AIC and CAIC will be used to facilitate
model selection in the present study.
c) Reliability
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) will be reported for the measures employed in the
present study as indicators of internal consistency reliability (i.e. the reliability of items
as reflectors of their respective constructs). The threshold of .70 is recommended by
Nunnally (1978). In addition, reliability will be estimated through the confirmatory
factor analyses described above.(A few more words on reliability can be found in
Appendix 2 on p. 313).
126
5.2.3 Cross-cultural equivalence and bias
Studies involving the examination of different cultural groups face additional challenges
threatening the validity of the research as compared to studies undertaken in an
intracultural setting. Cross-cultural equivalence and bias are major concerns in crosscultural studies (cf. e.g. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997; Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994).
Although the primary aim of this study is not to compare Chinese and Western
individuals, equivalence of measures is vital in the examination of intercultural dyads
that involve establishing the level of similarity between a Western leader and a Chinese
follower. Cross-cultural bias and equivalence is not only a concern at a dyad level, but
in all analyses entailing comparisons between Western and Chinese respondents. This
section will discuss cross-cultural bias and equivalence in data analysis largely
following the highly regarded and frequently quoted book “Methods and data analysis
for cross-cultural research” written by van de Vijver and Leung (1997).
Organisational and cross-cultural researchers are often interested in comparing groups
to make statements as to the role of group differences on some specific outcome.
Regardless of the type of statistical analysis (e.g. test of mean differences, a correlation
test, or a descriptive comparative statement), it is implicitly assumed that the
measurement properties of the measure on which the comparison is conducted are
equivalent or invariant across group. This assumption may not necessarily hold (cf. e.g.
Vandenberg & Self, 1993, van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). If there is no evidence
indicating presence or absence of measurement equivalence, then the basis for drawing
scientific inference is severely lacking: findings of differences between individuals and
groups cannot be unambiguously interpreted (Horn & McArdle, 1992). In other words,
equivalence (or the absence of bias) is required in making valid cross-cultural
comparisons (e.g. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
Equivalence is closely linked with the concept of bias: scores are equivalent when they
are unbiased (van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). However, equivalence refers to the
measurement level at which scores can be compared across cultures whereas bias
indicates the presence of factors that make the validity of cross-cultural comparisons
questionable. According to van de Vijver and Leung (1997), equivalence can occur at
three levels, which are hierarchically related to each other: the construct level, the
measurement unit level and the score level (these are discussed more in detail in
Appendix 2, p. 314). Bias can occur at multiple stages of a study including 1) the
formulation of hypotheses and conceptualisation of theoretical constructs, 2) the design
of the study and c) data analysis. Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) define bias as a
generic term for all nuisance factors that threaten the validity of cross-cultural
comparisons. Construct bias is characterised by dissimilarities in the operationalisation
of the concept across cultures. One type of construct bias occurs when the issues studied
in one culture are only of minor relevance in the other culture. Method bias stems from
incomparability of the samples, instrument characteristics to which individuals from
different cultures react in a consistently different manner, or differences in the
administration of the instrument. Item bias is caused by anomalies at the item level such
as poor translation and wording, incidental differences in the response scale and
incidental inappropriateness of item content. In the case of method and item bias van de
Vijver and Leung (1997) introduce a distinction between uniform and nonuniform bias.
127
Uniform bias refers to influences that are more the less the same on for all score levels
(e.g. when a measure of height consistently shows 1 cm too much for one group).
Nonuniform bias refers to influences that are not identical for all score levels (e.g. for
one group 1 cm is actually 1.1 cm, which means that cross-cultural comparisons
involving tall people will be more distorted).
Although the importance of equivalence in cross-cultural comparisons is agreed upon
by most researchers, Schaffer and Riordan (2001) found, in a review of 117 crosscultural research studies in the management field published between the years of 1995
and 2001, that only 29% of the studies in the sample described procedures related to
measurement equivalence. The following steps to deal with and report cross-cultural
equivalence and bias will be taken in the present study: Firstly, construct bias is
addressed by relying on constructs that have already been applied both to a Chinese and
Western context. This should reduce the potential for incomplete overlap of the
definition of the construct across cultures, differential appropriateness of test content,
poor sampling of all relevant behaviours and incompleteness of the coverage of the
construct listed by van de Vijver and Leung (1997) as sources of construct bias.
Secondly, cross-cultural differences in the factor structures of the different measures
will be examined. This means that although some level of similarity of constructs across
cultural groups is expected based on previous research, this is not taken for granted but
assessed through confirmatory factor analyses. Regarding method bias, the fact that the
Chinese and Western respondents were employed in the same companies, visited by the
same researcher and subjected to similar questionnaire administration procedures should
reduce many potential sources of method bias. However, differential response styles
(e.g. acquiescence or the tendency to agree with statements regardless of their content,
or the tendency to respond neutrally to survey items) and lack of comparability of
samples (great demographic differences between Western and Chinese leaders found in
the present study) are potential sources of method bias. In order to increase
comparability of samples, the possible individual-level comparisons will take place
between Western and Chinese leaders (while controlling for demographic differences)
without including all the Chinese respondents (both leaders and followers) in the
comparisons with Western leaders. The effects of possible method bias hence have to be
borne in mind during the interpretation of the results: method bias usually affects scores
at the level of the whole instrument and can e.g. be found as significant effects for
cultural groups in t-test (van de Vijver and Leung,1997). This means that if significant
cross-cultural differences are detected, these could be a result of both valid differences
and method bias effects. Item bias will be dealt with a posteriori by item bias analysis.
Regarding the assessment of (measurement) equivalence, Schaffer and Riordan (2001)
and Vandenberg and Lance (1998), for instance suggest the conduct of confirmatory
factor analyses to determine equivalence across groups.
Finally, personal bias partly stemming from the researcher’s cultural background
affecting hypotheses formulation and study design has been indirectly dealt with in the
previous chapters. Personal bias is difficult to avoid but it is hoped that through an open
discussion and description of the research process in the previous and following
chapters, these biases will at least become clear and obvious. This is considered to be a
better option than to claim “objectivity”.
128
Both the item bias analyses and comparative confirmatory factor analyses that are
conducted in the present study will be discussed briefly below and described more in
detail in Appendix 2 (see p. 312).
a) Measurement equivalence testing
For assessing measurement equivalence, Schaffer and Riordan (2001) recommend
covariance structure analysis as a best practice statistical approach for cross-cultural
organisational research. This approach has previously been used by researchers (e.g.,
Cheung & Rensvold, 1999; Ryan, Chan, Ployhart, R. & Slade, 1999; Riordan &
Vandenberg, 1994). Schaffer and Riordan (2001) reported in their review that
covariance structure analysis was used to assess measurement equivalence in 23% of the
limited number of studies that discussed measurement equivalence (e.g., Wasti,
Bergman, Glomb & Drasgow, 2000; Judge, Locke, Durham & Kluger, 1998; Ghorpade,
Hattrup, Keith & Lackritz, 1999). Typically, researchers have used a multiple-groups
covariance structure analysis to examine measurement equivalence, because such an
analysis allows for direct testing of equivalency assumptions through a series of nested
constraints placed upon selected parameters across the samples (Riordan &
Vandenberg, 1994). Measurement equivalence, including both structural and scalar, can
be examined in a series of increasingly restrictive hypothesis tests (for a more detailed
description of these procedures, see Appendix 2, p. 315). In the present study,
covariance structure analysis will be used mainly to determine the level of equivalence
and it will not be used as a tool for identifying the sources of inequivalence. The focus
is on testing the equality of the covariance matrices and comparing it to a less restrictive
model in which the factor loadings are not presumed to be equal. Testing only these
models does not enable a specific identification of inequivalence, but is considered to be
sufficient given that item-level sources of inequivalence will be identified using itembias detection techniques (to be discussed in the following sub-section). The decision
not to resort to all possible techniques aimed at identifying sources of inequivalence is
also in line with the primary aim of this study, which is not to compare Chinese and
Western individuals, but to understand leader-follower relations. Hence, if a significant
level of equivalence of constructs cannot be demonstrated, both groups will be analysed
separately. The standpoint taken in the present study is that our understanding of leaderfollower relations in the present context is increased most efficiently by adopting
measures to fit the specific group or dyad-type (intracultural or intercultural) under
examination than developing measures that may be equivalent but non adequate for the
group under examination.
However, it should be noted that before testing nested models with different equality
constraints, researchers have begun their assessment of equivalence across cultural
groups by conducting confirmatory factor analyses for each groups separately (e.g.
Singh, Ghoparade & Lackritz, 2001). This gives a general overview of the factorial
structure in both groups. It seems that if remarkable differences are found already at this
stage, testing nested models with presumed strict equality constraints seems
superfluous. As a result, the assessment of cross-cultural equivalence started with
confirmatory factor analyses conducted separately for Western and Chinese
respondents. The fact that the constructs employed in the present study have already
been employed in a Chinese context and there are empirical and theoretical
129
justifications to presume that the factor structure would be similar in both cultural
groups resulted in the decision to use confirmatory rather than exploratory techniques.
The need to establish measurement properties (such as reliability and validity) for each
cultural group separately and to compare these properties across groups is also stressed
in the guidelines formulated by a committee representing various international
psychological organisations for translating and adapting psychological and educational
instruments (Hambleton, 1994, as cited in van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). The validation
of the measures employed in the present study will be described later in this chapter (see
p. 133) whereas the focus in this section is on describing general procedures.
The examination of equivalence will be undertaken separately for each construct. A
simultaneous inclusion of a larger number of constructs would most certainly have lead
to specification problems due to the interrelationships between constructs (cf. Schaffer
& Riordan, 2001). However, in case the individual measures demonstrate a high level of
equivalence, it would be possible to examine their convergent-discriminant validity by
simultaneously comparing measurement properties. An examination of the equivalence
causal relationships between the constructs is also only possible if equivalence of
constructs can be demonstrated.
b) Item bias detection
According to van de Vijver and Leung (1997), the most important a posteriori
technique in validity enhancement is item bias analysis that can be used to detect
anomalous items. Although the presence of bias, or rather non-bias, can be identified
though the confirmatory factor analyses described above, item bias analysis is useful as
it provides a more fine-grained technique for the identification of bias.
Item bias is defined as invalidity or systematic error in how a test item measures a
construct for the members of a particular group (Camilli & Shepard, 1994, as cited in
Gierl et al., 1999). Persons with an equal standing on the theoretical construct
underlying the instrument should have the same expected score on the item, irrespective
of group membership (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). In other words, the respondents
who perceive the same level of LMX quality should have the same average score on the
item, irrespective of if they are Western or Chinese. This does not mean that the
averages of LMX should be identical for Western and Chinese respondents (as there
could be valid differences or real impact, not just differences caused by bias) but the
averages for the respondents who perceive the same level of LMX should be equal.
Judgmental analysis is required to determine whether differential item functioning is
due to bias or to impact for members from a specific group (Gierl et al. 1999). There are
many techniques that can be used to identify bias. In the present study, the extension of
Cleary’s and Hilton’s (1968: as cited in van de Vijver & Leung, 1997) analysis of
variance technique for interval- and ratio-level data described by van de Vijver & Leung
(1997) will be used (see Appendix 2, p. 317 for a description of this technique).
Item-bias analysis was conducted for all the perceptual measures measured from a
leader perspective in order to establish whether the responses given by Chinese and
Western leaders are equivalent and hence comparable. This was not considered
necessary for the follower measures, as all the followers were Chinese. One exception
130
was the item-bias analysis conducted on follower LMX (mainly for curiosity) in order
to examine whether the Chinese followers systematically rated the Western and Chinese
leaders differently.
According to van de Vijver and Leung (1997), a common way to deal with item bias is
to remove biased items. However, removing items can change the meaning of the
measure considerably. Furthermore removal of item bias will not automatically lead to
scalar equivalence and bias-free comparisons. Item bias analyses are not designed to
identify method and construct bias (ibid.). A point that should be made is that an item
that is biased across cultures cannot be used to make cross-cultural comparisons, but it
can be useful in enhancing the content validity of scores reported for each population
separately. In the present study, item bias analysis will be conducted as an aid to assess
whether valid cross-cultural comparisons can be made, but the results of item bias
analyses will not constitute a major source for modifying the measures.
In conclusion, it should be stated that although validity enhancing procedures, some of
which were described above, can reduce many problems of cross-cultural assessment,
their implementation never guaranteed bias-free measurement. Hence, cross-cultural
differences in scores on social behavioural measures tend to be open to multiple
interpretations (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
5.2.4 Multidimensionality and perspective
In recent studies on LMX, OCB and organisational justice, the importance of
considering the multidimensional character of these constructs as well as measuring
them from different perspectives has been stressed. These concerns are addressed in the
present study by using multidimensional measures of LMX, OCB and organisational
justice and by measuring the central perceptual factors from both leader and follower
perspectives.
As mentioned earlier, for instance Gerstner and Day (1997) have suggested that leaders
may have a somewhat more complex, multidimensional construction of exchange
quality than followers and that LMX is more reliably assessed from a follower’s
perspective than from a leader’s. Leaders’ and followers’ other organisational
perceptions may also differ due to the different roles the leaders and followers occupy in
the dyad and in the organisation. Hence, all perceptions with the exception of
organisational justice will be measured form both leader and follower perspectives.
Although all the constructs measured from both perspectives may not be entered into
the final regressions and structural equations models, they play an important role in
construct validation as convergent validity can be estimated by comparing the same
construct measured from different perspectives.
Regarding the multidimensionality of the employed measures, Law and Wong (1999)
make a distinction between the so-called factor view and the composite view of
multidimensional constructs used in covariance structure analysis (or structural
equations analysis). The factor view assumes that the dimensions are manifestations of
131
latent constructs while the composite view assumes that the dimensions are components
of the construct. Under the factor view, the multidimensional latent construct is the
common factor behind the dimensions. As the dimensions are different manifestations
of the multidimensional construct, the structural paths on a path diagram should point
from the multidimensional construct towards is dimensions. Some researchers have
argued that the existence of substantial correlation between dimensions indicates the
existence of an underlying general factor (e.g. Law, Wong & Mobey, 1998). In contrast
to the factor view of multidimensional constructs, the composite view defines the
multidimensional construct as the outcome of its dimensions. Since the dimensions are
components of the multidimensional construct under this view, the paths on a structural
diagram should point from the dimensions to the multidimensional construct. A further
difference between the factor and composite view is how the variance of the construct is
calculated. Under the factor view, only common variances or covariances shared by all
dimensions are considered as true variance of the construct. Variances specific to only
one or a few dimensions as well as random variances are hence treated as error
variances. In contrast, under the composite view, variances specific to one or a few
dimensions are part of the true variance of the construct. According to Wong and Law
(1999), a result of this is that error variances of the dimensions may be overestimated if
the factor model is assumed when the composite view is the reality. (This is often the
case as in many programs, as e.g. in the Lisrel program, it is not possible to specify a
construct under the composite view with arrows pointing from the dimensions towards
the construct). Law and Wong (1999) show that these two views of multidimensional
constructs lead to different parameter estimates and conclusions of the same data set in
covariance structure analysis.
The question that arises is under which view the multidimensional LMX, OCB and
justice constructs employed in the present study should be defined. The justification for
either view would entail theoretically arguing for the direction of causality between the
dimensions and the construct as well as arguing for what type of variance in the
construct is important (only common variance or also variances specific to only some of
the dimensions). Here I agree with Ehrnrooth (2002) who argues that theoretical
justification for the type of variance in the construct is more important than establishing
the causal direction between the construct and its dimensions. This is due to the fact
that as the latent construct can only be measured in term of its indicators, it is
impossible to determine the true direction of causality. Theory and past research seems
to enable conceptualising the multidimensional constructs in the present study (LMX,
OCB and organisational justice) either as composite or factor constructs. These issues
will be briefly discussed below focusing on the central LMX construct.
The proponents of the multidimensional view of LMX (e.g. Liden & Maslyn, 1998;
Dienesch & Liden, 1986) suggest that there may be variance in the weight or
importance of each dimension across individuals. Furthermore, it is argued that the
dimensions of LMX are conceptually distinct and could have different determinants and
outcomes (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). According to my interpretation, this indicates that it
is not only variance common to all factors that is of importance, but dimension-specific
variance as well. This assumption supports the composite view of LMX. However, the
composite view is not supported by the argument that an exchange between leader and
follower may be based on one, two, three, or all of the dimensions. This implies that the
132
LMX dimensions are not expected to combine additively to create an overall construct
of LMX. It suggests that different individuals have different indicators of high LMX.
This conceptualisation of LMX puts so much focus on the dimensions that the existence
of a higher-order underlying LMX construct seems to be of a lesser importance. In fact,
in the validation of the LMX-MDM measure described by Liden and Maslyn (1998), a
first-order four-factor model of LMX is in focus. However, to quote the developers of
the LMX-MDM measure (Liden & Maslyn, 1998, p. 65): “In some studies, such as
those in which LMX is not a key variable, LMX dimensionality may not be a concern
and a one-dimensional measure may suffice. Researchers who desire a measure of
global LMX could combine all 11 items into a composite...Alternatively, when using
structural equations modelling, researchers could use each of the four dimensions as
indicators of global LMX”. (Liden and Maslyn briefly mentioned that the second-order
model of LMX gained support). This indicates that Liden and Maslyn view LMX both
as a composite and a factor construct. However, the strongest theoretical support seems
to exist for treating LMX as a composite or looking at the determinants and outcomes of
the different LMX dimensions separately.
In the present study, the composite view of LMX will be adopted in the regression
analyses and the factor view in the confirmatory factor analyses. Furthermore, the
dimensions of LMX are in focus as dimension-specific hypotheses have been developed
and tested. The existence of a higher-order latent LMX construct will be examined
through confirmatory factor analyses. The confirmatory factor analyses will be used to
validate and modify the measures and the composites will be formed based on these
validated measures. The same procedure will be applied to the other multidimensional
constructs employed in the present study (OCB and organisational justice). Regarding
OCB, Law, Wong and Mobey (1998) argue that it is possible to define OCB both as a
factor and composite construct. However, past research seems to suggest that good
citizenship behaviour requires high levels of citizenship behaviours on all dimensions
(cf. Van Dyne et al., 1994) and it should hence foremost be conceptualised as a latent
factor construct (cf. Ehrnrooth, 2002). However, a composite measure will be used in
regressions. Organisational justice (including procedural, distributive and interactional
as well as fairness in performance appraisals is also considered mainly as a latent factor
construct but a composite based on validation through confirmatory factor analyses will
be used in regression analyses. As composite measures of the multidimensional
constructs will be used in many of the analyses, second-order models for the
multidimensional constucts will be analysed.
133
5.3 MEASURES AND THEIR VALIDATION
In this section, the measures are presented including the procedures undertaken to test
and increase their measurement properties following the procedures described in the
previous section.
As mentioned earlier, each measure selected for this study has been carefully considered
giving precedence to well-established and cross-culturally validated measures over new
and not cross-culturally tested measures. Most of the measures have been used in China
by Chinese researchers although the majority of them have Western origins. Previous
use in China gives some assurance of initial face validity and cross-cultural
applicability. However, further tests of equivalence and validity of the measures were
necessary and will be reported here. In sum, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using
maximum likelihood techniques and listwise deletion with LISREL 8.3 were conducted
to assess the factor structure and convergent and discriminant validities of the
perceptual constructs employed in the study (i.e. leader-member exchange,
organisational citizenship behaviour, organisation-based self-esteem, perceived
organisational support, inrole performance, perceived similarity and justice). Separate
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for followers and leaders and for the
English and Chinese leader measures. In other words, three confirmatory factor analyses
were conducted for each central construct: one for the Chinese followers, one for
Western leaders and one for Chinese leaders. These results are reported in this section in
this order. In addition, the level of equivalence between the Western and Chinese leader
measures will be reported as well as the results of the item-bias analysis. As LMX is the
focal variable of the study, results pertaining to LMX will be presented more in detail
than those pertaining to the other variables. Some measures have only been measured
from one perspective and will naturally not result in three different CFAs. The
observant reader may notice that the sample size reported in association with the CFAs
is smaller than the one reported in association with the α coefficient. This is due to the
fact that listwise deletion was used in the CFAs (as it is a requirement in multisample
CFAs) and pairwise deletion in establishing the α. The small sample size has restricted
the level of complexity of the analysed models and perfect fitting models have not been
obtained in most cases, but the confirmatory factor analyses have nevertheless enabled
an improvement of the measures and an awareness of potential problems associated
with their use.
As mentioned earlier, confirmatory factor analyses were not conducted for the
personality and value measures, with the exception of a few personality traits showing
very low reliabilities (α). This is due to the fact that the validity and cross-cultural
generalisability of the personality and value measures has been demonstrated in a large
number of studies with a considerable sample size. Furthermore, as these measures
include a considerable number of items, it would have lead to an unacceptable samplesize-to-parameter ratio and hence potentially unreliable parameter estimates. Therefore,
instead of conducting confirmatory factor analyses, reference will be made to previous
validation analyses, when available, and the Cronbach’s alpha will be reported. Before
presenting the measures, it could also be mentioned that all the perceptual constructs
134
were measured on 5-point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (5).
5.3.1 LMX
This study is based on the multidimensional measure of LMX (LMX-MDM; Liden &
Maslyn 1998) for arguments presented in Chapter 2 (see p. 23). When the empirical
work started, the LMX-MDM measure had not been used in China, although Wang et
al. (forthcoming) have since then translated and further validated the Chinese LMXMDM measure. In the present study, the original LMX-MDM was translated into
Chinese and back translated to English and tested in a preliminary pilot study described
earlier. The 7-item LMX measure (LMX7: Scandura & Graen, 1984) was also included
in the questionnaire mainly for validation purposes.
a) Follower LMX
The LMX-MDM measure in its original form measures LMX from a follower
perspective. The items are presented in the table below.
In the confirmatory factor analysis, a model that had four factors (i.e. the dimensions of
LMX) and one higher-order factor of overall LMX was tested. Despite the high
reliability, the initial 12-item four-factor second-order model did not meet all the
retention criteria with a chi-square of 188.89 (df = 50), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .11
and CFI of .93 and GFI of .88. All the factor loadings had significant t-values (t>2), but
the factor loading of item 7 on the contribution dimension was relatively weak at λ =.26
and R2 = .026.
As the LMX scale has not been used in an intercultural context before, and as the initial
model did not fit the data very well, two separate second-order confirmatory factor
analyses were run for intercultural dyads (i.e. Chinese followers working with Western
leaders) and for intracultural dyads (i.e. Chinese followers working with Chinese
leaders). Separate models were analysed mainly for curiosity, in order to examine
whether the Chinese followers conceptualise their relationship with Western leaders
differently from their relationships with Chinese leaders. In both samples, the 7th item
got a very weak factor loading and R2, and the models did not demonstrate acceptable fit
and no great differences between the samples was detected. As there are no theoretical
justifications for different LMX models for intercultural and intracultural dyads, further
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for the whole sample. In order to find a
better fitting model for the whole sample with a lower chi-square and higher p-value, a
model was run where the variable with the weakest factor loading was dropped from
each dimension. Dropping one item from each dimension instead of just dropping the
problematic 7th item from the contribution-dimension was considered a better strategy
as deleting just one item would have changed the relative weight of the different LMX
dimensions in the composite score. This eight-variable four-factor model fitted the data
very well, when the error covariance between item 9 and 12 was set free, which was
judged to be acceptable as the LMX dimensions are theoretically expected to correlate.
135
Error correlations may be seen as due to the conceptual closeness of the constructs,
common method errors, and partly purely technical and hence not justified (cf.
Ehrnrooth 2002).
The results obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis of the final shortened scale
are shown in the table below (the omitted items are marked).
Table 3: Results of follower LMX CFA
RESULTS OF SECOND-ORDER CFA
1st order: Follower LMX items / dimensions
λ
R2
t
I like my supervisor very much as a person
.95
.90
2.51
My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend
omitted
item
My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with
.94
.89
2.51
.70
.49
9.87
.94
.88
9.57
omitted
item
omitted
item
.71
.50
9.76
.91
.84
9.48
I am impressed with my supervisor’s knowledge of his/her job
omitted
item
I respect my supervisor’s knowledge and competence on the job
1.0
1.0
10.94
I admire my supervisor’s professional skills
.88
.77
11.20
.95
2.27
0.92
II. Loyalty
.49
.24
5.67
III. Contribution
.48
.23
5.58
IV. Respect
.79
.63
7.04
I. Affect
II. Loyalty
My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without
complete knowledge of the issue in question
My supervisor would come to my defence if I were “attacked” by
others
My supervisor would defend me to others in the organisation if I made
a serious mistake
III. Contribution
I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my
job description
I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to
meet my supervisor’s work goals
I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor
IV. Professional respect
nd
2 order: LMX dimensions / LMX
I.
Affect
Model fit:
χ2 18.4 (df 15), p for χ2 .24,
RMSEA .032, CFI 1.00, GFI .98, N 299, CN 229
Error correlations allowed:
9 –12
To be sure of the applicability of this shortened 8-item model in both intracultural and
intercultural dyads, the fit of this model was tested separately for both groups. The fit of
the model in the intracultural sample demonstrated a very good fit (after two error
covariances had been set free) with a chi-square of 26 (df=14), p-value of .02,
136
RMSEA=.07, CFI=. 99 and GFI=.96. It should be noted that both the respect items
cross-loaded onto all the other LMX dimensions and especially the affect-dimension.
This model also indicated very good fit for the intercultural data after two error
covariances had been set free, with a chi-square of 23 (df=14), p-value of .06, RMSEA
=.08, CFI=. 98 and GFI=.94. However, a low t-value was obtained for the loyalty factor
of LMX with a loading of .26 and R2 of 0.006. The modification index indicates some
cross-loadings between the affect and loyalty dimension and between the respect and
contribution dimension. (The results obtained by testing a one-order model of a 4dimensional conceptualisation of LMX did not ameliorate the results as low t-values for
all the loyalty items were obtained. Furthermore, the correlation matrix indicated that
the loyalty dimension correlated insignificantly with the other dimensions and
negatively with respect). The fact that the loyalty dimension is not closely related to the
other dimensions of overall LMX in intercultural dyads could be interpreted when
examining the items: the loyalty items ask the follower to judge the possible future
actions of the leader, whereas the other items measure the follower’s direct perceptions
of his or her leader. It is understandably more difficult to interpret the intentions of the
leader than to form a perception of him or her, especially if the leader represents a
different culture. It could be mentioned that in intracultural dyads, the loyalty factor
correlated weakly with the contribution factor but significantly with the other factors,
and that all factor loadings were significant.
Although the weakness of the loyalty-dimension in intercultural dyads is of some
concern, the decision was made to keep the loyalty items in the study and to use the
same follower LMX measure in intra- and intercultural dyads. This is due to the fact
that the 8-item model showed acceptable fit in all subgroups and demonstrated
sufficient equality.
In order to explore potential differences between intracultural and intercultural follower
LMX further, the equality of factor structures was tested following the procedures
described in Section 5.2.3 (p. 128) (see also Appendix 2) . The multisample CFA using
the shortened LMX to test equality of the covariance matrices (no equality constraints
relaxed) showed a relatively good fit with a chi-square of 150 (df=48), p-value of .00,
RMSEA =.09, CFI=. 91 and GFI=.84. It is hence assumed that the factor structure of
LMX is similar in intracultural as in intercultural dyads.
Item-bias analysis was also conducted in an analysis of variance following the
procedure described earlier in this chapter (p. 129) (see also Appendix 2). This analysis
is normally conducted to identify bias pertaining to the respondents’ cultural origin. In
this case, all the respondents where Chinese but the leaders, who were evaluated by the
respondents, represented different cultural groups. This analysis of variance, where the
item score is the dependent variable and cultural groups (i.e. leader origin) and score
groups are the independent variables was conducted mainly for curiosity. The results of
the analyses did not indicate the presence of either uniform or nonuniform bias. This
further supported the decision not to use separate measures for intracultural and
intercultural LMX quality measured from a follower perspective.
The internal consistency reliability (α) for this new shortened LMX-MDM scale was
somewhat lower than the one obtained from the original LMX-MDM scale. An α of .84
137
was obtained (.86 old α) (N=227), but the far better confirmatory factor analysis fit
statistics of this measure led to the decision to use this shortened version of the scale.
The alphas for the LMX-MDM dimensions affect, loyalty, contribution and professional
respect were .89 (.89 old α), .74 (.80), .73 (.61), and .86 (.91), respectively.
A LMX composite to measure overall LMX by averaging the 8 items was created. To
establish convergent validity, the correlation between the modified LMX-MDM and the
LMX7 measure was calculated. The correlation was significant (r=.67), which gives
evidence of some level of convergent validity. The descriptives for the LMX-MDM
composite showed significant kurtosis (2.0). An examination of the bar charts for these
measures revealed that some small categories where empty. Therefore, the continuous
composite measures of LMX were recoded into five-point scales to test whether the
kurtosis problem could be ameliorated. In this procedure, mean values in the 1 – 1.5
range were recoded as 1, values in the 1.150001- 2.5 range were recoded as 2 and so on.
This procedure had a favourable effect on the LMX-MDM measure as kurtosis was
reduced significantly (to .69).
b) Western leader LMX
The LMX-MDM measure in its original form measures LMX from a follower
perspective. To measure LMX from a leader perspective, a scale based on and very
similar to the original LMX-MDM that has been developed by L. L. Paglis, University
of Evansville, and S. G. Green, Purdue University was used (November 2000, personal
communication). A leader version of the LMX7 measure has also been developed (see
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and it was used in the present study for validation purposes.
The initial model did not produce acceptable goodness-of fit statistics with a chi-square
of 184.19 (df = 48), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .18 and CFI of .78 and GFI of .78. In
order to find a better fitting model, a model was run where the variable with the weakest
factor loading (and also highest cross-loadings) was dropped from each dimension. This
eight-variable four-factor model fitted the data better after some error covariances had
been set free. The fit statistics obtained for the model are presented more in detail
below.
Table 4: Results of Western leader LMX CFA
RESULTS OF SECOND-ORDER CFA for Western leaders
1st order: Leader LMX items / dimensions
λ
R2
t
.97
.94
4.67
.82
.67
5.00
omitted
item
.81
.65
I. Affect
I like this subordinate very much as a person
This subordinate is the kind of person one would like to have as a
friend
This subordinate is a lot of fun to work with
II. Loyalty
This subordinate would come to my defence if I were “attacked” by
others
3.23
138
This subordinate would defend me to others in the organisation if I
made a serious mistake
This subordinate defends my work actions to others in the
organisation, even without complete knowledge of the issue in
question
III. Contribution
I can depend on this subordinate to help when we are over-loaded with
work.
This subordinate is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those
normally required, to further the interests of our work group.
This subordinate does things for me that go beyond what is specified
in his/her job description
IV. Professional respect
.68
.46
3.34
omitted
item
.47
.22
4.01
1.36
1.85
3.66
omitted
item
I am impressed with this subordinate ‘s knowledge of his/her job
.83
.68
I seek out this subordinate’s opinion on important matters
omitted
item
I admire this subordinate’s professional skills
.91
.83
7.03
.87
.75
3.69
II. Loyalty
.87
.76
2.84
III. Contribution
.43
.19
2.62
IV. Respect
.70
.50
4.53
7.28
nd
2 order: LMX dimensions / LMX
I.
Affect
Model fit:
χ2 31.76 (df 15), p for χ2 .0069,
RMSEA .113, CFI .94, GFI .92, N 88, CN 74
Error correlations allowed:
1 –5
For Western leaders, the α for this new scale was slightly lower than the original .80
(.82 old α) but the far better CFA fit statistics of this measure led to the decision to use
this shortened version of the scale. Alphas are also sensitive to the number of items. The
different dimensions of the shortened LLMX-MDM received the following αs (old
value in brackets): .80 (83) for affect, .63(.60) for loyalty, .63 (.64) for contribution, and
.79 (.75) for professional respect.
c) Chinese leader LMX
The initial model did not produce quite acceptable goodness-of fit statistics on with a
chi-square of 140.28 (df = 50), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .11 and CFI of .84 and GFI of
.86. All the factor loadings were significant (t>2) (with the loyalty and contribution
dimensions demonstrating the highest factor loadings). In order to find a better fitting
model, a model was run where the variable with the weakest factor loading was dropped
from each dimension. This eight-variable four-factor model fitted the data very well
(when the covariance between some items was set free). The results obtained for the
model are presented more in detail below.
139
Table 5: Results of Chinese leader LMX CFA
RESULTS OF SECOND-ORDER CFA for Chinese leaders
1st order: Leader LMX items / dimensions
λ
R2
omitted
item
.76
.59
7.51
.70
.60
7.39
.73
.52
3.99
omitted
item
.64
.41
4.06
1.12
1.26
3.22
.67
.45
4.28
omitted
item
I am impressed with this subordinate ‘s knowledge of his/her job
.62
.40
I seek out this subordinate’s opinion on important matters
omitted
item
I admire this subordinate’s professional skills
.98
.97
5.36
.64
.41
5.08
II. Loyalty
.83
.68
3.30
III. Contribution
.85
.72
2.69
.31
.098
3.00
t
I. Affect
I like this subordinate very much as a person
This subordinate is the kind of person one would like to have as a
friend
This subordinate is a lot of fun to work with
II. Loyalty
This subordinate would come to my defence if I were “attacked” by
others
This subordinate would defend me to others in the organisation if I
made a serious mistake
This subordinate defends my work actions to others in the
organisation, even without complete knowledge of the issue in
question
III. Contribution
I can depend on this subordinate to help when we are over-loaded with
work.
This subordinate is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those
normally required, to further the interests of our work group.
This subordinate does things for me that go beyond what is specified
in his/her job description
IV. Professional respect
5.38
nd
2 order: LMX dimensions / LMX
I.
Affect
IV. Respect
Model fit:
χ 17.57 (df 12), p for χ .13,
RMSEA .053, CFI .99, GFI .97, N 140, CN 208
Error correlations allowed:
3-4, 8-2, 8-4, 10-2
2
2
As can be seen from the table above, the respect dimension loaded rather weakly on
overall LMX, and obtained a very low R2 but otherwise the model exhibits acceptable
statistics.
A comparison of the results obtained for Western and Chinese leaders indicates that
affect is a more important indicator of overall LMX for Western leaders than for
Chinese leaders whereas contribution is more important for the Chinese leaders.
140
For Chinese leaders, the αs for this new scale was somewhat lower than those obtained
for the Western leaders. The α for the whole scale was .75. The different dimensions of
the shortened LLMX-MDM received the following αs: .66 for affect, .56 for loyalty,
.79 for contribution, and .73 for professional respect. This means that for both Chinese
and Western leaders, the loyalty dimension demonstrated relatively low reliability.
Despite the rather low reliabilities, the good CFA fit statistics of this measure led to the
decision to use this shortened version of the scale.
d) Equivalence and bias
Although the separate confirmatory factor analyses conducted for Chinese and Western
leaders already indicated some differences in the factor structures, an analysis of
equivalence was conducted. The second-order model including all 12 original LMXMDM items and assuming equivalence of covariance matrices did not meet the
retention criteria and produced a chi-square of 356 (df=124), p-value of .00, (RMSEA
=.13, CFI=. 76 and GFI=.72. Different models with increasingly relaxed equality
constraints were tested. The best model was obtained by freeing factor loadings, error
variances and factor covariances but an adequate fit was still not produced with a chisquare of 282 (df=97), p-value of .00, RMSEA =.13, CFI=. 81 and GFI= .78.
In order to examine the sources of inequivalence further, an analysis of item bias of the
leader responses was conducted. The results indicated that all items except 1, 10 and 11
were biased while all the other items demonstrated either uniform or nonuniform bias or
both. The results of this analysis are presented in the table below. A p-value under .05
indicates that the bias is significant. Uniform bias is indicated by a significant direct
effect of cultural group (marked DE in the table) and nonuniform bias by a significant
interaction effect between cultural group and score group (marked IE in the table).
Table 6: Results of leader LMX item-bias analysis
RESULTS OF ITEM-BIAS ANALYSIS
p for DE*
p for IE**
I like this subordinate very much as a person
.376
.096
This subordinate is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend
.641
.050
This subordinate is a lot of fun to work with
.009
.512
This subordinate would come to my defence if I were “attacked” by others
This subordinate would defend me to others in the organisation if I made a
serious mistake
This subordinate defends my work actions to others in the organisation,
even without complete knowledge of the issue in question
I can depend on this subordinate to help when we are over-loaded with
work.
This subordinate is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally
required, to further the interests of our work group.
This subordinate does things for me that go beyond what is specified in
his/her job description
I am impressed with this subordinate ‘s knowledge of his/her job
.020
.331
.038
.349
.103
.052
.096
.006
.000
.887
.286
.004
.386
.582
I seek out this subordinate’s opinion on important matters
.411
.618
I admire this subordinate’s professional skills
.560
.000
141
* DE = direct effect, indicating uniform cultural bias
** IE = interaction effect, indicating nonuniform cultural bias
Due to inequivalence and bias, the separately validated and different Chinese and
Western measures of leader LMX will be used in the subsequent analyses. This means
that Western and Chinese leader LMX quality is not directly comparable and that
“universal leader LMX” involving both Chinese and Western leaders cannot be
estimated. Furthermore, it means that intercultural and intracultural dyads must be
examined separately. This is due to the fact that leader LMX is an antecedent of
follower LMX, and although we would be using the label ‘leader LMX’ for both
Western and Chinese leaders perceptions of LMX quality, we are not measuring exactly
the same thing. This problem is aggravated if other leader perceptions also demonstrate
inequivalence and bias.
The correlation between the LMX7 and LMX-MDM composites was r = .54 for the
Chinese leader measures and r = .67 for the English versions. The correlation between
leader and follower reports of LMX was low: r = .173 (ns.) in Chinese and r = .172 in
cross-cultural dyads.
Empirical support for the relationship between leader and follower LMX has been
equivocal (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Graen and Cashman (1975, as cited in Dansereau
1995) reported a correlation of .50 between leader and follower LMX whereas e.g.
Scandura et al. (1986) reported a correlation of .24. It has been suggested that leaders
tend to respond somewhat defensively and to give socially desirable answers (Graen &
Scandura, 1987), which could partly explain the low correlation (However, the leaders
did not provide higher reports an all job perceptions). I do not find the low correlation
between leader and follower LMX surprising, taken that what we are measuring is
basically one person’s perceptions of the other person and not an actual exchange. This
further points to the importance of regarding leader and follower LMX as separate
constructs.
5.3.2 OCB
The Western OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990), which is based on
Organ’s (1988) dimensions of OCB was used in the present study. The sportsmanship
and courtesy dimensions from the original scale were omitted and the analyses were
conducted using only the altruism, conscientiousness, and civic virtue dimensions. Lam
et al. (1999) found that this scale yielded acceptable psychometric properties in terms of
internal consistency and factor structure across the US, Australia, Japan, and Hong
Kong. OCB was measured from both leader and follower perspective and the items and
results of CFAs will be presented in the sub-sections below.
142
a) Follower OCB
A second-order CFA on OCB was run. The 3-factor model with one second-order factor
of overall OCB did not meet the retention criteria. Two items demonstrated low R2 and
t-values. The conscientiousness item ‘I am one of my supervisor's most conscientious
subordinates’ does not concern the followers actual behaviour, but entails a comparison
with other followers, which might have been hard to make. The civic virtue item ‘I
attend training/information sessions that subordinates are encouraged, but not required
to attend (e.g., first aid, Red Cross, CPR, safety, informational sessions on new
company benefits package, etc.)’ may not have been relevant in the studied companies.
These items were hence deleted. The modified model showed relatively low t-values for
all the conscientiousness items (but with t-values over 1.64 they are acceptable at a 10%
significance level) as well as for the loading of the Conscientiousness factor on the
second-order OCB factor. However, most of the other fit indices indicated reasonable
fit. The results of the CFA are presented in the table below.
Table 7: Results of follower OCB CFA
RESULTS OF SECOND-ORDER CFA
1st order: Follower OCB / dimensions
λ
R2
t
.72
.51
6.23
.78
.61
6.78
.85
.73
7.40
.62
.39
5.21
.37
.15
3.19
I am one of my supervisor's most conscientious subordinates.
omitted
item
I believe in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
.68
.46
1.94
I never take long lunches or breaks.
.79
.63
1.94
I take fewer breaks at work than my colleagues.
I am willing to work on a job/project until it is completed, even if it
means coming in earlier or staying later than normal.
IV. Civic virtue
.71
.51
1.92
.58
.33
1.87
.51
.26
2.31
omitted
item
.75
.56
2.54
.60
.56
2.54
.68
.46
2.51
.50
.25
3.02
I. Altruism
I help orient new subordinates even though it is not required as part of
my job.
I am always ready to help or to lend a helping hand to those around
me.
I willingly give of my time to help others who have work-related
problems.
I help others with heavy workloads.
I help fill in for others who are sick or absent.
II. Conscientiousness
I "keep up" with developments in the department/company.
I attend training/information sessions that subordinates are
encouraged, but not required to attend (e.g., first aid, Red Cross, CPR,
safety, informational sessions on new company benefits package, etc.)
I actively participate in department/company meetings.
I provide constructive suggestions regarding changes that might be
made in my department or the company.
I am willing to risk disapproval in order to express my beliefs about
what's best for the department/company.
2nd order: OCB dimensions / OCB
I.
Altruism
143
II. Conscientiousness
.87
.76
1.51
III. Civic virtue
.83
.69
1.89
Model fit:
χ2 89 (df 59), p for χ2 .0007,
RMSEA .085, CFI .86, GFI .84, N 72, CN 55
Error correlations allowed:
4-5, 1-7, 5-7
The internal consistency reliability (α) for this modified OCB scale was .77 (N=173).
An overall confirmatory factor analysis including both the LMX and OCB items would
have been relevant, but this would have led to an unacceptable sample-size-to parameter
ratio due to the large number of items in these scales and taking into consideration the
small sample size (N=70 using listwise deletion).
b) Western leader OCB
A second-order 3-factor model of OCB did not produce acceptable fit for the Western
leaders. Two civic virtue items demonstrated very low t-values and R2. The ‘I “keep up"
with developments in the department/company’ item may have been too general and
incomprehensible. The ‘I attend training/information sessions that subordinates are
encouraged, but not required to attend...’ item may not have been relevant for the
present companies. These items were hence deleted. In the resulting model, all the
factor loadings were significant and the model demonstrated better fit, albeit high
RMSEA. The model also demanded a large number of free error correlations, which are
at least partly acceptable due to the conceptual closeness of the dimensions. Common
method errors could be an additional cause. The final model is presented below.
Table 8: Results of Western leader OCB CFA
RESULTS OF SECOND ORDER CFA
1st order: Western leader perceptions of OCB / dimensions
λ
R2
t
.86
.65
2.22
.81
.60
2.18
.88
.70
2.21
.64
.39
2.16
.79
.57
2.20
I one of my most conscientious subordinates.
.74
.50
3.91
Believes in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
.94
.81
4.36
Never takes long lunches or breaks.
.77
.55
4.17
Takes fewer breaks at work than other subordinates.
.67
.41
3.67
I. Altruism
Helps orient new subordinates even though it is not required as part of
his/her job.
Is always ready to help or to lend a helping hand to those around
him/her.
Willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have work-related
problems.
Helps others with heavy workloads.
Helps fill in for others who are sick or absent.
II. Conscientiousness
144
Is willing to work on a job/project until it is completed, even if it
means coming in earlier or staying later than normal.
III. Civic virtue
.59
.31
omitted
item
omitted
item
.94
.82
6.14
.84
.63
5.44
.83
.55
5.44
I. Altruism
.94
.88
1.96
II. Conscientiousness
.87
.75
3.38
.79
.63
3.99
"Keeps up" with developments in the department/company.
Attends training/information sessions that subordinates are
encouraged, but not required to attend (e.g., first aid, Red Cross, CPR,
safety, informational sessions on new company benefits package, etc.)
Actively participates in department/company meetings.
Provides constructive suggestions regarding changes that might be
made in the department or the company.
Is willing to risk disapproval in order to express his/her beliefs about
what's best for the department/company.
2nd order: OCB dimensions / OCB
III. Civic virtue
Model fit:
χ 101 (df 57), p for χ .0003,
RMSEA .120, CFI .90, GFI .85, N 55, CN 34
Error correlations allowed:
1 -2 , 4 -7, 9-3, 17-1, 19-3
2
3.55
2
The internal consistency reliability (α) for this modified OCB scale was .89 (N=71).
An overall confirmatory factor analysis including both the LMX and OCB items would
have been relevant, but this would have led to an unacceptable sample-size-to parameter
ratio due to the large number of items in these scales.
c) Chinese leader OCB
A second-order CFA on the three-dimensional measure of OCB for the Chinese leaders
did not produce acceptable fit. All the altruism items demonstrated very low t-values
including the loading of the first-order altruism construct on the second-order OCB
factor. The modification index suggested that many of the altruism items cross-loaded
on the conscientiousness dimension. Two civic virtue items demonstrated low R2 and
insignificant factor loadings: ‘Provides constructive suggestions regarding changes that
might be made in the department or the company’ and ‘attends training/information
sessions that subordinates are encouraged, but not required to attend..’. The latter item
hence does not seem to be a good indicator of civic virtue and OCB for any of the
groups examined in the present study. The reason for why the former item was not
significantly related to civic virtue is harder to explain but it could be due to cultural
differences or translation problems. These two items were deleted. The resulting model
did not demonstrate acceptable fit until two cross-loadings and some error variances had
been set free. The cross loading of two altruism items on the conscientiousness
dimension is not seen as highly problematic as the present study only considers
measures of overall OCB. Cross-loading items are marked (cl).
145
Table 9: Results of Chinese leader OCB CFA
RESULTS OF SECOND ORDER CFA
1st order: Chinese leader perceptions of OCB / dimensions
λ
R2
t
.86
.42
2.03
2.06(cl)
.95
2.49
.81(cl)
.60
.95
.95
.82
2.53
.56
.28
2.29
I one of my most conscientious subordinates.
.78
.59
4.85
Believes in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
.93
.79
4.96
Never takes long lunches or breaks.
.48
.21
3.27
Takes fewer breaks at work than other subordinates.
Is willing to work on a job/project until it is completed, even if it
means coming in earlier or staying later than normal.
III. Civic virtue
.47
.21
3.40
.44
.18
3.05
.62
.34
5.32
omitted
item
1.01
.93
omitted
item
.59
.32
5.07
I. Altruism
1.06
1.13
2.83
II. Conscientiousness
.84
.72
3.75
.65
.43
4.27
I. Altruism
Helps orient new subordinates even though it is not required as part of
his/her job.
Is always ready to help or to lend a helping hand to those around
him/her.
Willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have work-related
problems.
Helps others with heavy workloads.
Helps fill in for others who are sick or absent.
II. Conscientiousness
"Keeps up" with developments in the department/company.
Attends training/information sessions that subordinates are
encouraged, but not required to attend (e.g., first aid, Red Cross, CPR,
safety, informational sessions on new company benefits package, etc.)
Actively participates in department/company meetings.
Provides constructive suggestions regarding changes that might be
made in the department or the company.
Is willing to risk disapproval in order to express his/her beliefs about
what's best for the department/company.
2nd order: OCB dimensions / OCB
III. Civic virtue
Model fit:
χ 109 (df 57), p for χ .0004,
RMSEA .115, CFI .83, GFI .80, N 70, CN 42
Error correlations allowed:
1 -2 , 4 -7, 9-3, 17-1, 193
Cross-loadings:
2=-0.21*conscientiousness (t =-.82)
3= -1.39*conscientiousness (t = -4.01)
2
7.22
2
The internal consistency reliability (α) for this modified OCB scale was .87 (N=104).
An overall confirmatory factor analysis including both the LMX and OCB items would
have been relevant, but this would have led to an unacceptable sample-size-to parameter
ratio due to the large number of items in these scales.
146
In sum, two items were deleted from all OCB measures. The 12th item was problematic
for all groups.
d) Equivalence and bias
Although the separate confirmatory factor analyses conducted for Chinese and Western
leaders already indicated some differences in the factor structures, an analysis of
equivalence was conducted. The second-order 3-factor model including the original
OCB items and assuming equivalence of covariance matrices did not meet the retention
criteria and produced a chi-square of 544 (df=207), p-value of .00, (RMSEA =.16,
CFI=.62 and GFI=.61. An adequate fit was still not produced by freeing factor loadings,
which resulted in a chi-square of 543 (df=192), p-value of .00, RMSEA =.17, CFI=. 62
and GFI= .61. These results further supported the decision to conduct separate analyses
for intercultural and intracultural dyads.
In order to examine the sources of inequivalence further, an analysis of item bias of the
leader responses was conducted. The analysis revealed that most of the OCB items were
unbiased by cultural background of the leader. However, the 5th item (altruism) and 11th
item (civic virtue) demonstrated uniform bias whereas the 14th item (civic virtue)
demonstrated both uniform and nonuniform bias.
5.3.3 Inrole performance
A 7-item modified version of the measure developed by Williams and Anderson (1991)
was used to measure inrole performance in the present study. The same measure was
used by Hui et al. (1999) in their study with respondents from a Hong Kong-Chinese
joint venture.
Both leader and follower perceptions of follower inrole performance were estimated.
a) Follower inrole performance
A one-factor model produced acceptable fit statistics after some error covariances had
been set free and the results are presented in the table below.
Table 10: Results of follower inrole performance CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Follower inrole performance items
λ
R2
t
I always complete work assigned by the company.
.80
.64
8.04
I performed my required job well.
.94
.84
9.93
I always complete the duties specified in my job description.
.82
.66
8.15
I fulfil all formal job responsibilities
.91
.83
9.97
I perform specified job duties.
.78
.60
8.00
147
I never neglect aspects of the job that I am obligated to perform.
.68
.46
6.85
I meet all the formal job requirements.
.75
.56
7.13
Model fit:
χ2 14.8 (df 10), p for χ2 .14,
RMSEA .081, CFI .99, GFI .94, N 231, CN 82
Error correlations allowed:
1-3, 2-3, 3-4, 7-2
The alpha for this scale was .89. (N=231).
b) Western leader inrole performance
A one-factor model of Western leaders’ perceptions of followers’ inrole performance
produced acceptable fit statistics with the exception of a high RMSEA value after some
error covariances had been set free. The results of the CFA are presented in the table
below.
Table 11: Results of Western leader perceptions of follower performance CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Leader perceptions of follower inrole performance items
λ
R2
t
Always completes work assigned by the company.
.71
.46
5.37
Performs his/her required job well.
.70
.44
5.44
Always completes the duties specified in his/her job description.
.92
.76
9.28
Fulfils all formal job responsibilities
.99
.90
9.28
Performs specified job duties.
Never neglects aspects of the job that he or she is obligated to
perform.
Meets all the formal job requirements.
.94
.80
8.42
.76
.52
6.06
.91
.75
8.00
Model fit:
χ2 29.39 (df 12), p for χ2 .0042,
RMSEA .160, CFI .95, GFI .87, N 55, CN 53
Error correlations allowed:
1-3, 6-1
The alpha for this scale was .90 (N=106).
d) Chinese leader inrole performance
A one-factor model of the Chinese leaders’ perceptions of followers’ inrole
performance exhibited acceptable fit statistics after some error covariances had been set
free. The results of the CFA are presented in the table below.
Table 12: Results of Chinese leader perceptions of follower performance CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
148
Leader perceptions of follower inrole performance items
λ
R2
t
Always completes work assigned by the company.
.95
.90
10.57
Performs his/her required job well.
1.01
1.02
12.02
Always completes the duties specified in his/her job description.
.67
.45
6.41
Fulfils all formal job responsibilities
.74
.48
6.69
Performs specified job duties.
Never neglects aspects of the job that he or she is obligated to
perform.
Meets all the formal job requirements.
.72
.52
7.07
.77
.60
7.75
.74
.56
7.37
Model fit:
χ 16.45 (df 10), p for χ .088,
RMSEA .097, CFI .99, GFI .94, N 70, CN 82
Error correlations allowed:
5-4, 6-4, 7-3, 7-4
2
2
The alpha for this scale was .90 (N=116).
e) Equivalence and bias
A test of equivalence between the Western and Chinese leader inrole performance
constructs was conducted. The assumption of equal factor structure (including factor
loadings) did not receive support with a chi-square of 225 (df=42), p-value of .00,
(RMSEA =.27, CFI=.53 and GFI=.65. By freeing factor loadings, an adequate fit was
still not produced with a chi-square of 221 (df=35) p-value of .00, (RMSEA =.29,
CFI=.54 and GFI=.65). The constructs are hence presumed to be unequal for Western
and Chinese leaders.
In order to examine the sources of inequivalence further, an analysis of item bias of the
leader responses was conducted. The analysis revealed that 2nd and 5h item
demonstrated uniform bias whereas the 6th item demonstrated nonuniform bias.
5.3.4 Justice
Interactional, procedural, and distributive justice as well as fairness of performance
appraisal was measured with a measure partly based on Moorman (1991). Justice was
only measured from a follower perspective.
Theory suggests that interactional justice is very closely linked to LMX and that it could
be an antecedent of LMX, whereas the other forms of justice mainly could be
considered outcomes. Due to this and the large number of items in the total justice scale,
separate CFAs on the interactional justice scale and the remaining justice scale named
organisational justice were conducted. The composite of interactional justice was used
in the regressions as an antecedent of LMX and the organisational justice composite as
an outcome of LMX.
149
a) Organisational justice
The initial model with three factors and one higher-order factor of overall organisational
justice demonstrated satisfactory goodness-of-fit statistics when some error covariances
had been set free. However, it should be noted that two of the items concerning fairness
of performance appraisal cross-loaded on the procedural and distributive justice
dimensions according to the modification index. The items for fairness of performance
appraisal obtained lower t-values than the other items but still exceeded the 2-limit. The
results of the CFA are presented below.
Table 13: Results of follower organisational justice CFA
RESULTS OF SECOND-ORDER CFAs
1st order: Follower organisational justice / dimensions
λ
R2
t
.74
.55
9.68
.76
.58
9.93
.87
.77
10.81
.79
.62
10.49
.80
.64
9.98
.89
.79
11.98
.92
.85
12.34
.92
.84
12.28
.94
.88
12.53
.84
.71
11.47
.88
.78
2.50
.64
.41
2.48
.83
.70
2.51
I. Procedural justice
.83
.68
8.11
II. Distributive justice
.83
.69
8.56
III. Fairness of performance appraisal
.97
.93
2.36
I. Procedural justice
This organisation has developed procedures designed to provide
opportunities to appeal or challenge the decisions.
This organisation has developed procedures designed to generate
standards so that decisions could be made with consistency.
This organisation has developed procedures designed to hear the
concerns of all individuals or groups affected by the decisions.
This organisation has developed procedures designed to provide
useful feedback regarding the decision and its implementation.
This organisation has developed procedures designed to allow for
requests for clarification or additional information needed by those
affected by the decision.
II. Distributive justice
Considering the responsibilities that I have, I feel that I am fairly
rewarded
In view of the amount of experience that I have, I feel that I am fairly
rewarded.
For the amount of effort that I put forth, I feel that I am fairly
rewarded.
For work that I have done well, I feel that I am fairly rewarded.
For the stresses and strains of my job, I feel that I am fairly rewarded
III. Fairness of performance appraisal
This organisation has a fair performance appraisal system.
When I disagree with the results of my performance appraisal, I have
channels to appeal.
The performance appraisal system of this organisation is highly
transparent.
2nd order: justice dimensions / justice
Model fit:
χ2 157.76 (df 58), p for χ2 .00,
RMSEA .086, CFI .96, GFI .90, N 232, CN 126
Error correlations allowed:
1-3, 2-5, 3-5, 1-10
150
The α for this measure of organisational justice was .95 (N=228).
b) Interactional justice
The initial first-order model exhibited satisfactory fit statistics after freeing error
covariances. The results of the CFA are presented below.
Table 14: Results of follower interactional justice CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Follower interactional justice items
λ
R2
t
My supervisor considers my viewpoint.
.72
.52
12.39
My supervisor shows concern for my rights as an employee.
.78
.61
13.98
My supervisor takes steps to deal with me in a truthful manner.
.93
.87
18.50
My supervisor is able to suppress personal bias.
My supervisor provides me with timely feedback about the decision
and its implications.
My supervisor treats me with kindness and consideration.
.83
.69
15.09
.83
.69
15.34
.87
.75
16.37
My supervisor provides fair interpersonal treatment
.81
.65
14.64
Model fit:
χ2 19.53 (df 19), p for χ2 .021,
RMSEA .071, CFI .99, GFI .98, N 210, CN 244
Error correlations allowed:
1 –2, 1-6, 1-5, 3-4, 4-7
The α for the measure of interactional justice was .91 (N=228).
5.3.5 Perceived similarity
The three-item measure developed by Turban and Jones (1988) to measure perceived
similarity was used in the present study. Perceived similarity was measured from both
leader and follower perspectives with mirroring items. This measure has been used in
many studies, including a study examining LMX development (Liden et al., 1993).
a) Follower perceived similarity
The three-item model of follower perceived similarity resulted in a saturated model with
a perfect fit a chi-square of 0 (df = 0, p-value of 1.0 RMSEA of .0000 and CFI of 0.99
and GFI of .96 (indicating a simple model). In order to validate the similarity measure
further, a two-factor model where the interactional justice items were also included was
tested. The modification index indicated a cross-loading between the first similarity
item and interactional justice as well as some error covariances between interactional
justice and perceived similarity. The closely related nature of these two constructs is
also indicated by the high correlation r = .73. However, the otherwise good fit statistics
151
obtained are interpreted as indicating sufficient discriminant validity. The results of this
CFA are presented in the table below.
Table 15: Results of follower perceived similarity CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Follower perceived similarity and interactional justice items
λ
R2
t
I. Perceived similarity
My supervisor and I are similar in terms of outlook, perspective, and
values.
My supervisor and I see things in much the same way.
.86
.76
16.30
.87
.75
15.95
My supervisor and I are alike in a number of areas.
.75
.56
12.95
My supervisor considers my viewpoint.
.72
.52
16.64
My supervisor shows concern for my rights as an employee.
.79
.62
14.08
My supervisor takes steps to deal with me in a truthful manner.
.93
.87
18.57
My supervisor is able to suppress personal bias.
My supervisor provides me with timely feedback about the decision
and its implications.
My supervisor treats me with kindness and consideration.
.81
.67
14.91
.83
.68
15.21
.87
.76
16.60
My supervisor provides fair interpersonal treatment
.80
.64
14.51
II. Interactional justice
Model fit:
χ 70.76 (df 27), p for χ .00001,
RMSEA .084, CFI .97, GFI .94, N 232, CN 135.86
Error correlations allowed:
1-4, 1-7, 3-4, 4-8, 7-10
2
2
The alpha for the follower sample (N=229) of this scale was .82.
To explore the discriminant validity of follower perceptions of their leader even further,
a 6-factor model in which all follower LMX, perceived similarity, and interactional
justice items were entered was run. Each LMX dimension constituted a two-item factor
(the two items that had been selected on the basis of the individual CFAs were entered).
The fit statistics obtained gave some indication of construct validity but also many
cross-loadings. After a number of error covariances were set free the initial model
obtained a chi-square of 434 (df = 99), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .121 and CFI of. 90
and GFI of .83. The AIC was 831 and CAIC 1058. The modification index indicated
that professional respect and interactional justice are closely related. In comparison, a 3factor model where a distinction between the different LMX dimensions was not made
did not exhibit as good fit statistics with a chi-square of 1025 (df = 132), p-value of .00,
RMSEA of .171 and CFI of. 65 and GFI of .67 as well as model AIC 1103 and CAIC
1102. The modification index showed that one affect item cross-loaded on interactional
justice, and that items from all the other dimensions cross-loaded on the similarity
factor. This model was further compared to a model where all the items loaded on one
factor measuring follower perceptions of leader. This model exhibited the worst fit with
a chi-square of 1247 (df = 135), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .189 and CFI of. 59 and GFI
of .63 as well as model AIC 1319 and CAIC 1479. The smallest AIC and CAIC values
152
obtained for the first model indicate that the 6-factor model fits the data better than the
one- or three factor models. These results provide some evidence of discriminant
validity although the cross-loadings between the factors are considered problematic.
b) Western leader perceived similarity
Three-item model of Western leaders perceptions of similarity resulted in a saturated
model with a perfect fit a chi-square of 0 (df = 0, p-value of 1.0 RMSEA of .0000 and
CFI of 0.99 and GFI of .96 (indicating a simple model). In order to validate the
similarity measure further, a 5-factor model in which all Western leader LMX items
were entered in addition to perceived similarity was run. The fit statistics obtained gave
indicated construct validity for the similarity measure and discriminant validity for
LMX and perceived similarity. The results of the CFA are reported below.
Table 16: Results of Western leader perceived similarity CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Western leader perceived similarity and LMX items
λ
R2
t
I. Perceived similarity
My subordinate and I are similar in terms of outlook, perspective, and
values.
My subordinate and I see things in much the same way.
.81
.64
9.18
.74
.55
8.00
My subordinate and I are alike in a number of areas.
.98
.95
12.10
.99
.99
12.38
.81
.65
9.04
.72
.51
7.32
.76
.60
8.05
.54
.30
4.60
1.17
1.38
7.59
I am impressed with this subordinate ‘s knowledge of his/her job
.80
.64
8.43
I admire this subordinate’s professional skills
.93
.88
10.39
II. Affect
I like this subordinate very much as a person
This subordinate is the kind of person one would like to have as a
friend
III. Loyalty
This subordinate would come to my defence if I were “attacked” by
others
This subordinate would defend me to others in the organisation if I
made a serious mistake
IV. Contribution
I can depend on this subordinate to help when we are over-loaded with
work.
This subordinate is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those
normally required, to further the interests of our work group.
V. Professional respect
.
Model fit:
χ2 51.59 (df 30), p for χ2 .0084,
RMSEA .090, CFI .95, GFI .90, N 90, CN 79
Error correlations allowed:
1 –7, 1-10, 1-11, 7-4
This perceived similarity measure obtained an alpha of .76 (N=106).
153
In addition, this model obtained an AIC of 123 and CAIC of 249. In order two provide
evidence of discriminant validity, this model was compared to a two-factor model of
overall LMX and similarity as well as to a one-factor model where the LMX and
perceived similarity items were forced on the same factor. The two-factor model
obtained a chi-square of 184 (df = 43), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .192 and CFI of. 70
and GFI of .73. The model AIC was 230 and CAIC 310. The one-factor model
exhibited the worst fit with a chi-square of 273(df = 44), p-value of .00, RMSEA of
.242 and CFI of. 56 and GFI of .64 as well as model AIC 317 and CAIC 394. These
results gave further support for the discriminant validity of perceived similarity and the
LMX dimensions.
c) Chinese leader perceived similarity
Three-item model of Chinese leaders’ perceptions of similarity resulted in a saturated
model with a perfect fit with a chi-square of 0 (df = 0, p-value of 1.0 RMSEA of .0000
(indicating a simple model). In order to validate the similarity measure further, the same
procedure as with the Western measure was repeated and a 5-factor model in which all
Chinese leader LMX items were entered in addition to perceived similarity was run. The
fit statistics obtained gave indicated construct validity for the similarity measure and
discriminant validity for LMX and perceived similarity. The results of the CFA are
reported below.
Table 17: Results of Chinese leader perceived similarity CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Chinese leader perceived similarity and LMX items
λ
R2
t
I. Perceived similarity
My subordinate and I are similar in terms of outlook, perspective, and
values.
My subordinate and I see things in much the same way.
.99
.98
13.90
.75
.57
9.78
My subordinate and I are alike in a number of areas.
.61
.38
6.72
II. Affect
This subordinate is the kind of person one would like to have as a
friend
This subordinate is a lot of fun to work with
.52
.27
5.79
.83
.68
8.33
.82
.68
9.07
.58
.33
6.55
.60
.36
6.60
.97
.95
9.88
.90
.81
8.17
III. Loyalty
This subordinate would come to my defence if I were “attacked” by
others
This subordinate defends my work actions to others in the
organisation, even without complete knowledge of the issue in
question
IV. Contribution
I can depend on this subordinate to help when we are over-loaded with
work.
This subordinate is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those
normally required, to further the interests of our work group.
V. Professional respect
I am impressed with this subordinate ‘s knowledge of his/her job
154
I admire this subordinate’s professional skills
.62
.39
Model fit:
χ 52.02 (df 30), p for χ .0008,
RMSEA .073, CFI .94, GFI .93, N 137, CN 112
Error correlations allowed:
1-3, 4 -11,6-9, 7-9
2
6.37
2
This Chinese version (N=119 of the perceived similarity measure obtained an alpha of
.77.
In addition, this model obtained an AIC of 124 and a CAIC of 265. This model was
compared to a two-factor model of overall LMX and similarity and a one-factor model,
where the LMX and perceived similarity items were forced on the same factor. The
two-factor model obtained a chi-square of 217 (df = 43), p-value of .00, RMSEA of
.173 and CFI of. 68 and GFI of .77 as well as model AIC 263 and CAIC 354. The onefactor model exhibited the worst fit with a chi-square of 235 (df = 44), p-value of .00,
RMSEA of .179 and CFI of. 63 and GFI of .76 as well as model AIC 279 and CAIC
365. These results gave further support for the discriminant validity of perceived
similarity and the LMX dimensions.
d) Equivalence and bias
A test of equivalence between the Western and Chinese leader perceived similarity
constructs was also conducted. The assumption of equal factor structure (including
factor loadings) did not receive support with a chi-square of 38 (df=6), p-value of .00,
RMSEA =.222, CFI=. 86 and GFI=.84 (all factor loadings significant). By freeing
factor loadings, an adequate fit was still not produced with a chi-square of 33 (df=3), pvalue of .00, RMSEA =.306, CFI=. 86 and GFI=.84.
In order to examine the sources of inequivalence further, an analysis of item bias of the
leader responses was conducted. The analysis revealed that the first item demonstrated
uniform bias while the other perceived similarity items were unbiased.
5.3.6 Perceived organisational support
Nine items of the Survey of Perceived Organisational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et
al., 1986, 1990) was used in the present study. Wayne et al. (1997) and Hui used the
same items. Only follower perceives organisational support was measured.
Table 18: Results of follower perceived organisational support CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Follower perceived organisational support items
λ
R2
t
This organisation's management shows very little concern for me.
.54
.29
8.73
155
This organisation's management cares about my general satisfaction at
work.
This organisation's management really cares about my well-being.
This organisation's management strongly considers my goals and
values.
This organisation's management cares about my opinions.
Even if I did the best job possible, this organisation's management
would fail to notice.
This organisation's management is willing to extend itself in order to
help me perform my job to the best of my ability.
Help is available from this organisation's management when I have a
problem.
.85
.72
15.86
.91
.83
17.93
.92
.85
18.16
.81
.65
14.64
.49
.24
7.86
.63
.40
10.59
.78
.61
13.91
Model fit:
χ2 28.3 (df 190), p for χ2 .019,
RMSEA .060, CFI .99, GFI .97, N 233, CN 255
Error correlations allowed:
1–3, 4-6, 3-7, 7-8
The alpha for the measure (N=229) was .88
5.3.7 Organisation-based self-esteem
A 10-item scale developed by Pierce, Gardner, Cummings and Dunham (1989) was
used to measure follower organisation-based self-esteem (OBSE).
The results of the CFA are presented below. As can be seen, the model did not obtain
good chi-square statistics although all the items loaded significantly on the OBSE
construct. As there is no theory to guide the modification of the scale and as all the
items were significant, and as the scale obtained a high α (.91), the decision was made
to include all the original items in the composite measure used in the subsequent
analyses.
Table 19: Results of follower perceived organisation-based self-esteem CFA
RESULTS OF FIRST-ORDER CFA
Follower organisation-based self-esteem items
λ
R2
t
This organisation has faith in me.
.65
.42
10.84
I count in this organisation.
.86
.75
16.44
I am trusted in this organisation.
.76
.58
13.57
I am a valuable part of this organisation.
.90
.81
17.59
I am an important part of this organisation
.94
.88
18.98
I am co-operative in this organisation.
.72
.51
12.37
I am taken seriously in this organisation.
.71
.53
12.74
I am helpful in this organisation.
.84
.71
15.71
I am efficient around here
.64
.41
10.73
156
I make a difference around here.
.58
.33
Model fit:
χ 129.60 (df 27), p for χ .00,
RMSEA .128, CFI .95, GFI .90, N 233, CN 81
Error correlations allowed:
1-3 , 1-7, 3-6, 4-7, 6-10, 7-10
2
9.40
2
The alpha for this the measure (N=233) was .91
In order two provide evidence of discriminant validity of followers’ organisational
perceptions, a CFA was conducted where all the POS, OBSE and justice items were
included and a five-factor model tested (the three justice dimensions formed one factor
each). This model was compared to a three-factor model (with only one justice factor)
and a one-factor model where all the items were forced on the same factor. The fivefactor model obtained a chi-square of 565 (df = 213), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .844
and CFI of. 91 and GFI of .83 as well as model AIC 691 and CAIC 971. The
modification index indicated that two of the distributive justice items cross-loaded on
POS and two procedural justice items cross-loaded on OBSE. Furthermore, the 4th
OBSE item cross-loaded on all the justice factors as well as on POS. Although these
cross-loadings are somewhat problematic, this model exhibited better fit statistics than
the three- or one-factor models and was hence retained. The three-factor model obtained
a chi-square of 1268 (df = 227), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .141 and CFI of. 82 and GFI
of .68 as well as model AIC 1366 and CAIC 1584. The one-factor model exhibited the
worst fit with a chi-square of 3033 (df = 230), p-value of .00, RMSEA of .229 and CFI
of. 59 and GFI of .47 as well as model AIC 3125 and CAIC 3330. These results gave
some support for the discriminant validity of the examined organisational perceptions.
5.3.8 Job satisfaction
A single-item measure of job satisfaction (‘All things considered, I am satisfied with my
current job’) previously used by Chen et al. (1998) in a Chinese context was used in the
present study. Prior research has shown that the validity of this measure is comparable
to that of facet measures involving multiple items such as the MSQ (Chen et al., 1998).
5.3.9 Personality
Two different personality measures were used in the present study: the NEO-FFI-S
measure1 representing the five-factor model of personality (FFM) and the Chinese
1
"Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the NEO Five
Factor Inventory, by Paul Costa, and Robert McCrae, Copyright 1978, 1985, 1989 by
PAR, Inc. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission of PAR, Inc."
157
Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI; Cheung et al., 1996) items pertaining to the
Interpersonal relatedness factor.
a) The five-factor measure of personality
The NEO-FFI-S (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was developed as a short version of the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985) by selecting the 12 items from
the longer inventory with the highest positive or negative factor loadings on each of the
five corresponding factors (i.e. neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness and
conscientiousness). Participants respond to 60 items (12 per factor) on a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4).
Between 1990 and 1994, data on a Chinese translation of the NEO-PI-R was collected
by Michael Bond and colleagues. The final version was administered by Ho (1994, as
cited in McCrae, Costa & Yik, 1996). Internal consistencies of the scales were generally
comparable to those found in American samples. A factor analysis provided evidence of
the generalisability of the NEO-PI-R factor structure. This and other methodological
tests suggest that personality traits identified in Western populations can be measured in
Chinese samples, and that they show the same five-factor structure. This view is partly
supported by the results obtained by Cheung et al. (2001), where a combined factor
analysis of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) and the Chinese
translation of the Revised NEO-PI measure of the five-factor model of personality
(FFM) was conducted. The results show that four joint factors similar to the NEO-PI
domains are shared between the personality inventories (neuroticism, extroversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness) but that two specific factors emerge: The
Interpersonal relatedness factor was defined only by the CPAI scales and the openness
factor was not represented in the CPAI scales. However, Yang and Bond (1990) found a
less convincing interrelation between the FFM and their emic Chinese personality
model. The authors used the five personality factors isolated by Tupes and Christal
(1961, as cited in Yang & Bond), which are closed to the more recent versions of the
FFM, to study the interrelation between the Western and Chinese factors. The Western
dimensions identified four of the five Chinese dimensions reasonably well but there was
a one-to-one correspondence for only one of these four factors (social orientation and
agreeableness). The authors conclude that the pattern of interrelations between imported
and indigenous factors is complex and that the construct validation of the imported and
indigenous instruments is likely to yield somewhat different theories about the local
reality even if they both are true or useful.
For the Chinese respondents (N= 273-278), the alpha for neuroticism, extroversion,
agreeableness and conscientiousness from the NEO-FFI-S were .78, .74, .74, and .87
respectively. For the Western respondents (N=35-36) the alpha for these dimensions
were.75, .32, .58, and .59. Interestingly, the alphas were higher for the Chinese measure,
although the measure has a Western origin. What should be noted is that the low
internal consistency reliabilities obtained for the Western sample could partly be
explained by the low number of respondents (N=36).
Due to the very small sample size in relation to parameters (only 36 western
respondents), the decision was made not to assess the dimensionality and factor
158
structure of the complete theory-based five-factor model of personality. Instead, only
those factors for which very low internal consistency reliability estimates had been
obtained were further examined in order to detect and correct some of the problems with
these measures. The FFM factor that demonstrated extremely low internal consistency
reliabilities was extroversion with an alpha of .32 in the Western sample. In order to
validate the measure, a CFA where extroversion was the only factor was conducted.
When the initial one-factor model of extroversion was estimated for the Western
sample, many variables with low or negative factor loadings, t-values and R2s were
obtained. A significant number of factors had negative factor loadings, contradicting
theory-based expectations. A closer examination of these negatively-loaded items
revealed that they predominately dealt with activity and excitement-seeking (e.g. “I like
to be where the action is and “My life is fast-paced), whereas the remaining items were
more related to warmth and positive emotions (e.g. “I don’t consider myself especially
light-hearted” [recoded] and “I am not a cheerful optimist” [recoded]). These two facets
of extroversion hence seem to form two separate factors in the present Western sample.
This is in line with the more detailed conceptualisation of the FFM model of
personality, in which each of the five FFM factors is considered to consist of six facets.
For extroversion, these facets are warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity,
excitement-seeking and positive emotions (see e.g. McRae et al., 1996). Instead of
complicating the future analyses further by constructing two separate factors, the
decision was made to delete the four negatively loaded items referring to “activity” as
the items related to “positive emotions” are hypothesised to be of higher relevance in
the present study. Furthermore, the additional four items with a t-value under 2 were
deleted.
This resulted in a four-item measure (with seven items deleted) of “extroversion”
consisting of the following items: 1) “I like to have a lot of people around me”, 2) “I
don't consider myself especially “light-hearted.”” 3) “I often feel as if I'm bursting with
energy”, 4) “I am not a cheerful optimist”. This one factor-model measured by 4 items
resulted in a statistically satisfactory model with a chi-square of 0.02 (df =2), p-value of
.99, RMSEA of .00 and CFI and GFI of 1.o (too simple model?) The alpha for this scale
was .56 (N=35) and .54 when used on the Chinese respondents. However, dropping two
thirds of the original items raises the question to which extent the remaining items are
able to capture what is generally considered as extroversion (an examination of the
remaining four factors gives the impression that most facets of extroversion are
included, with the exception of those related to activity). As the measure showed
satisfactory reliability for the Chinese sample too, the decision was made to use this
new measure of extroversion on both Chinese and Western respondents in order to
facilitate comparison.
b) The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory
As discussed earlier, the fact that the FFM can be replicated in China does not
necessarily mean that it provides the most natural or useful way to describe personality
in Chinese populations or that the five factors are fully comprehensive. That it why it
was considered necessary to complete the personality measurement with the
Interpersonal relatedness factor from the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory
159
(CPAI; Cheung et al., 1996). The CPAI seems to provide a convincing basis for Chinese
personality assessment and it has also been compared to the NEO-PI measure of the
FFM, which facilitates its use in the present study. The CPAI is a multiphasic
personality inventory that covers personality characteristics for normal as well as
diagnostic assessment. The purpose of this personality inventory is to provide a reliable
and valid assessment instrument relevant specifically to the Chinese people (Cheung et
al., 1996). The Interpersonal relatedness factor, which is the only factor of the CPAI
included in the present study, was characterised mainly by the culture-related scales
developed for the CPAI. The harmony, modernisation and ren qin scales are focal in the
present study and they were measured for both Western and Chinese respondents.
The uniqueness of the Interpersonal relatedness Factor has according to Cheung and
Leung (1998) been confirmed in a number of follow-up studies. Cheung et al. (2001)
conducted a combined factor analysis of the CPAI and the Chinese translation of the
Revised NEO-PI measure of the FFM using 297 Chinese college students as
respondents. The results show that four joint factors similar to the NEO-PI domains are
shared between the personality inventories. These factors are neuroticism (also called
mental stability), extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. However, two
specific factors were obtained: The Interpersonal relatedness factor was defined only by
the CPAI scales and the openness factor was not represented in the CPAI scales. This
indicates that neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness could be
more universal factors than Interpersonal relatedness and the Western openness to
experience, which seem to have a more emic and culture-specific character. Zhang
(1997) obtained similar results in a combined factor analysis of 12 CPAI scales
associated with the Interpersonal relatedness factor and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). When the FFI scales were deliberately loaded onto
five separate factors as the markers of the factors, a six-factor solution was obtained.
Whereas at least one of the CPAI scales loaded on the other five factors, the sixth factor
was characterised by ren qin and harmony, the key scales on the Interpersonal
relatedness Factor, but none of the scales from the NEO-FFF (Cheung & Leung, 1998).
For the Chinese respondents (N= 266-278), the alphas for harmony, face, ren qin,
modernity, thrift, flexibility were .60, .73, .45, .58, .67, .66, respectively. For the
Western respondents (N= 35-36) the alphas were .76, .57, .52, .49, .60, and .76. CFAs
were conducted to explore whether the factors with the lowest reliabilities could be
improved, but satisfactory models were not produced. The decision was hence made to
rely on the original measure taking validation analyses conducted in previous research
as evidence of sufficient construct validity. These low reliabilities, however, indicate
that the results obtained using these measured should be interpreted with caution. This
concerns especially the difference scores that will be calculated based on the CPAI
factors.
5.3.10 Values
The respondents completed the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992). The
SVS was selected to measure values because it is a globally developed and validated
160
measure of individual values. Thus, unlike measures such as the Hofstede dimensions,
the SVS is relevant at the individual level, as well as being validated in China
(Schwartz, 1992).
In the survey, the respondents are asked rate how important 57 different values are as
guiding principles in life on a scale ranging from –1 to 7. -1 was for rating any values
opposed to the guiding principles and 7 was for rating a value of supreme importance as
a guiding principle in life. Furthermore, 0 means the value is not at all important, 3
means the value is important, 6 means the value is very important.
To correct for individuals’ and cultural groups’ different use of the scale, the mean
scores for each value were centred on each respondent’s mean rating of all items.
The alphas of the 10 value indexes ranged from .61 to .80 for the Chinese sample (N=
264-275) and from .47 to .79 (N=33-36) for the Western sample. These coefficients are
in the customary range found in previous research (see Schmitt, Schwartz, Steyer and
Schmitt, 1993). More specifically the alphas for the conformity, tradition, benevolence,
universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security scales
for the Chinese sample were .80, .64, .82, .81, .69, .73, .61, .71, .65, .75, respectively.
For the Western sample, the alphas were .65, .68, .79, .73, .54, .50, .79, .75, .47, and
.68.
5.3.11 Cultural knowledge
An index of cultural knowledge was created (the mean of standardised scores). The
follower index contained the following variables: education abroad, number of types of
cross-cultural training, hours of cross-cultural training, months spent on international
assignments, months working in intercultural dyads, knowledge of dyadic partner’s
mother tongue. The leader index contained the same variables but it contained one
additional variable measuring months working in China.
5.3.12 Actual similarity
Discrepancy scores were calculated for the demographic information gathered including
age, gender, and educational level. Gender discrepancy was coded as the same (0) or
different (1). Educational and age discrepancy was the absolute difference between
leaders and followers. The discrepancy scores were divided by their respective standard
deviations (procedure adopted from Liden et al, 1993) and a composite measure of
demographic differences was created by summing the discrepancy scores obtained for
age, gender and education. Discrepancy scores were also calculated for all the
personality scales (both FFM and CPAI) and values. The low reliabilities obtained for
some of the measures are of concern since difference scores are sensitive to the
reliabilities of the original measures.
161
5.3.13 Control variables
The control variables were measured as reported below.
a) Work role boundary
The followers were asked to rate (with a yes or no option) whether they agree that a
specific OCB item in the OCB scale used (Podsakoff et al., 1990) is an expected part of
their jobs. 11 items were selected for this purpose. These were mainly altruism and civic
virtue items, as many of the other items were worded in a negative way that made it
difficult to consider them a part of any job (e.g. “consumes a lot of time complaining
about trivial matters”). The leaders were asked to rate the degree to which the same
OCB items are an expected part of their followers’ jobs.
The alpha for the follower version (N=173) of this scale was .64. For the leader scale,
the Chinese version (N=91) obtained an alpha of .84 and the English version (N=87)
.62
b) Dyadic and positional information
Information about time spent in company and present position was gathered, as well as
information about type of position and rank in the organisation. The leaders were also
asked to indicate the number of followers they currently supervise.
Furthermore, both leaders and followers were asked to indicate how many times and for
how many hours a week they interact, as well as for how many months they have been
working together. Dividing the individual interaction scores by the mean and averaging
these scores created a mean indexed score of interaction.
162
5.4 ANALYTIC PROCEDURES
As the large number of hypotheses developed in the present study indicates, the purpose
of this study is to develop a relatively comprehensive theory-based model of LMX
antecedents and to explore one major outcome of LMX quality using a significant
number of control variables. The large number of variables is both the strength and a
weakness of the present study that has influenced the choice of analytic procedures used
for testing the hypotheses.
The number of variables is problematic in relation to the relatively small sample size.
Around 80 intercultural and 150 intracultural dyads does not enable the inclusion of all
hypothesised variables in one model without reducing the ability to detect statistically
significant relationships. What reduces the sample size even further is the decision to
analyse intercultural and intracultural dyads separately. To recall, the literature review
indicates that the majority of the hypotheses should be relevant both in intercultural
Western-Chinese and intracultural Chinese dyads. However, the analyses conducted to
validate the constructs and measures revealed inequivalence of factor structure and item
bias across Chinese and Western leaders. This means that the Western and Chinese
leader constructs are neither equal nor comparable. As a result, separate analyses for
Chinese followers working with Western leaders and those working with Chinese
leaders have to be conducted. However, a separate analysis of intercultural dyads is not
only a negative necessity but a favourable outcome from an empirical and theoretical
perspective, as examining intercultural interaction seems to be the field in which the
greatest theoretical and practical contributions can be made.
5.4.1 Comparing groups
The general, comparative dyad-level hypothesis concerning the level of LMX quality in
intercultural versus intracultural dyads will be tested using t-tests and analysis of
covariance.
Independent samples t-tests will be conducted to explore whether the means in the
different groups differ significantly from each other. In addition, analyses of covariance
(ANCOVA) will be carried out to eliminate the effect of confounds. In these analyses,
the grouping factor will be the independent variable (i.e. leader cultural background)
and the outcome that is being compared, i.e. LMX or values, will be the dependent
variable. Variables that are expected to be related to the dependent variable and for
which significant group-level differences have been detected will be included as
covariates (e.g. age differences regarding LMX quality). If the impact of leader cultural
background on the outcome variable disappears when the covariates are included, it
means that leader cultural background is less important as a determinant than the
covariates.
ANCOVA compares the regression lines of two groups and tests whether the difference
between the intercepts of these two lines is significantly different from zero. If the
163
difference is significant, then the regression line of one group is significantly elevated
over the regression line of the other group. The ANCOVA model assumes that the
slopes of the regression lines are the same for each group and that the regression lines
hence are parallel (e.g. Bryman & Cramer, 1997). When the slopes are parallel, the level
of differences between groups can be estimated at any given score of the covariates. If
the slopes are not parallel, the level of differences will depend upon which covariate
score is selected. To test the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes, a model
that includes the interaction between the covariate and dependent variable is analysed. If
the effect of the interaction term is significant, then the assumption of homogeneity of
regression slopes has been broken (e.g. Field, 2000) and the results have to be
interpreted with caution (and are relevant mainly at the particular score of the
covariate). Both the raw (unadjusted) and the adjusted means (estimated marginal
means) will be reported in conjunction with the ANCOVA results. The adjusted means
are the predicted means of the dependent variable at the overall mean of the covariates.
In other words, the adjusted means are the means of the dependent variable expected if
both groups had the same covariate means.
What should be noted is that cross-cultural comparisons can only be conducted for those
measures that demonstrate equivalence and non-bias. The hypothesism that intracultural
Chinese dyads will demonstrate higher LMX than intercultural Western-Chinese dyads,
can hence only be tested from a follower perspective. This is due to the fact that the
leader LMX measure did not demonstrate cross-cultural equivalence.
5.4.2 Detecting relationships between variables
Hierarchical linear multiple regression analyses will be used to test the hypotheses
regarding antecedents and outcomes of LMX. A hierarchical approach is recommended
over the simultaneous model when the independent variables can be ordered with regard
to their temporally or logically determined priority (cf. e.g. Cohen & Cohen, 1975). For
instance, gender could be considered causally prior to an attitude. The hierarchical
analysis proceeds by entering the independent variables in a specified order and
examining the significance of the increased variance explained by the variables entered
at each step. Both changes in R2 and the significance the change will be reported (sig. of
delta F).
The hypotheses relating to the antecedents of follower LMX will be tested by entering
the follower personal characteristics in the first step, leader personal characteristics in
the second step, interpersonal variables in the third step, leader LMX in the fourth step,
the first mediator (perceived similarity) in the fifth step, and the second mediator
(interactional justice) in the sixth step. Leader LMX will be tested by entering the leader
personal characteristics in the first step, follower personal characteristics in the second
step, interpersonal variables in the third step, leader LMX in the fourth step, the first
mediator (perceived similarity) in the fifth step, and the second mediator (follower
inrole performance) in the sixth step. This procedure enables the assessment of the
incremental variance explained by each group of variables and hence a more thorough
understanding of the antecedents of LMX than could have been gained through a
164
simultaneous model. This is especially important, as the large number of variables in
relation to sample size will make it difficult to detect statistically significant
relationships in the form of significant beta weights. In case significant beta weights are
not produced, the hierarchical approach enables at least identifying which type of
variables as a group explain a significant part of the variance in the model.
In addition to developing a comprehensive descriptive model, it is of some interest to
identify variables that are most strongly related to LMX quality. In order to identify a
more predictive model, the method of backward deletion will be used. This procedure
begins by regressing the dependent variable on all the independent variables. In this
case, the full model with all the variables included at the last step of the hierarchical
analysis will be subjected to backward deletion. If any variables are statistically
insignificant, the variable making the smallest contribution to R2 is dropped. The
procedure continues until all remaining variables are statistically significant. However,
this approach is considered atheoretical by most social scientists, as the computer does
not consider the variables in a theoretical order but the variables are chosen on a purely
statistical basis (cf. e.g. Bryman & Cramer, 1997). A major problem with backward
deletion is “under-inclusion”, when a predictor that is deleted from a larger (earlier)
model would contribute to a smaller model but isn’t re-included. There are hence no
guarantees that the final model will indeed be the best model. Hence, this procedure will
only be used to provide additional information and not as the main foundation for
accepting or rejecting hypotheses.
It could be noted that composite scores calculated from the shortened measures obtained
from the individual and overall confirmatory factor analyses will be used in the
regression analyses.
A potential problem with the data has to pointed out. As Cooper and Weakes (1983)
suggest, outside the experimental sciences it is rarely possible to actually vary one
explanatory variable and hold the others fixed, as the regression analysis assumes. It is
expected that many of the explanatory variables could be closely related. This concerns
especially the personality measures, which have been found to be closely associated to
each other (e.g. a negative relationship between neuroticism and extroversion has been
reported) as well as between the perceptual factors measured from the same source. The
data is hence likely to exhibit multicollinearity. This will make it difficult to disentangle
the separate effects of individual explanatory variables. Strategies for dealing with
multicollinearity are dropping variables which may cause multicollinearity from the
analysis or producing one or more derived aggregative variables based upon the given
explanatory variables (e.g. Cooper & Weakes, 1983). However, as there are strong
theoretical reasons for including all the explanatory variables in the models and as these
variables have been found to be conceptually distinct, these strategies will not be
followed in the present study. Instead, multicollinearity will be dealt with a posteriori
during the interpretation stage. If the presence of multicollinearity is suspected, as
indicated e.g. by unstable beta coefficients or through beta coefficients that have a
strongly different sign than the correlation matrix indicates, this will be reported. The
advantage of the hierarchical approach is that “bouncing betas” can be identified by
comparing the sign of the beta coefficients obtained at different stages. The tolerance of
the variables will also be examined. A small value of tolerance indicates that the
165
variable under consideration is almost a perfect linear combination of the independent
variables already in the equation and that that it should not be added to the regression
equation. Some statisticians suggest that a tolerance less than 0.1 deserves attention
(Dallal, 2001). Tolerance is sometimes re-expressed as the Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF), which is the inverse of the tolerance (1/tolerance), so that tolerances of 0.10
become VIFs of 10 or more. The VIF values of all variables will not be reported, but
only those that are close to 10.
Mediation will be tested using the three-step approach recommended by Baron and
Kenny (1986). In the first step, the mediator is regressed on the independent variable. In
the second step, the dependent variable is regressed on the independent variable. In the
third step the dependent variable is regressed simultaneously on both the independent
variable and the mediator. According to Baron and Kenny, the following conditions
should be met for a independent variable-mediator-dependent variable relationship: the
independent variable must affect the mediator in the first equation; the independent
variable must affect the dependent variable in the second equation; the mediator must
affect the dependent variable in the third equation; and finally, the effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable must be less in the third equation than in
the second equation (Baron & Kenny, 1986 p. 1177). Full mediation is indicated if the
independent variable has no significant effect when the mediator is controlled and
partial mediation is indicated if the independent variable’s effect is significant but
smaller when the mediator is controlled (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Mediation will be
tested through the hierarchical regression analyses by comparing the results obtained
before and after the mediators are included in the equation.
The hierarchical approach will also be used to examine the effect of the hypothesised
moderators. Moderating effects were tested by examining the change in R2 attributable
to the interaction term. If the interaction term added to the final stage produced a
significant R2, the x variable could be said to be a moderator of the relationship. The
independent variables were centred on their means before creating the interaction terms
(Cronbach, 1987) in order to reduce multicollinearity problems (e.g. Katila, 2002).
166
6 RESULTS
This chapter begins with a general description of the data (section 6.1) including an
examination of central and significant correlations and a presentation of differences in
mean scores. Then, the results pertaining to the hypothesised differences in LMX
quality in intercultural Western-Chinese versus intracultural Chinese dyads will be
reported (section 6.2). Next, the results pertaining to the antecedents of LMX quality
will be reported beginning with the antecedents of follower LMX quality (section 6.3)
and continuing with the antecedents of leader LMX quality (section 6.4). Intercultural
and intracultural Chinese dyads will be discussed separately. Finally, the results
pertaining to the relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour
are presented (section 6.5), making the same distinction between intercultural and
intracultural dyads.
6.1 DESCRIPTIVES
The correlations between the variables used in the present study are reported for
intercultural and intracultural dyads separately in the tables in Appendix 3 (see p. 320).
Separate tables have been constructed for the antecedents of follower LMX, the
antecedents of leader LMX, and the antecedents of organisational citizenship
behaviours reflecting the different regression models. Some central correlations are
summarised in section 6.1.1 and differences in mean scores are reported in section 6.1.2.
6.1.1 Central and significant correlations
An examination of the zero-order correlations between LMX, its dimensions, and
hypothesised antecedents and outcomes reveals that LMX measured from both leader
and follower perspective correlates significantly with many of the hypothesised
antecedents and outcomes in both intercultural and intracultural dyads. The correlations
between LMX and the perceptual variables measured from the same source are
especially high. For instance, follower perceived similarity, interactional justice,
follower perceptions of OCB, and POS correlate significantly with follower LMX and
its dimensions. In a similar vein, leader perceived similarity and leader perceptions of
follower performance correlate with leader LMX and its dimensions, just to name a few
examples. Significant correlations between hypothesised antecedents and outcomes of
LMX including its dimensions are in addition to the correlation tables reported in the
regression tables (see p. 334) and will not be discussed further here.
The correlation matrix also indicates that many of the antecedents of LMX are highly
interrelated pointing towards potential multicollinearity problems. For instance, the
correlations between personality traits are very high for all but Western leaders. As
expected, the difference scores also often correlate significantly with their components
(e.g. age difference correlates with age). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the
167
correlations between the perceptual variables measured from the same source are high.
As the subsequent analyses involve interrelated variables, interpretations of the results
have to be made with caution. Warning signs that will be considered during the
interpretation and presentation of the results are unstable beta coefficients or beta
coefficients that have a significantly different weight than the correlation matrix
indicates.
The correlation matrix reveals that the different LMX dimensions correlate significantly
with each other, with a few exceptions. Regarding follower LMX in both intercultural
and intracultural dyads, the correlation between the affect and professional respect
dimensions are very strong (r > .59**). The correlations between the other dimensions
are still significant (r >.25**), with th**e exception of the correlation between the
loyalty and contribution dimensions (r = .17 in both dyad types). In intercultural dyads,
the loyalty dimension correlates moderately only with affect but not with the other
dimensions. In intracultural Chinese dyads, the correlation between loyalty and
contribution is less significant than the correlations between the other dimensions.
Concerning Chinese leader LMX, all correlations between dimensions are significant,
with the exception of the correlation between loyalty and professional respect (r = .12).
The correlation between affect and contribution is also somewhat lower than the other
correlations (r = .21*, whereas other correlations r >.27**). The correlation between
loyalty and contribution is the strongest (.59**). For Western leaders, all the other
dimensions are significantly correlated (r > .27**), with the exception of the correlation
between contribution and affect (r = .18). The correlation between loyalty and affect is
the strongest (r = .52**). The fact that not all the LMX dimensions are as closely
interrelated underlines the importance of conducting separate analyses for each
dimension.
An examination of the correlations (not included in the tables in the appendix) also
reveals that the correlation between leader and follower reports of LMX is low in
Chinese (r = .17, p = 0.80) and in intercultural dyads (r = .17, p = .149). However, in
intercultural dyads, the correlation between leader and follower contribution is close to
statistical significance (r = .206, p = .077). The correlations between leader and follower
perceptions of follower inrole performance and OCB are also low. In intercultural
dyads, the correlation between leader and follower reports of follower inrole
performance (r = .11, p = .490) is lower than in intracultural Chinese dyads (r = .21, p =
.088). However, regarding OCB, the correlation between leader and follower reports is
higher in intercultural dyads (r = .21, p = .176) than in intracultural Chinese dyads (r =
.12, p = .348).
6.1.2 Differences in mean scores
The tables above indicate that there are differences in the mean scores for LMX
antecedents and outcomes obtained in intercultural Western-Chinese and intracultural
Chinese dyads. T-tests were conducted to identify statistically significant differences
**
p < 0.01
168
between intercultural and intracultural dyads and these results are reported below. An
awareness of these differences is important as they could bias the results. Once again, it
should be pointed out that as the perceptual leader measures did not demonstrate crosscultural equivalence, the perceptions of Western and Chinese leaders cannot be
compared. However, the personalities and values of Western and Chinese leaders are
more comparable as the personality and values measures have undergone extensive
cross-cultural validation analyses.
When the mean scores of all the hypothesised antecedents and outcomes of LMX as
well as control variables obtained for intercultural versus intracultural dyads were
compared using t-tests, the following significant differences (p < .10) were detected
with regard to followers:
1) The (Chinese) followers who work with Western leaders are less conscientious than
those who work with Chinese leaders; 2) The followers who work with Western leaders
perceive more interactional and organisational justice than those who work with
Chinese leaders; 3) The followers who work with Western leaders perceive more
organisational support than those who work with Chinese leaders; 4) The followers who
work with Western leaders, surprisingly, perceive more similarity with their leaders
than those followers who work with Chinese leaders; 5) The followers who work with
Western leaders define their work roles more narrowly than those followers who work
with Chinese leaders; and 5) The followers who work with Western leaders are
somewhat more educated than those followers who work with Chinese leaders.
The following significant differences (p < .10) were detected with regard to leaders:
1) The Chinese leaders in the sample are significantly younger than the Western leaders;
2) Chinese leaders are somewhat less educated than the Western leaders; 3) Chinese
leaders are somewhat more neurotic than Western leaders; 4) Chinese leaders score
higher on extroversion than Western leaders; 4) Chinese leaders score higher on
harmony than Western leaders; 5) Chinese leaders score higher on self-enhancement
than Western leaders; and 6) Chinese leaders define work roles more narrowly than
Western leaders.
One additional interesting finding is that Chinese leaders score significantly higher on
collectivism and somewhat lower on individualism than the Western leaders. To satisfy
my curiosity regarding these important cultural dimensions, I conducted t-tests and
ANCOVAs to explore these differences further. The results of these analyses are
reported in Appendix 4 (see p. 332). In sum, these analyses indicate that Chinese leaders
score significantly lower on individualism than Western leaders whereas large
differences in collectivism could not be detected when demographic factors were
controlled for.
In addition, the following significant differences (p < .10) were detected with regard to
the dyad-level interpersonal variables:
1) The age difference between leader and follower is smaller in Chinese than in
intercultural dyads. The average age difference in Chinese dyads is 5.5 years and as
169
much as 13 years in intercultural dyads; 2) The difference between leader and follower
in Interpersonal relatedness is smaller in Chinese than in intercultural dyads; 3) The
interaction intensity (reported by leaders) was less significant in Chinese than in
intercultural dyads.
In addition, t-tests were performed to detect whether leader personality and values differ
significantly from follower personality and values. This information is useful as LMX
quality is predicted to be an outcome of both leader and follower characteristics and
their relation to each other. In order to control for cultural background, Chinese
followers were compared to Chinese leaders while Western leaders were excluded from
the analyses. The t-tests revealed significant personality differences between Chinese
leaders and followers on all FFM traits except for neuroticism. No significant
differences were found regarding Interpersonal relatedness or values. It could be that
certain personality traits prevail or are required for a leader position in a Chinese crosscultural context.
170
6.2 DIFFERENCES IN LMX QUALITY
Dyad-level hypothesis 1 predicts that intracultural Chinese dyads will demonstrate
higher LMX quality than intercultural Western-Chinese dyads. As mentioned earlier,
this hypothesis can only be tested from a follower perspective, as the leader LMX
measure did not demonstrate cross-cultural equivalence. Phrasing it differently, testing
this hypothesis entails establishing whether the cultural background of the leader (i.e.
whether the leader is Western or Chinese) has an impact on follower perceptions of
LMX quality. To test this hypothesis, t-tests and analyses of covariance were conducted.
T-tests were carried out to explore whether the means in the two groups differed
significantly from each other. Analyses of covariance were conducted to explore the
effect of potential confounding variables. To test the assumption of homogeneity of
regression slopes required for the analyses of covariance, a model that included the
interaction between the covariate and dependent variable was analysed.
T-tests revealed significant differences between intercultural and intracultural Chinese
dyads with regard to overall follower LMX and all follower LMX dimensions with the
exception of professional respect. The followers working with Western leaders
consistently reported higher LMX than those followers working with Chinese leaders.
In order to explore the effect of potential confounding group-level variables, analyses of
covariance were conducted. Different levels of demographic differences in Chinese and
intercultural dyads were detected (e.g., the average age difference in Chinese dyads was
5.5 years and as much as 13 years in intercultural dyads). As demographic differences
also have been found to be related to LMX, age, gender and education differences were
included as covariates.
The analysis of covariance with overall follower LMX as the dependent variable and
age, gender and education differences as covariates indicated that the cultural
background of the leader had a relatively significant effect (F = 3.676, p = .057). None
of the covariates demonstrated significance. The adjusted mean of overall LMX in
intercultural dyads was 3.7 and 3.5 in intracultural Chinese dyads. This adjusted mean
was obtained at age differences of 1.15, education differences of 1.05, and gender
differences of .694. The analysis of the interaction terms between leader cultural
background and the covariates indicated that the slopes were relatively equal. This
finding contradicts dyad-level hypothesis 1, as LMX was slightly higher in intercultural
dyads and not lower, as predicted.
The analysis of covariance with follower affect as the dependent variable also indicated
that cultural background of the leader had a impact (F = 3.3934, p = .049) with gender
differences emerging as a covariate. The adjusted mean for affect was 4.1 in
intercultural and 3.8 in intracultural Chinese dyads. The analysis of the interaction terms
between leader cultural background and covariates indicated that the slopes were
relatively equal.
The analysis of covariance with follower loyalty as the dependent variable indicated that
cultural background of the leader did not have a significant impact (F = 1.062, p = .304)
with no demographic differences showing significance. The adjusted mean for loyalty
171
was 3.2 in intercultural and 3.0 in intracultural dyads. The analysis of the interaction
terms between leader cultural background and covariates indicated that the slopes were
relatively equal.
The analysis of covariance with follower contribution as the dependent variable
indicated that cultural background of the leader did not have a significant impact (F =
1.760, p = .186) whereas the effect of age difference was significant. The adjusted mean
for contribution was 3.8 in intercultural and 3.2 in intracultural dyads. The analysis of
the interaction terms between leader cultural background and covariates indicated that
the slopes were relatively equal.
In a similar vein, the cultural background of the leader did not have a significant impact
(F = .800, p = .372) on follower professional respect, and neither did any of the
covariates. The adjusted mean for professional respect was 4.1 in intercultural and 3.9 in
intracultural Chinese dyads. The analysis of the interaction terms between leader
cultural background and covariates indicated that the slopes were relatively equal.
In sum, overall LMX and affect were higher in intercultural than in intracultural dyads.
(Furthermore, although leader cultural background did not account for significant
differences with regard to the remaining LMX dimensions, the means were consistently
somewhat higher in intercultural than in intracultural dyads). The dyad level hypothesis
that predicts that LMX quality will be higher in intracultural than in intracultural dyads
did hence not receive support.
The finding the leader-member exchange quality is higher in intercultural dyads than in
intracultural dyads contradicts the proposition made by Tsui, Xin and Egan (1996) that
when leaders are of the same race or gender as their followers, higher leader-member
exchange quality will follow than in the case of race and gender dissimilarity. Previous
research has shown that a person’s appearance and cultural background alone can have
an impact on how the person is assessed (e.g. Gilbert et al., 2002). The higher quality of
leader-member exchange reported in intercultural dyads could have been partly caused
by a general admiration by Chinese followers for Western management and hence
positive stereotypes of Western leaders. In other words, the Chinese followers who
work in the subsidiary may have chosen to work for the Western company as a result of
a general appreciation for Western values and management. This interpretation is
supported by popular books, such as one written by Larry Wang (2001), where
reference is made to the “outstanding career opportunities” (p. 5) offered by
multinational companies for Chinese employees, including an appreciation of skills,
greater exposure (as compared to traditional Chinese companies) and responsibility,
being in the spotlight, international exposure, and faster career advancement. In sum, it
is asserted that working for a multinational company can offer personally and
professionally rewarding opportunities. Furthermore, this line of thinking is supported
by findings that the implementation of Western management practices has a favourable
impact on organisational performance in the Chinese context. For instance, Björkman
and Fan (2002) found that the implementation of performance based rewards and
individual performance appraisal had a positive effect on the performance of ChineseWestern joint ventures. The results of the study conducted by Bu and Xu (2000) also
suggest that Chinese employees in general would welcome the introduction of Western-
172
style market-oriented management systems. It could hence be assumed that the Chinese
followers have chosen to work in Western-owned subsidiaries in expectation of
increased Western-style opportunities using Western procedures and practices and
working with Western leaders.
173
6.3 ANTECEDENTS OF FOLLOWER LMX
To recall, a total of 20 hypotheses concerning the effect of various personal,
interpersonal and behavioural antecedents on follower LMX quality and its dimensions
have been developed in the present study (see p. 92 for the list of hypotheses). The 13
first hypotheses link various personal leader and follower characteristics, including
personality, values and cultural knowledge to follower LMX quality. Hypotheses 14–18
concern so-called interpersonal antecedents of LMX including actual and perceived
similarity. Hypothesis 19 links behaviours to LMX, predicting that fair treatment
provided by the leader in the form of interactional justice will have a favourable impact
on follower LMX quality. Finally, Hypothesis 20 predicts a positive relationship
between leader and follower LMX and a mediating role of the behavioural interactional
justice factor. These hypotheses are expected to be relevant both in intercultural and
intracultural dyads.
In all the analyses, i.e. for each LMX dimension in both dyad types, the procedures
adopted are the same. The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses
entering the variables that are logically and theoretically considered to be prior to others
first. As a result, follower personal characteristics were entered in the first step, leader
personal characteristics in the second step, interpersonal variables in the third step,
leader LMX in the fourth step, the first mediator (perceived similarity, which is also
categorised as an interpersonal variable) in the fifth step, and the second mediator
(interactional justice, which is a behavioural variable) in the sixth step. This procedure
enables the assessment of the incremental variance explained by each group of variables
and hence a more thorough understanding of the antecedents of LMX than could have
been gained through testing only the simultaneous model. In addition to regressing
LMX on its antecedents, the mediators were regressed on the independent variables to
enable analyses of mediation. As a further aid to determine the relative importance of
various antecedents of LMX, the backward deletion method was used at the last step.
The results of the regression analyses are presented in the tables in Appendix 5 (see p.
334). All variables that correlate significantly with the dependent variable are also
reported in the tables in the appendix. It should be noted that the full hierarchical model
is the theoretical model, while the results obtained trough backward deletion and the
reported correlation coefficients serve only as additional aids during the interpretation
of results. These additional aids are deemed to be necessary due to the large number of
variables included in the models as well as due to possible multicollinearity problems.
It is important to note that in the present study, a variable is judged to be a significant
antecedent of LMX in case the beta weight (obtained either at the final step in the
hierarchical model or through backward deletion) is significant and the sign of the
coefficient does not differ from step to step and is consistent with the correlation
coefficient.
The results pertaining to follower LMX in intercultural Western-Chinese dyads will be
presented first (section 6.3.1), continuing with the results obtained for intracultural
Chinese dyads (section 6.3.2). The results pertaining to the antecedents of follower
LMX in both dyad types are summarised in section 6.3.3.
174
6.3.1 Intercultural dyads
The results concerning follower LMX in intercultural dyads have been grouped under
the headings a) personal antecedents, b) interpersonal antecedents, and c) behavioural
antecedents. These results are summarised on a dimension level in section d). After
presenting the results in conjunction with the hypotheses, the results are illustrated in
each subsection in the form of figures, followed by a discussion of the results. The
emphasis in the discussion is on unexpected results and antecedents that have a
significant effect by influencing multiple dimensions of LMX. The theoretical
background for the remaining supported hypotheses can be found in Chapter 3, where
the hypotheses are developed. As noted earlier, more specific regression results
including beta weights and levels of significance are reported in the tables in Appendix
5 on p. 334.
a) Personal antecedents
Follower LMX hypothesis 1 predicting that follower extroversion will be positively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX was supported with regard to the affect
dimension, although the positive effect of extroversion was almost fully mediated by
interactional justice.
Follower LMX hypothesis 2 predicting that leader extroversion will be positively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX was partially supported as leader
extroversion had a significant positive effect on overall LMX and the loyalty dimension.
Follower LMX hypothesis 3 predicting that follower neuroticism will be negatively
related to the affect, loyalty, and professional respect dimensions of follower LMX was
supported with respect to the loyalty dimension.
Follower LMX hypothesis 4 predicting that leader neuroticism will be negatively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX was supported with regard to overall LMX
and all dimensions but professional respect. The negative effect of neuroticism on the
affect and loyalty dimensions was almost fully mediated by perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 5 predicted that leader agreeableness will be positively
related to the affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of follower LMX. Leader
agreeableness had a positive impact on follower loyalty, providing partial support for
the hypothesis.
Follower LMX hypothesis 6 predicting that follower conscientiousness will be
positively related to the contribution dimension of follower LMX was supported as
follower conscientiousness had a strong positive impact on overall LMX and on the
contribution dimension.
Follower LMX hypothesis 7 predicting that leader conscientiousness will be positively
related to the loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of follower
LMX was not supported as leader conscientiousness had a negative impact on follower
contribution.
175
Follower LMX hypothesis 8 predicted that follower harmony will be positively related
to all dimensions of follower LMX. This hypothesis was partly supported as follower
harmony had a positive effect on both overall LMX and the contribution dimension.
Follower LMX hypothesis 9 predicting that leader harmony will be positively related to
all dimensions of follower LMX did not gain support, and is hence rejected.
Follower LMX hypothesis 10 predicting that high leader self-enhancement values will
be negatively related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of follower LMX was not
supported.
Follower LMX hypothesis 11 predicting that high leader self-enhancement values will
be positively related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of follower
LMX was not supported. However, self-enhancement demonstrated a positive effect on
overall LMX, which was almost fully mediated by perceived similarity, which provides
partial support for the hypothesis.
Follower LMX hypothesis 12 predicted that follower cultural knowledge will be
positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX. This hypothesis received partial
support as cultural knowledge had a positive impact on the contribution dimension.
However, it seems that follower cultural knowledge tends to have a predominately
negative impact on follower perceptions, namely overall LMX and loyalty, through the
mediation of perceived similarity (the direct negative effect of follower cultural
knowledge on perceived similarity was close to statistical significance).
Follower LMX hypothesis 13 predicting that leader cultural knowledge will be
positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX was not supported, although
leader cultural knowledge had a positive impact on perceived similarity and correlated
positively and significantly with interactional justice and the contribution dimension of
LMX.
It should also be noted that of the control variables, follower tenure in company had a
positive effect on affect, leader education a strong negative effect on professional
respect, and the number of employees supervised by the leader a positive effect on
loyalty.
An examination of the incremental variance explained by the blocks of leader and
follower personal characteristics revealed that follower characteristics had a significant
effect on the affect and contribution dimensions of LMX, a less significant effect on
overall LMX and interactional justice, and no effect on the other dimensions. Leader
characteristics, in turn, explained significant incremental variance in the loyalty and
contribution dimensions as well as perceived similarity.
These results are summarised in the figure below. The signs are explained below the
figure.
176
Figure 4: Follower personal characteristics and follower LMX, intercultural
Follower
extroversion
Follower
neuroticism
+m
j
Follower overall
LMX*
–
LMX dimensions
Affect*
+
Follower
+
conscientiousness
Loyalty
+
Contribution*
–
m
s
Follower
harmony
+
Follower
cultural knowledge
s
–m
+
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity, mj = mediated by
interactional justice
The significant effect demonstrated by follower personal characteristics on follower
perceptions of LMX quality indicates that relatively stable characteristics indeed
dispose the interacting individuals to approach interpersonal situations in a certain way,
as suggested e.g. by Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) and Brower et al. (2000).
While theory (see Chapter 3) supports the majority of the significant relationships
obtained as results, the predominately negative impact of follower cultural knowledge
on follower LMX and perceived similarity is contradictory to the hypotheses. A
possible explanation for this result, in view of the detected mediating effect of perceived
similarity, is that cultural knowledge could reduce the effect of projected similarity
(Adler, 1997). Adler reports that intercultural interactions sometimes are distorted by
the fact that people with different cultural backgrounds perceive each other more similar
than they actually are. The Chinese followers with less cultural knowledge could hence
overestimate the level of similarity with the Western leader, whereas those with more
cultural knowledge could estimate the level of similarity more accurately, and hence
more negatively. Following the logic of the similarity-attraction paradigm, lower
perceived similarity would lead to less affect and hence lower perceptions of the dyadic
partner. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the negative effect of cultural
knowledge on leader-member exchange is mediated by perceived similarity, as
indicated in the figure above. Furthermore, the control variable measuring length of
interaction between leader and follower had a strong negative effect on perceived
similarity.
177
Figure 5: Leader personal characteristics and follower LMX, intercultural
Leader
extroversion
Leader
neuroticism
Leader
agreeableness
Leader
conscientiousness
– ms
–
–m
– s
+
+
+
Follower overall
LMX
LMX dimensions
Affect
–
Loyalty*
Leader
harmony
s
+m
Leader
self-enhancement
Contribution*
Respect
Leader
cultural knowledge
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity
The significant effect demonstrated by leader characteristics on leader-member
exchange quality is in line with the argument made by Liden et al. (1997) that leader
characteristics are important in determining whether a follower desires and accepts a
high-quality exchange offered by the leader. This finding is further supported by the
leader-member exchange-development model put forward by Bauer and Green (1996),
in which leaders are considered to have a central role as they are the ones who are
expected to make the initial “offer” to develop a high-quality leader-member exchange
relationship (Bauer & Green, 1996).
As the figure above indicates, leader neuroticism has a strong negative effect on
follower leader-member exchange quality in intercultural dyads. As neuroticism refers
generally to a lack of positive psychological adjustment and emotional stability, and is
related to the capability to work together to handle interpersonal conflicts (Antonioni,
1998), it is not surprising that neuroticism demonstrates a strong negative relationship
with leader-member exchange quality.
Leader cultural knowledge did not demonstrate the expected positive effect on follower
perceptions of leader-member exchange quality. It was expected that cultural
knowledge would influence leader-follower relations by enabling the individual to
adjust his or her behaviour in accordance with the perceived expectations of the dyadic
partner (cf. Thomas and Toyne, 1995). A question that arises is the extent to which
178
cultural knowledge and experience really enables this adjustment. It is possible that
leaders overestimate their cultural knowledge and abilities to “go local”, in which case
cultural knowledge could even produce a negative effect. Brief cultural training
providing simplified information could also enhance the use of stereotypes (Gertsen,
1990). An alternate explanation is that the Chinese followers do not expect the
expatriates to adjust their behaviour to suit the local standards: they may prefer to work
with a leader behaving in accordance with the positive stereotype of a Western leader.
Gertsen (1990) goes as far as suggesting that as the expatriates are considered as
representatives of their cultures, “native” behaviour could create confusion and
uncertainty among the locals and even convey an untrustworthy image of the expatriate.
The unexpected negative influence of leader conscientiousness on follower perceptions
of their own contribution could be due to the fact that conscientious leaders could be
more demanding than less conscientious leaders and hence likely to reduce the
followers perception of their own contribution. The positive effect of leader selfenhancement is also interesting to note. Self-enhancement may be a characteristic
expected by Chinese followers of individuals in a leader role.
b) Interpersonal antecedents
Follower LMX hypothesis 14 predicting that the level of demographic similarity
between leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower
LMX received partial support as demographic differences demonstrated a negative
effect on the affect dimension. Furthermore, gender differences had a negative impact
on interactional justice.
Follower LMX hypothesis 15 predicting that the level of personality similarity between
leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX was
not supported, as personality differences had a positive effect on professional respect,
which was mediated by interactional justice.
Follower LMX hypothesis 16 predicted that a high level of similarity between leader
and follower in Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on follower LMX
quality and all its dimensions. This hypothesis was partially supported as differences
Interpersonal relatedness demonstrated a negative effect on the contribution dimension,
but this effect was mediated by perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 17 predicting that a high level of similarity in individualism
and collectivism between leader and follower will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX did not receive support. Differences in individualism had
no effect and similarity in collectivism had a positive effect on the affect and
contribution dimensions.
Follower LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that follower perceptions of similarity with
leader will be positively related to all the dimensions of follower LMX, and that
perceived similarity will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural
knowledge and all the dimensions of follower LMX. The hypothesised direct
relationship between perceived similarity and LMX gained very strong support, as
179
perceived similarity was found to influence overall LMX and all the LMX dimensions.
Furthermore, perceived similarity explained a significant amount of incremental
variance in all dimensions including overall LMX when entered into the equation
separately (the effect on loyalty was somewhat lower than on the other dimensions).
A control variable that demonstrated a significant positive effect was months of
interaction.
The interpersonal variables as a group, excluding perceived similarity, did not explain
significant additional variance in overall LMX or any of the dimensions. The
perceptions of followers who work with Western leaders are hence more directly
influenced by leader characteristics than the level of actual similarity. Perceived
similarity explained very significant variance in overall LMX and all the LMX
dimensions, with the exception of the loyalty dimensions, for which the incremental
variance was weaker, although still significant.
Figure 6: Interpersonal antecedents and follower LMX, intercultural
Demographic
differences
Follower overall
LMX
+
Personality
differences
–
m
j
+
Perceived
similarity1
LMX dimensions
+
+
+
Differences
in interpersonal
relatedness
+
Affect
– ms
Loyalty
Differences
in individualism
Contribution
+ +
Differences
in collectivism
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity, mj = mediated by
interactional justice
The support found for the hypothesised importance of perceived similarity as an
antecedent to leader-member exchange quality is strongly supported by theory and past
research. It has been argued that perceptions of similarity lead an individual to identify
with the other dyadic member and produce an affective reaction that has a direct
influence on social relationships (Engle & Lord, 1997). Perceived similarity arguably
180
enhances attraction because of the self-enhancing motivation similar to the one
predicted by social identity theory (Tsui, Xin & Egan, 1996).
The finding that leader-member exchange quality is negatively influenced by
demographic differences is in line with the similarity-attraction paradigm and the
propositions made by Tsui, Xin and Egan (1996). Differences in Interpersonal
relatedness were also expected to have a negative effect.
However, the figure indicates that differences between leader and follower personal
characteristics are not always negative in terms of leader-member exchange quality as
differences in collectivism and personality differences have a positive effect. The reason
for why differences in values and personality demonstrate a positive effect could be that
leaders may not be expected to possess the same personality traits as followers.
Followers may value different personality traits and characteristics in a leader than the
ones they possess themselves. In other words, dissimilarity on some variables could be
desired. For instance, Tsui et al. (1996) propose that if someone is in a power of
authority, as the leader is in relation to the follower in the dyad, the followers would
expect the leader to be different from them in the capacity to lead. Tsui et al. suggest
that the same way as certain demographic factors are used to infer similarity in attitudes,
some factors are used as a means of inferring desired differences in levels of experience
(e.g. through tenure), knowledge (e.g. through training and education) and wisdom (e.g.
through age). Although these arguments were presented regarding the effect of
demographic differences on leader-member exchange quality, this line of thinking could
be extended to include personality and values to explain why differences in collectivism
and personality demonstrated a positive effect. Furthermore, previous research on the
composition of work teams suggests that personality diversity could increase
performance (and why not the perceptions of the dyadic partner) if the unique attributes
of each participant are necessary for the team to function well (Neuman, Wagner, &
Christiansen, 1999).
Follower LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that perceived similarity will mediate the
relationship between actual similarity, cultural knowledge and all the dimensions of
follower LMX. This hypothesis was partially supported, as perceived similarity almost
fully mediated the relationships between differences in Interpersonal relatedness
(negative effect) and contribution, and follower cultural knowledge (negative effect) and
overall LMX and loyalty. The negative effect of follower cultural knowledge was not
expected.
Perceived similarity was found to fully or partly mediate a large number of other
relationships. The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for
which specific hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships
are presented merely as additional information and will not be discussed with the
exception of a few brief comments.
181
Figure 7: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on follower LMX,
intercultural
–
Follower cultural
–
knowledge
Follower
harmony
+
Follower overall
LMX*
+
Differences
in interpersonal –
relatedness
Leader
neuroticism
–
LMX dimensions
Affect*
Perceived
similarity1
– –
Leader
self-enhancement
–
+ +
Loyalty
Contribution*
Respect*
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
It was hypothesised that perceived similarity is partly an outcome of actual similarity,
which explains the negative relationship between differences in Interpersonal
relatedness and perceived similarity. However, cultural knowledge was expected to
have a positive effect on perceived similarity. It was argued that cultural knowledge is
likely to increase specification and accurate judgements (cf. Larkey, 1996), affecting the
perceptions of the culturally different dyadic partner in a mostly positive way (e.g. by
reducing the strength of negative stereotypes). However, it seems that cultural
knowledge also facilitates the ability to recognise cultural differences (Brake, 1995) and
could hence also diminish what Adler (1997) calls cultural blindness (lack of attention
to cultural assumptions), lack of cultural self-awareness (ignorance associated with not
knowing one’s own cultural conditioning) and projected similarity. The fact that
Chinese employees with little cultural knowledge could overestimate their level of
similarity with the expatriate leaders was already mentioned earlier.
Finally, although no hypothesis regarding the relationship between leader neuroticism
and perceived similarity was formulated, it is possible that individuals do not want to
identify themselves with people possessing negative personality traits.
c) Behavioural antecedents
Follower LMX hypothesis 19 predicting that follower perceptions of interactional
justice will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX gained strong
182
support as interactional justice, demonstrated a significant effect on overall LMX and all
the LMX dimensions with the exception of the contribution dimension (however, the
correlation was significant and positive). Furthermore, interactional justice explained a
significant amount of incremental variance in all dimensions with the exception of
contribution when entered into the equation separately. (The variance explained in
loyalty was also lower than the added variance for the other dimensions).
Follower LMX hypothesis 20 predicted that overall leader LMX will be positively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX, and that interactional justice will mediate
this relationship. Support for this hypothesis was not found. However, interactional
justice turned out to be an important mediator, almost fully mediating the positive
relationships between follower extroversion and affect, personality differences and
professional respect, and months of interaction and contribution. Furthermore,
interactional justice partially mediated the relationship between perceived similarity and
all the dimensions of LMX including overall LMX. Interactional justice also partly
mediated the relationship between follower conscientiousness (positive effect) and
overall LMX, as well as the relationship between demographic differences (negative
effect) and affect.
The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for which specific
hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships are presented
merely as additional information and will not be discussed.
Figure 8: The mediating effect of interactional justice on follower LMX,
intercultural
Follower
extroversion
Follower
conscientiousness
Perceived
similarity
Personality
differences
+
Follower overall
LMX*
+
LMX dimensions
+
+
Affect*
+
+
+
Interactional
justice1
Loyalty*
+
Demographic
differences
Contribution
–
Respect*
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
183
The finding that interactional justice is significantly related to follower leader-member
exchange is not surprising. As noted already by Graen and Scandura (1987), one of the
requirements for the development of high-quality relationships is that each party must
see the exchange as reasonably fair. Interactional justice has even been considered as
such an important aspect of the leader-follower relationship that some researchers have
considered it as a dimension of the leader-follower relationship (cf. Scandura, 1999).
However, the causal order between interactional justice and leader-member exchange is
hard to establish. Due to the dynamic nature of the relationship, where repeated
interactions result in the formation of relationships of different types and quality that in
turn influence future exchanges (cf. e.g. Uhl-Bien et al., 2000) it is difficult to
distinguish between antecedents and outcomes of leader-member exchange.
Furthermore, the close relationship between interactional justice and perceived
similarity further supports previous findings in similarity research, where the bottom
line seems to be that individuals tend to trust people who are similar to themselves.
d) Summary
The results pertaining to follower LMX in intercultural dyads presented above show
that the different dimensions of LMX are partly affected by the same variables, but that
the relative weight of different variables differs across dimensions.
To exemplify these differences and similarities across dimensions, it could be noted that
the most significant part of variance in the affect dimension is explained by perceived
similarity, followed by follower characteristics and interactional justice. Neither leader
characteristics nor interpersonal variables (excluding perceived similarity) added
variance for affect. Regarding loyalty, significant variance is only explained by
perceived similarity and leader characteristics. The most significant part of variance in
the contribution dimension is explained by perceived similarity, followed by follower
characteristics and leader characteristics. Concerning professional respect, significant
variance is only explained by perceived similarity and interactional justice. In turn,
regarding overall LMX, the most significant part of variance is explained by perceived
similarity, followed by interactional justice and follower characteristics. Neither leader
characteristics nor interpersonal variables added variance for overall LMX. Overall
LMX hence seems to be largely affected by the same type of factors as affect, although
follower characteristics play a less significant role in overall LMX than in affect.
These results suggest that the loyalty dimension, which is not affected by follower
characteristics and less significantly by interactional justice and perceived similarity
than the other dimensions, is the dimension that stands most apart from the other
dimensions. The contribution dimension is similar to the loyalty dimension in the sense
that these two dimensions are the only dimensions significantly influenced by leader
characteristics and not significantly influenced by interactional justice. It should be
noted that the loyalty and professional respect dimensions obtained much lower
adjusted R2 and F values than the other dimensions. It is also noteworthy that leader and
follower cultural knowledge has a positive impact on contribution, but a negative
influence on the other dimensions. In sum, there are both similarities and differences
across dimensions and the hypothesised antecedents explained some variance in all
dimensions, although somewhat less in the loyalty and professional respect dimensions.
184
In sum, the results pertaining to follower LMX in intercultural dyads presented above
show that most of the hypothesised antecedents have an impact on at least one
dimension of LMX. The only antecedents that did not demonstrate a significant effect
on any LMX dimension were leader harmony and leader cultural knowledge.
6.3.2 Intracultural Chinese dyads
As in the previous section, the results concerning follower LMX in intracultural Chinese
dyads have been grouped under the headings a) personal antecedents, b) interpersonal
antecedents, and c) behavioural antecedents. These results are summarised on a
dimension level in section d). As before, after presenting the results in conjunction with
the hypotheses, the results are illustrated in each subsection in the form of figures,
followed by a discussion of the results. As in the case of intercultural dyads, the
emphasis in the discussion is on unexpected results and antecedents that influence
multiple dimensions of LMX as the theoretical background for the remaining supported
hypotheses can already be found in Chapter 3 where the hypotheses are developed. As
noted earlier, more specific regression results including beta weights and levels of
significance are reported in the tables in Appendix 5 on p. 343.
a) Personal antecedents
Follower LMX hypothesis 1 predicting that follower extroversion will be positively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX was not supported, although extroversion
correlated significantly with affect and professional respect.
Follower LMX hypothesis 2 predicting that leader extroversion will be positively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX was not supported as leader extroversion had
a negative effect on the affect and professional respect dimensions, both being mediated
by perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 3 predicting that follower neuroticism will be negatively
related to the affect, loyalty, and professional respect dimensions of follower LMX was
not supported although follower neuroticism correlated significantly with affect and
professional respect.
Follower LMX hypothesis 4 predicting that leader neuroticism will be negatively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX was not supported. Leader neuroticism had a
significant positive effect on affect and perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 5 predicted that leader agreeableness will be positively
related to the affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of follower LMX. Leader
agreeableness had a positive impact on follower loyalty, providing partial support for
the hypothesis.
Follower LMX hypothesis 6 predicting that follower conscientiousness will be
positively related to the contribution dimension of follower LMX was not supported but
185
follower conscientiousness had a strong negative impact on interactional justice and a
positive effect on perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 7 predicting that leader conscientiousness will be positively
related to the loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of follower
LMX was not supported. Leader conscientiousness had a negative impact on follower
perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 8 predicted that follower harmony will be positively related
to all dimensions of follower LMX. This hypothesis was partly supported as follower
harmony had a positive effect on overall LMX as well as perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 9 predicting that leader harmony will be positively related to
all dimensions of follower LMX gained support as leader harmony was positively
related to the affect and contribution dimensions as well as interactional justice.
Follower LMX hypothesis 10 predicting that high leader self-enhancement values will
be negatively related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of follower LMX was not
supported as this factor demonstrated a positive effect on these dimensions. The effect
of the loyalty dimension was almost fully mediated by perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 11 predicting that high leader self-enhancement values will
be positively related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of follower
LMX was partially supported. Self-enhancement demonstrated a positive effect on
overall LMX and professional respect, the latter being almost fully mediated by
perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 12 predicted that follower cultural knowledge will be
positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX. This hypothesis received partial
support as cultural knowledge had a positive impact on overall LMX as well the affect
and loyalty dimensions.
Follower LMX hypothesis 13 predicting that leader cultural knowledge will be
positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX was not supported.
It should also be noted that of the control variables, leader age had a negative effect on
overall LMX that was mediated by perceived similarity. Leader education demonstrated
a negative effect on professional respect that was mediated by interactional justice. The
number of employees supervised by the leader a negative effect on loyalty as well as a
positive effect on affect, mediated by perceived similarity.
An examination of the incremental variance explained by the blocks of leader and
follower personal characteristics revealed that follower characteristics had a significant
effect on overall LMX and the affect and loyalty dimensions, as well as on interactional
justice. Leader characteristics, in turn, explained significant incremental variance in the
affect and professional respect dimensions as well as perceived similarity and
interactional justice.
186
These results are summarised in the figure below. Only the significant relationships are
marked. The signs are explained below the figure.
Figure 9: Follower personal characteristics and follower LMX, intracultural
Follower
extroversion
Follower overall
LMX*
Follower
neuroticism
LMX dimensions
Follower
conscientiousness
Affect*
Loyalty*
Follower
harmony
+
Contribution
+
+
Follower
cultural knowledge
+
Respect*
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
The significant effect demonstrated by follower personal characteristics as a group on
follower perceptions of LMX quality indicates, as in intercultural dyads, that an
individual’s propensity to trust and relate, and hence propensity to form high-quality
LMX relationships, is partly influenced by relatively stable characteristics (cf. Brower
et al., 2000).
The strong positive relation between follower cultural knowledge and LMX quality is
interesting to note. As a reminder, follower cultural knowledge entails general
international experience and training. Based on the literature review, it was
hypothesised that follower cultural knowledge would influence leader-follower relations
mainly by enabling the follower to make accurate (and positive) interpretations of the
culturally different dyadic partner (cf. Shaw, 1990). In the present context, where
different forms of acculturation may have affected all parties involved, cultural
knowledge was expected to be beneficial even in intracultural Chinese dyads. The
positive effect of follower cultural knowledge on follower leader-member exchange in
intracultural Chinese dyads could tentatively be explained by a rectification of the
overly positive stereotypification of Western leaders in favour of the Chinese leader.
187
The fact that none of the Western personality traits had a significant effect on LMX
quality is noteworthy. A tentative and partial explanation can be inferred from the
literature on individualism–collectivism. The behaviour of collectivists (the Chinese are
traditionally considered to be collectivist [cf. e.g. Hofstede & Bond, 1988]) as compared
to individualists has been described as being less dispositional and more situational or
contextual (Triandis, 1995). Furthermore, Church and Lonner (1998) note that previous
research has found that individuals in collectivist cultures appear to describe themselves
less in terms of traits and attribute behaviour less to internal traits. Due to the more
contextual nature of behaviour in collectivist cultures, Church and Lonner hypothesise
that the correlations, across different situational contexts, between personality trait
scores and behavioural measures will generally be lower and more variable in
collectivist cultures than in individualistic cultures. In this sense, the authors suggest
that individualism-collectivism could function as a metatrait, influencing the extent to
which behaviour of different individuals is traited or consistent across situations (e.g. in
in-groups versus out-groups). This discussion also implies that individualismcollectivism could moderate the relationship between personality traits and LMX
quality.
Figure 10: Leader personal characteristics and follower LMX, intracultural
Leader
extroversion
Leader
neuroticism
–m
+
–m
s
s
Leader
agreeableness
+
LMX dimensions
Affect*
Leader
conscientiousness
Loyalty
+
+
Leader
harmony
Follower overall
LMX
+
+
Leader
self-enhancement
+ ms
+ ms
Contribution
Respect*
Leader
cultural knowledge
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity
As in intercultural dyads, the importance of leader characteristics in explaining follower
leader-member exchange quality is confirmed, which is in accordance with previous
research (cf. Liden et al., 1997).
188
Theory (see Chapter 3) supports the positive relationships between leader agreeableness
and harmony and LMX. According to Yeung and Tung (1996) a Confucian expectation
is that those in positions of power and authority must assist the disadvantaged. This
perspective on the appropriate relationship between the strong and the weak could partly
explain why leader agreeableness is important for Chinese followers. The significant
positive effect of leader self-enhancement is also noteworthy. To recall, the selfenhancement facet comprises achievement or personal success through demonstrating
competence, as well as power, or social status and prestige and control or dominance
over people and resources (cf. Ralston, Yu, Wang, Terpstra, & He, 1996). The positive
effect of leader self-enhancement could be explained by an acceptance by Chinese
followers of leaders demonstrating personal power, as it could be considered as a part of
the leader’s role. As discussed earlier, according to Yeung and Tung (1996), under
Confucianism emphasis in personal relationships is placed on personal power, and an
individual (rather than institutional authority) defines what is permissible in a given
context at a particular time.
However, the figure indicates an unexpected negative effect of leader extroversion, and
a positive effect of leader neuroticism on follower perceptions of leader-member
exchange quality (this result differs from the ones obtained in intercultural dyads).
Extroversion may not be a personality trait associated with Chinese leadership, which
would explain the negative effect in intracultural Chinese dyads. The fact that leader
neuroticism had a positive effect on follower affect in intracultural Chinese dyads is
hard to explain. (A partial and highly speculative explanation would be that the negative
effect of leader neuroticism is diminished as long as the leader fulfils his or her role
requirements).
b) Interpersonal antecedents
Follower LMX hypothesis 14 predicting that the level of demographic similarity
between leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower
LMX received partial support as demographic differences demonstrated a negative
effect on the loyalty and contribution dimensions, the latter being mediated by perceived
similarity. Furthermore, gender differences had a negative impact on perceived
similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 15 predicting that the level of personality similarity between
leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX was
not supported, as personality differences had a positive effect on affect and professional
respect, which in both cases was mediated by perceived similarity.
Follower LMX hypothesis 16 predicted that a high level of similarity between leader
and follower in Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on follower LMX
quality and all its dimensions. This hypothesis was not supported. However, differences
in Interpersonal relatedness demonstrated a negative effect on interactional justice.
Follower LMX hypothesis 17 predicting that a high level of similarity in individualism
and collectivism between leader and follower will be positively related to all
dimensions of follower LMX received partial support. Differences in individualism had
189
a significant negative effect on overall LMX and all dimensions except for affect.
Differences in collectivism influenced the contribution dimension positively.
Follower LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that follower perceptions of similarity with
leader will be positively related to all the dimensions of follower LMX, and that
perceived similarity will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural
knowledge and all the dimensions of follower LMX. The hypothesised direct
relationship between perceived similarity and LMX gained very strong support, as
perceived similarity was found to influence overall LMX and all the LMX dimension,
affect and professional respect being strongly mediated by interactional justice.
Length of interaction is a control variable that demonstrated a significant negative effect
on overall LMX, affect and loyalty. Interaction intensity had a positive effect on overall
LMX, affect, contribution, and especially respect.
The interpersonal variables as a group, excluding perceived similarity, explained
significant additional variance in all dimensions but the contribution dimension.
Perceived similarity explained the most significant part of incremental variance in
overall LMX, affect, contribution as well as some variance in professional respect and
loyalty.
Figure 11: Interpersonal antecedents and follower LMX, intracultural
Demographic
differences
+ ms
s
–m
Personality
differences
–
Follower overall
LMX*
+
s
m
+
Perceived
similarity1
LMX dimensions
+ mj
+
Differences
in interpersonal
relatedness
–
Differences
in individualism
+m +
j
Affect*
Loyalty*
– –
–
+
Differences
in collectivism
Contribution
Respect*
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity, mj = mediated by
interactional justice
190
The figure above has some similarities with the one obtained for intercultural dyads.
First, perceived similarity is an important antecedent to leader-member exchange, which
is a finding strongly supported by theory and past research (e.g. Engle & Lord, 1997;
Tsui et al., 1996). Second, demographic differences demonstrate an expected negative
effect. This finding, as well as the one that leader-member exchange quality is
negatively influenced by differences in individualism, in line with previous research
conducted within the field of relational demography (e.g. Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) as well
as studies linking leader-member exchange quality with leader-follower attitudinal
similarity (e.g. Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). Third, differences in collectivism and
personality differences have a non-expected positive effect in both dyad types. As
discussed earlier in the case of intercultural dyads, differences in values and personality
may not demonstrate a negative effect due to followers expecting leaders to have
different personality traits and characteristics than the ones they possess themselves (cf.
Tsui et al., 1996). This could especially be the case in China due to differing role
requirements (cf. e.g. Hui & Graen, 1997) as well as a traditional respect for authority
(cf. Yeung & Tung, 1996).
Some additional explanations regarding the positive effect of personality differences can
be gained from studies examining diversity in work teams. A study conducted by
Neuman et al. (1999) suggests that the average level of a team in agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and openness to experience predicts performance whereas
differences in extroversion and neuroticism leads to better performance (this pattern is
likely to vary according to the characteristics of the task). The explanation offered by
Neuman and colleagues for the fact that diversity in extroversion could lead to better
performance is that extroverts tend to fill the role of being outgoing and leading, and if
extroverts are put to work together this could lead to power struggles and conflict. This
finding also has implications for LMX: extroversion could be an important trait for the
leader to possess, but not so important for the follower (this could especially be the case
in Chinese dyads where the leader traditionally occupies a very authoritarian role [cf.
Yeung & Tung, 1996]). (The finding that diversity in neuroticism affected team
performance was not predicted by Neuman and colleagues and no specific explanations
for this relationship were given). In sum, similarity and compatibility between the actors
could have a favourable effect by facilitating communication between the actors and the
motivation to work together. Personality diversity could again have a positive effect if
the unique attributes of each follower are necessary for the team (or dyad) to function
well.
The significance demonstrated by differences in individualism and collectivism in
explaining leader-member exchange provides support for the results obtained by Lam,
Chen and Schaubroeck (forthcoming), suggesting that individualism and collectivism
measured on an individual level are powerful individual differences that significantly
influence behaviour irrespective of societal boundaries. Additionally, the fact that
differences in individualism versus collectivism did not demonstrate the same effect
provides support for the suggestion made by Triandis et al. (1988) that individualism
and collectivism may be better viewed as independent continua and not as the opposite
ends of one continuum.
191
Follower LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that perceived similarity will mediate the
relationship between actual similarity, cultural knowledge and all the dimensions of
follower LMX. This hypothesis was partially supported, as perceived similarity almost
fully mediated the relationship between demographic differences (negative effect) and
contribution, and the positive effect of personality differences on both affect and
professional respect.
The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for which specific
hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships are presented
merely as additional information and will not be discussed.
Figure 12: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on follower LMX,
intracultural
Follower
extroversion
Demographic
differences
–
Follower overall
LMX*
–
LMX dimensions
Personality
differences
Leader
extroversion
+
+
–
Leader
self-enhancement
Affect*
Perceived
similarity1
–
+
Loyalty
+
+
Contribution*
Respect*
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
It was hypothesised that perceived similarity is partly an outcome of actual similarity,
which explains the negative effect of demographic differences on perceived similarity.
However, the positive effect of personality differences on perceived similarity is more
difficult to explain. As noted earlier, Church and Lonner (1998) suggest that the
correlations between personality trait scores and behavioural measures will generally be
lower and more variable in collectivist cultures (such as China) than in individualistic
cultures due to the more contextual nature of behaviour in collectivist cultures.
192
c) Behavioural antecedents
Follower LMX hypothesis 19 predicting that follower perceptions of interactional
justice will be positively related to all dimensions of follower LMX gained support as
interactional justice demonstrated a significant effect on overall LMX and the affect and
professional respect dimensions (the correlations with the remaining loyalty and
contribution dimensions were significant and positive). Interactional justice also
explained significant additional variance in overall LMX, and the affect and
professional respect dimensions.
Follower LMX hypothesis 20 predicted that overall leader LMX will be positively
related to all dimensions of follower LMX, and that interactional justice will mediate
this relationship. This hypothesis was supported, as leader LMX had a positive effect on
overall LMX and the affect dimension, the latter mediated by interactional justice.
The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for which specific
hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships are presented
merely as additional information and will not be discussed.
Figure 13: The mediating effect of interactional justice on follower LMX,
intracultural
Leader LMX
+
Follower overall
LMX*
Follower
conscientiousness
Perceived
similarity
Leader
harmony
+
LMX dimensions
+
+
Affect*
+
+
+
Interactional
justice1
Loyalty
+
+
Leader
self-enhancement
Contribution
+
Respect*
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
As in intercultural dyads, interactional justice is significantly related to follower leadermember exchange and there is a close relationship between interactional justice and
193
perceived similarity. These findings support the propositions made by Scandura (1999)
and the findings obtained by Murphy et al. (2003).
These findings also support the hypothesis that leader LMX quality and follower LMX
quality are linked. As predicted, it seems that positive leader perceptions in terms of
LMX quality will increase the fairness of treatment provided by leader. This fairness
(i.e. interactional justice) in turn has a positive influence on follower leader-member
exchange quality. To recall the discussion in Chapter 2, Confucianism encourages
reciprocation, where a person must repay favours and increase the value of the favour
given (Yeung and Tung, 1996). Chinese leaders may hence reciprocate for the affect,
loyalty, contribution and respect they perceive their followers to provide them with in
terms of fair treatment. It is noteworthy that this effect was not demonstrated in
intercultural dyads. Maybe the Western leaders are not as prone to reciprocate for highquality relationships in terms of actual behaviour?
d) Summary
The results pertaining to follower LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads presented above
show, as in the case of intercultural dyads, that the different dimensions of LMX are
partly affected by the same variables, but that the relative weight of different variables
differs across dimensions.
Beginning with the affect dimension, it can be noted that a very significant part of
variance in the dimension is explained by perceived similarity, leader characteristics and
interactional justice. Follower characteristics and interpersonal variables account for a
somewhat less significant added variance. Regarding loyalty, significant variance is
explained by follower characteristics and interpersonal variables as well as perceived
similarity. The only significant part of variance in the contribution dimension is
explained by perceived similarity. Concerning professional respect, significant variance
is explained by perceived similarity, interactional justice, and leader characteristics as
well as less significantly by follower characteristics. In turn, regarding overall LMX, the
most significant part of variance is explained by perceived similarity, followed by
interactional justice and follower characteristics and lastly interpersonal variables and
leader LMX.
The results indicate that the contribution dimension, in which a significant part of
variance is only explained by perceived similarity, stands apart from the other
dimensions. As such, this finding is not so surprising as all items pertaining to the other
dimensions concern follower perceptions of the leader whereas the contribution items
concern follower perceptions of their own contribution. The low adjusted R2 and
insignificant F value obtained suggest that a better model for the contribution dimension
should be developed. The loyalty dimension also obtained lower R2 and F values than
the other dimensions. In addition to contribution, loyalty is the other dimension not
significantly influenced by justice. The antecedents of the contribution and loyalty
dimensions are similar also in the sense that these are the two dimensions not
significantly influenced by leader characteristics. What distinguishes the affect and
professional respect dimensions from the other dimensions is the fact that the effect of
194
the majority of the hypothesised antecedents and control variables is mediated either by
perceived similarity or interactional justice.
In sum, the results pertaining to follower LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads show that
some of the hypothesised antecedents do not demonstrate a significant effect on any
dimension. These include: follower extroversion, follower neuroticism, follower
conscientiousness, leader conscientiousness, leader cultural knowledge, and differences
in Interpersonal relatedness.
6.3.3 Comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads
The results indicate that intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads have many
common features with regard to antecedents of LMX quality, but also specific
characteristics that distinguish them from each other. However, it should be noted that
the results obtained for intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads are not directly
comparable with respect to leader perceptions as the perceptual measures used for
Chinese and Western leaders did not demonstrate cross-cultural equivalence. In this
case, leader LMX is the only perceptual variable measured from the leader perspective.
What intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads have in common is the central role
played by perceived similarity in determining the quality of follower LMX. In general,
it seems that both in Chinese and intercultural dyads, the blocks of antecedents can be
ordered in the following order of importance according to the incremental variance
explained by them: 1) perceived similarity, 2) interactional justice, 3) follower
characteristics, 4) leader characteristics, and 5) interpersonal characteristics.
More specific common features within each group of variables include:
a) Follower conscientiousness and extroversion demonstrate a positive effect;
b) Follower harmony is positively related to LMX quality. (The fact that follower
harmony has a positive relationship with LMX quality in both intercultural and
intracultural Chinese dyads indicates that the Interpersonal relatedness factor of the
CPAI, of which harmony is a subfacet, is important in understanding not only
Chinese leader-member exchange relationships but also Western leader-member
exchange relationships as suggested by Cheung and Leung [1998]);
c) Leader self-enhancement has a positive effect (very strong in intracultural Chinese
dyads, but it only affects similarity and overall LMX in intercultural dyads. This
could be explained by the Confucian emphasis on personal power [Yeung and Tung,
1996]. The self-enhancement facet comprises power, or social status and prestige
and control or dominance over people and resources [cf. Ralston, Yu, Wang,
Terpstra, & He, 1996], which Chinese followers could consider as a part of the
leader’s role);
d) Leader agreeableness has a positive effect (according to Yeung and Tung [1996] a
Confucian expectation is that those in positions of power and authority must assist
the disadvantaged. This perspective on the appropriate relationship between the
195
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
strong and the weak explains, in part, why leader agreeableness is important for
Chinese followers);
Leader cultural knowledge has no effect. (Leader cultural knowledge did not
influence follower perceptions of leader-member exchange quality in any dyad type.
It was expected that cultural knowledge would influence leader-follower relations by
enabling the individual to adjust his or her behaviour in accordance with the
perceived expectations of the dyadic partner [cf. Thomas and Toyne, 1995]. It is
possible that behaving according to stereotypical expectations has more positive
effect than adjusting behaviour to suit the local standards);
Personality differences have a positive effect in both dyad types (the effect is
mediated by similarity in Chinese, justice in intercultural dyads);
Differences in collectivism has a positive effect in both dyad types, especially on
contribution (also on affect in intercultural dyads) (Differences in values and
personality may not demonstrate a negative effect due to followers expecting leaders
to have different personality traits and characteristics than the ones they possess
themselves [cf. Tsui et al., 1996]. Furthermore, diversity could have a positive effect
if the unique attributes of each follower are necessary for the dyad to function well
[cf. Neuman et al., 1999]);
Demographic differences demonstrate a negative effect (on loyalty and contribution
in Chinese, affect in intercultural dyads);
In both dyad types, perceived similarity influences the loyalty dimension less than
the other dimensions;
Interactional justice is a significant variable in both dyads types, playing a lesser
role with respect to the loyalty and contribution dimensions than the other
dimensions;
Perceived similarity and interactional justice are important mediators.
However, the comparison of intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads also indicates
that follower LMX quality in these dyads is partly influenced by different factors and
that some factors have the opposite effect in intercultural as compared to intracultural
Chinese dyads. For instance, follower characteristics do not explain variance in
contribution in intracultural Chinese dyads, whereas in intercultural dyads, follower
characteristics do not explain variance in loyalty and respect. Leader characteristics
explain variance in affect and respect in intracultural Chinese dyads, but loyalty and
contribution in intracultural Chinese dyads. Furthermore, interpersonal variables
(excluding similarity) explain variance in most LMX dimensions in intracultural
Chinese dyads but not in intercultural dyads. The perceptions regarding leader-member
exchange quality of followers who work with Western leaders is hence more directly
influenced by leader characteristics while the level of actual similarity is more important
for those who work with Chinese leaders.
Some differences detected between intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads at the
variable level include:
a) Both follower and especially leader neuroticism has a negative effect in intercultural
dyads, but a less predominant and positive effect in intracultural Chinese dyads.
Both leader and follower neuroticism has a positive effect on affect in intracultural
196
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Chinese dyads, whereas follower neuroticism has a negative effect on professional
respect;
In intracultural Chinese dyads, follower cultural knowledge has a positive effect on
overall LMX, affect and loyalty, whereas in intercultural dyads follower cultural
knowledge has a negative effect on overall LMX and loyalty and a positive effect on
contribution;
Leader extroversion has negative effect in intracultural Chinese dyads (on affect and
respect, mediated by similarity) but a positive effect in intercultural dyads (on
overall LMX, loyalty);
Leader harmony has a significant positive effect in Chinese, but not in intercultural
dyads;
In intracultural Chinese dyads, the effect of perceived similarity is often mediated
by interactional justice, indicating a slightly lesser role of perceived similarity in
Chinese as compared to intercultural dyads;
The leader’s perceptions of overall LMX influences follower overall LMX, justice
and affect in intracultural Chinese dyads, but not in intercultural dyads;
Length of interaction is a control variable that has a strong negative effect in
intracultural Chinese dyads, but a non-significant or positive effect (on justice,
contribution mediated by justice) in intercultural dyads;
Interaction intensity is a control variable that has a strong positive effect in
intracultural Chinese dyads, but is non-significant in intercultural dyads;
Demographic factors play a larger role in Chinese than in intercultural dyads;
The number of subordinates is a control variable that is negative for loyalty in
Chinese, positive in intercultural dyads.
One major finding of the present study is that the effect of certain leader personal
characteristics on follower perceptions of leader-member exchange quality is dependent
upon whether the leader is Western or Chinese; the same characteristics are not always
valued in Western and Chinese leaders. In the present study, examples of such leader
characteristics are extroversion and neuroticism, which demonstrated an opposite effect
across dyad types. Thomas and Toyne (1995) suggest that follower reactions to a leader
representing a different country may be affected by the extent to which the manager’s
behaviour matches the expectations and stereotypes of the follower. High extroversion
and low agreeableness have been categorised as typical leader characteristic in Western
conceptualisations (see e.g. Costa and McCrae, 1992). This means that if the stereotype
of the Western leader is extroverted, leader extroversion is likely have a positive
influence on leader-member exchange quality in intercultural dyads. However,
extroversion may not be a personality trait associated with Chinese leadership, which
would lead to a different effect in intracultural Chinese dyads. The only leader
characteristics that had a consistent effect across dyads types were leader agreeableness
and self-enhancement, which both had a positive effect in both intercultural WesternChinese and intracultural Chinese dyads. In intercultural dyads, leader extroversion had
a strong positive effect and neuroticism a strong negative effect on follower leadermember exchange quality. Leader agreeableness and self-enhancement also had a
positive influence and leader conscientiousness a negative effect. These characteristics
may be congruent with the follower expectations of a Western manager. In intracultural
Chinese dyads, leader-self-enhancement had a very strong positive effect as well as
harmony. Leader extroversion had a significant negative effect. In addition leader
197
neuroticism and agreeableness had positive effect on follower perceptions of leadermember exchange quality. However, these findings must be interpreted with caution as
the Chinese and Western leader measures did not demonstrate cross-cultural
equivalence, which makes direct comparisons between Western and Chinese leaders
impossible.
198
6.4 ANTECEDENTS OF LEADER LMX
As for followers, a total of 20 hypotheses concerning the effect of various personal,
interpersonal and behavioural antecedents on leader LMX quality have been developed
in the present study (see p. 94 for the list of hypotheses). The 13 first hypotheses link
various personal leader and follower characteristics, including personality, values and
cultural knowledge to leader LMX quality. Hypotheses 14–18 concern so-called
interpersonal antecedents of LMX including actual and perceived similarity. Hypothesis
19 links behaviours to LMX, predicting that high follower inrole performance will have
a favourable impact on follower LMX quality. Finally, Hypothesis 20 predicts a
positive relationship between leader and follower LMX and a mediating role of the
behavioural performance factor. These hypotheses are expected to be relevant both in
intercultural and intracultural dyads. With the exception of a different behavioural
variable, the leader LMX hypotheses mirror the follower LMX hypotheses. The
hypotheses concerning leader LMX were analysed using the same procedures as
follower LMX, i.e. using a hierarchical regression approach combined with backward
deletion while paying attention to likely multicollinearity problems (see p.173 for a
more detailed description of the procedures adopted). As for follower LMX,
intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads will be discussed separately beginning
with intercultural dyads.
6.4.1 Intercultural dyads
Below, the results concerning leader LMX in intercultural dyads are presented. As in
the previous sections concerning follower LMX, the results have been grouped under
the headings a) personal antecedents, b) interpersonal antecedents, and c) behavioural
antecedents. These results are summarised on a dimension level in section d). After
presenting the results in conjunction with the hypotheses, the results are illustrated in
each subsection in the form of figures, followed by a discussion of the results. As in the
case of follower LMX, the emphasis in the discussion is on unexpected results and
antecedents that influence multiple dimensions of LMX as the theoretical background
for the remaining supported hypotheses can already be found in Chapter 3 where the
hypotheses are developed. More specific regression results including beta weights and
levels of significance are reported in tables in Appendix 5 on p. 353.
a) Personal antecedents
Leader LMX hypothesis 1 predicting that leader extroversion will be positively related
all dimensions of leader LMX was not supported. Leader extroversion had a positive
impact on leader perceived similarity.
Leader LMX hypothesis 2 predicting that follower extroversion will be positively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard to the contribution
dimension (and perceived similarity).
199
Leader LMX hypothesis 3 predicting that leader neuroticism will be negatively related
to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard to overall LMX and all the
dimensions with the exception of affect. Leader neuroticism also had a negative impact
on inrole performance. Follower inrole performance was a mediator with regard to the
loyalty and respect dimensions. Perceived similarity was a mediator with regard to the
respect dimension.
Leader LMX hypothesis 4 predicting that follower neuroticism will be negatively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX was not supported.
Leader LMX hypothesis 5 predicting that follower agreeableness will be positively
related to the affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of leader LMX was not
supported. Follower agreeableness had a positive impact on leader perceptions of inrole
performance.
Leader LMX hypothesis 6 predicting that leader conscientiousness will be positively
related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX was not
supported. Leader conscientiousness had a positive impact on leader perceived
similarity and correlated with contribution.
Leader LMX hypothesis 7 predicting that follower conscientiousness will be positively
related to the loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX
was not supported.
Leader LMX hypothesis 8 predicting that leader harmony will be positively related all
dimensions of leader LMX was not supported, as leader harmony had a negative impact
on contribution.
Leader LMX hypothesis 9 predicting that follower harmony will be positively related to
all dimensions of leader LMX was not supported.
Leader LMX hypothesis 10 predicting that high follower self-enhancement values will
be negatively related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of leader LMX was supported
with regard to the affect dimension (mediated by perceived similarity). Follower selfenhancement also had a negative effect on inrole performance.
Leader LMX hypothesis 11 predicting that high follower self-enhancement values will
be will be positively related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of
leader was not supported.
Leader LMX hypothesis 12 predicting that leader cultural knowledge will be positively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard to overall LMX and
the loyalty and contribution dimensions.
Leader LMX hypothesis 13 predicting that follower cultural knowledge will be
positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard to overall
LMX.
200
Leader characteristics, as a group, explained significant variance in overall LMX,
loyalty and contribution as well as in similarity and inrole performance. Follower
characteristics did not explain statistically significant incremental variance.
These results are summarised in the figure below. Only the significant relationships are
marked. The signs are explained below the figure.
Figure 14: Follower personal characteristics and leader LMX, intercultural
Follower
extroversion
Follower
neuroticism
+
Follower
agreeableness
Leader overall
LMX
LMX dimensions
Affect
Follower
conscientiousness
Loyalty
Follower
harmony
s
-m
Follower
self-enhancement
+
Follower
cultural knowledge
Contribution
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity
The significant effects of follower extroversion, self-enhancement and cultural
knowledge on LMX quality in intercultural dyads are in accordance with the
hypotheses.
However, the insignificant effect of follower characteristics as a group on LMX quality
is unexpected. It was hypothesised that follower characteristics influence the leader’s
perceptions and evaluations of the follower, which in turn determine the dyadic
partners’ behaviour towards each other (cf. Liden et al., 1997) as well as leader-member
exchange quality (cf. Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). One highly tentative explanation for
this is that the Chinese followers’ personalities and values may not be expressed in
specific behaviours towards the leader. As mentioned earlier, Church and Lonner (1998)
note that individuals in collectivist cultures appear to attribute behaviour less to internal
traits partly due to the more contextual nature of behaviour in collectivist cultures. The
importance given to contextual factors in collectivist countries is consistent with the
interdependent view of the person: the origins of behaviour, although biologically
201
afforded and constrained, are located in being actively responsive to the expectations
and requirements of others who are in the family, the work group, or in society at large
(Markus & Kitayama, 1998). This makes roles, statuses, and in-group membership
important (e.g. Gabrenya and Hwang, 1996). Gao et al. (1996) argue that it is the
prescribed role of an individual, not the self, which is the main determinant of
behaviour in China. In the interdependent cultural framework, the fact that one takes on
a particular social role or a certain social position within the family or group does not
mean that the person has lost his or her individuality. Markus and Kitayama argue that
there can be many different patterns of behaviour within the framework defined by the
social position the person engages. The acknowledgement of individuality is, however,
tied with the recognition that the person is also a social being that is made meaningful
within a larger social context. Personalities result as people engage in particular roles
with specific other people. Markus and Kitayama (1998) argue that personalities in
Asian cultural contexts may include both aspects of social roles and those of
personalities as traditionally and typically conceived in the European American social
sciences literature.
In sum, it is possible that the Chinese followers’ behaviours may reflect their role
obligations more than their personalities, or at least that personality is not such a strong
determinant of behaviour as in the West. Furthermore, the Chinese followers may not
express their personalities and values in a way that conforms to Western norms and the
expectations of the Western expatriate leaders, which could reduce the effect of
follower personality and values even further.
Figure 15: Leader personal characteristics and leader LMX, intercultural
Leader
extroversion
–
Leader
neuroticism
–m
p
–
–m
Leader
conscientiousness
Leader overall
LMX*
LMX dimensions
Affect
sp
Loyalty*
Leader
harmony
–
Leader
cultural knowledge
Contribution*
+
+
+
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity,
mp = mediated by inrole performance
202
These results indicate that leader LMX in intercultural dyads is more influenced by
dispositional leader characterisitcs than by follower characteristics. As in the case of
follower LMX quality, this finding is in line with the suggestions made by Uhl-Bien et
al. (2000) and Brower et al. (2000) that relatively stable characteristics dispose the
interacting individuals to approach interpersonal situations in a certain way.
The negative effect of leader neuroticism on multiple dimensions of LMX is supported
by theory. To summarise the discussion in Chapter 3, previous research has indicated
that emotionally unstable (or neurotic) individuals experience chronic negative
emotions (Judge et al., 1999) and neuroticism has been found to be related to negative
affect (Duffy et al., 1998). Hui et al. (1999) argue that if a person tends to view life
negatively, this person may be less likely to build effective work relationships (highquality leader-member exchange relationships) with others. This would explain the
negative influence of leader neuroticism on various leader perceptions of their
followers, including follower performance and perceptions of similarity that mediates
some of the relationships between leader neuroticism and LMX.
The positive effect of leader cultural knowledge on multiple dimensions of LMX is also
in accordance with the hypotheses. Shaw (1990) argues that more complex and accurate
cognitive schemata usually exist for well-known objects and persons than for less wellknown objects and persons. It was expected that a leader who has worked with
employees of different nationalities in several multinational firms, has travelled
extensively, and/or has been educated abroad and received cross-cultural training might
have more positive follower schemata than a leader who posses less cultural knowledge.
The schemata of the less experienced employee are likely to be more simple and
stereotypical regarding foreign colleagues, and they could also be more negative.
The negative influence of leader harmony on leader perceptions of follower contribution
was not expected. Harmony, measured with items such as “It is a virtue to tolerate
everything” and “I always try hard to get along well with others” is related to conflict
avoidance. Harmonious leaders could hence be less demanding. It is possible that
harmony does not induce respect in Chinese followers, who could be inclined to
contribute less. This interpretation is supported by the hierarchical structure of
interpersonal relationships in China, which is reflected as an acceptance of authority
(cf. Yeung & Tung, 1996). This explanation is very tentative, however, as recent studies
have suggested that authoritarian leadership may not be well received among young and
well-educated Chinese employees (Farh & Cheng, 2000) who are well represented in
the present context.
b) Interpersonal antecedents
Leader LMX hypothesis 14 predicting that the level of demographic similarity between
leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was
supported with regard to the contribution dimension. Age differences also had a
negative impact on professional respect, and this relationship was mediated by
perceived similarity.
203
Leader LMX hypothesis 15 predicting that the level of personality similarity between
leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was
supported, as personality differences had negative influence on overall LMX (mediated
by inrole performance) and affect and professional respect (mediated by perceived
similarity).
Leader LMX hypothesis 16 predicting that a high level of similarity between leader and
follower in Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on leader LMX quality
and all its dimensions was not supported although a negative effect on perceived
similarity was demonstrated.
Leader LMX hypothesis 17 predicting that a high level of similarity in individualism
and collectivism between leader and follower will be positively related all dimensions
of leader LMX was not supported: differences in both individualism and collectivism
had a positive impact on affect (and a negative impact on perceived similarity).
Leader LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that leader perceptions of similarity with follower
will be positively related to all the dimensions of leader LMX, and that perceived
similarity will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural knowledge,
and all the dimensions of leader. Perceived similarity had a strong positive impact on
overall LMX and all the dimensions, with the exception of loyalty (although the
correlation was positive and significant).
The interpersonal variables as a group, excluding perceived similarity, explained
significant additional variance in overall LMX and the loyalty dimension. Perceived
similarity explained significant incremental variance in overall LMX, affect and
professional respect.
204
Figure 16: Interpersonal antecedents and leader LMX, intercultural
– mp
–m
s
+
Perceived
similarity1
Leader overall
LMX*
s
–m
Personality
differences
–
s
–m
Demographic
differences
LMX dimensions
+
+
+
Differences
in interpersonal
relatedness
+
Differences
in individualism
+
Differences
in collectivism
Affect
Loyalty*
Contribution
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity,
mp = mediated by inrole performance
These results indicate that expatriate leaders’ perceptions of their followers in terms of
LMX quality is strongly influenced by similarity between leader and follower (whereas
follower characteristics as such are not of great importance). Perceptions of similarity,
in this case as hypothesised negatively influenced by differences in personality and
demographic characteristics, arguably lead an individual to identify with the other
dyadic member, enhances attraction and leads to a sense of predictability and
confidence regarding the other individual’s likely behaviour in the future (e.g. Tsui, Xin
& Egan, 1996).
However, the positive influence of differences in collectivism and individualism was
unexpected. As individualism and collectivism are variables frequently used to study
cultural differences (e.g. Kagitcibasi, 1997) and as the Eastern and Western regions
have been found to have very different cultural profiles (e.g. Hofstede and Bond, 1988),
it is possible that the leaders expected there to be differences between them and their
followers on these dimensions. These expected differences could have a more positive
effect than unexpected differences.
Leader LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that leader perceptions of similarity with follower
will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural knowledge, and all the
dimensions of leader LMX. This hypothesis was supported with regard to the
relationship between personality differences (negative effect) and both affect and
205
professional respect, and demographic differences (negative effect) and both
contribution and respect.
The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for which specific
hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships are presented
merely as additional information and will not be discussed.
Figure 17: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on leader LMX,
intercultural
Follower selfenhancement
Personality
differences
–
Leader overall
LMX*
–
LMX dimensions
–
Affect*
Demographic
differences
Leader
neuroticism
Perceived
similarity
–
a–
–
Loyalty
Contribution
Respect*
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
These findings support the argument that perceptions of similarity partly are an outcome
of actual similarity. To recall, the similarity-attraction paradigm assumes that
individuals who possess similar individual characteristics and attitudes will perceive
one another as similar and will be attracted to each other (cf. Byrne, 1971, as cited in
Wayne & Liden, 1995).
c) Behavioural antecedents
Leader LMX hypothesis 19 predicting that follower inrole performance will be
positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with respect to
overall LMX and all dimensions (when inrole performance was measured from a leader
perspective) with the exception of, surprisingly, contribution (the correlation was,
however, significant and positive). Follower performance (including both leader and
206
follower perceptions) explained statistically significant incremental variance only in the
affect dimension.
Leader LMX hypothesis 20 predicted that overall follower LMX will be positively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX, and that follower performance will mediate
this relationship. This hypothesis was supported with respect to overall leader LMX and
the professional respect dimension. However, follower LMX did not explain
statistically significant incremental variance in any of the dimensions. Inrole
performance almost fully mediated the relationship between follower LMX and overall
leader LMX.
The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for which specific
hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships are presented
merely as additional information and will not be discussed.
Figure 18: The mediating effect of follower inrole performance on leader LMX,
intercultural
Leader
neuroticism
Personality
differences
Perceived
similarity
–
–
+
LMX dimensions
+
Follower
inrole
performance
Affect*
Loyalty
+
Follower LMX
Leader overall
LMX
–
Contribution
Respect
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
The significant direct and mediating effect demonstrated by follower inrole performance
on leader LMX quality is in line with the early conceptualisations of leader-member
exchange development as well as the role-making model (Graen & Scandura, 1987),
which suggested that the leaders assess the followers’ ability, performance and
competence through a series of assignments and eventually develop high-quality
exchanges with high-ability, competent, and high-performing followers.
207
These findings also support the hypothesis that leader LMX quality and follower LMX
quality are linked. It was predicted that follower perceptions of leader-member
exchange quality would induce better follower performance that in turn would lead to
higher leader perceptions of leader-member exchange quality. As noted earlier in
Chapter 2, the Confucian encouragement of reciprocation (Yeung and Tung, 1996) may
increase this effect. Chinese followers may reciprocate for the affect, loyalty, and
respect they perceive their leaders to provide them with in terms of increased
performance.
d) Summary
The results pertaining to leader LMX in intercultural dyads (i.e. Western leader LMX)
presented above show that the relative weight of different variables differs significantly
across dimensions.
Beginning with the affect dimension, it can be noted that a very significant part of
variance in the dimension is explained by perceived similarity and that follower inrole
performance has an additional significant effect. The remaining blocks of variables did
not add variance for affect. Regarding loyalty, significant variance is explained foremost
by leader characteristics and to a lesser extent by the block of interpersonal variables
(excluding perceived similarity). The only significant part of variance in the
contribution dimension is explained by leader characteristics, and the final model
resulted in low adjusted R2 and non-significant F values. Concerning professional
respect, significant variance is explained only by perceived similarity. In turn, regarding
overall LMX, the most significant part of variance is explained by perceived similarity,
followed by leader characteristics and interpersonal variables.
The results indicate that the affect and professional respect dimensions are influenced
by the same type of factors, as both are very significantly influenced by perceived
similarity or factors that are mediated by perceived similarity. These two dimensions are
also the only dimensions in which a significant part of variance is not explained by
leader characteristics. The loyalty dimension, in turn, is very strongly influenced by
leader characteristics and partly by interpersonal characteristics, but not at all by the
perceptual factors (i.e. perceived similarity and inrole performance). The contribution
dimension stands apart as it is only moderately influenced by leader characteristics but
not by the other groups of variables. In sum, there are significant differences across
dimensions.
Furthermore, these results show that some of the hypothesised antecedents do not
demonstrate a significant effect on any dimension. These include: leader extroversion,
follower neuroticism, follower conscientiousness, leader conscientiousness, follower
harmony, and differences in Interpersonal relatedness.
208
6.4.2 Intracultural Chinese dyads
Below, the results concerning leader LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads (i.e. Chinese
leader LMX) are summarised and presented in conjunction with the hypotheses. As
before, the hypotheses and related results have been grouped under the headings a)
personal antecedents, b) interpersonal antecedents, and c) behavioural antecedents.
These results are summarised on a dimension level in section d). After presenting the
results in conjunction with the hypotheses, the results are illustrated in each subsection
in the form of figures, followed by a discussion of the results. As before, the emphasis
in the discussion is on unexpected results and antecedents that influence multiple
dimensions of LMX as the theoretical background for the remaining supported
hypotheses can already be found in Chapter 3. The more specific regression results
including beta weights and levels of significance are reported in tables in Appendix 5 on
p. 361.
a) Personal antecedents
Leader LMX hypothesis 1 predicting that leader extroversion will be positively related
all dimensions of leader LMX was not supported.
Leader LMX hypothesis 2 predicting that follower extroversion will be positively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard to overall LMX and
the affect dimension.
Leader LMX hypothesis 3 predicting that leader neuroticism will be negatively related
to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard overall LMX and all
dimensions with the exception of affect. Leader neuroticism also had a negative impact
on inrole performance. Follower inrole performance was a mediator with regard to the
respect dimension. Perceived similarity was also a mediator with regard to the respect
dimension.
Leader LMX hypothesis 4 predicting that follower neuroticism will be negatively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX was not supported.
Leader LMX hypothesis 5 predicting that follower agreeableness will be positively
related to the affect, loyalty and contribution dimensions of leader LMX was supported
with regard to overall LMX and affect. Follower agreeableness also had a positive
impact on leader perceived similarity.
Leader LMX hypothesis 6 predicting that leader conscientiousness will be positively
related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX was not
supported. Leader conscientiousness had a positive impact on leader perceived
similarity and correlated with contribution.
Leader LMX hypothesis 7 predicting that follower conscientiousness will be positively
related to the loyalty, contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader LMX
was not supported.
209
Leader LMX hypothesis 8 predicting that leader harmony will be positively related all
dimensions of leader LMX was not supported.
Leader LMX hypothesis 9 predicting that follower harmony will be positively related to
all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard to the contribution and respect
dimensions.
Leader LMX hypothesis 10 predicting that high follower self-enhancement values will
be negatively related to the affect and loyalty dimensions of leader LMX was supported.
Follower self-enhancement also had a negative effect on inrole performance.
Leader LMX hypothesis 11 predicting that high follower self-enhancement values will
be positively related to the contribution and professional respect dimensions of leader
LMX was not supported. Self-enhancement had a negative effect on the contribution
dimension (mediated by inrole performance).
Leader LMX hypothesis 12 predicting that leader cultural knowledge will be positively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX was not supported. Leader cultural knowledge
had a negative effect on the affect dimension (mediated by similarity and inrole
performance) as well as a negative effect on perceived similarity.
Leader LMX hypothesis 13 predicting that follower cultural knowledge will be
positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported with regard to
professional respect but it had a negative impact on loyalty and contribution.
Leader characteristics, as a group, explained significant variance in overall LMX, affect,
loyalty and contribution. Follower characteristics explained statistically significant
incremental variance in loyalty and contribution.
These results are summarised in the figure below. Only the significant relationships are
marked. The signs are explained below the figure.
210
Figure 19: Follower personal characteristics and leader LMX, intracultural
Follower
extroversion
+
+
Follower
neuroticism
Follower
agreeableness
Leader overall
LMX
+
+
LMX dimensions
Affect
Follower
conscientiousness
Loyalty*
+
+
–
Follower
self-enhancement
Contribution*
–
- mp
Follower
cultural knowledge
–
–
+
Follower
harmony
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, mp = mediated by inrole performance
The significant effect of follower characteristics as a group on LMX quality indicate
that follower characteristics, as hypothesised, influence the leader’s perceptions and
evaluations of the follower, which in turn determine leader-member exchange quality
(cf. Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). Follower characteristics are hence more important
determinants of the Chinese leaders’ perceptions than of the Western expatriate leaders’
perceptions. This could be due to the fact that the Chinese followers’ personalities and
values may be more discernible to the Chinese leaders than to the Western leaders.
The significant effect of follower extroversion, agreeableness, and harmony was in
accordance with the hypotheses. The strong negative effect of self-enhancement on
affect and loyalty was expected, although the negative relationship with the contribution
dimension was not as hypothesised. The self-enhancement facet of individualism could
have a negative influence on leader-member exchange as it identifies the degree to
which individuals promote self-interest and personal gain, even when doing so may
have negative repercussions for others (Ralston, Yu, Wang, Terpstra, & He, 1996). As
noted in Chapter 3, follower self-enhancement could be especially negative as a
follower characteristic in intracultural Chinese dyads. As an examlpe, Gao et al. (1996)
argue that in Chinese culture, not everyone is entitled to speak and people only voice
their opinions when recognised on the basis of expertise or a power position. A good
employee does what he or she is told, has the willingness to meet others' expectations
and to accept criticism (Gao et al., 1996). Furthermore, Farh and (2000) suggest that a
follower’s willingness to be loyal and obedient to the leader is one factor influencing
whether the follower is categorised into the in-group or out-group. These characteristics
211
seem to imply low self-enhancement and could also explain the positive effect of
follower agreeableness in intracultural Chinese dyads.
The results show, as hypothesised, that followers with cultural knowledge are respected
professionally. However, the negative impact of follower cultural knowledge on the
loyalty and contribution dimensions was unexpected. A tentative explanation for why
Chinese leaders perceive less loyalty and contribution from Chinese followers who have
cultural knowledge is that these followers may have undergone higher levels of
acculturation than those with less cultural knowledge. Furthermore, the followers may
deliberately attempt to adapt their behaviour to reflect more Western norms. This
acculturation could reduce adherence to traditional norms and deviation from the role
requirements prescribed by the wu lun, which could reduce the leader’s perceptions of
leader-member exchange quality if the leader still endorses more traditional Chinese
values. This westernised behaviour may not be expected or interpreted favourably in
terms of loyalty and contribution by Chinese leaders. Furthermore, Chinese leaders may
have high expectations of followers with cultural knowledge, leading to a negative
effect in case these expectations are not met.
Figure 20: Leader personal characteristics and leader LMX, intracultural
Leader
extroversion
Leader
neuroticism
Leader
conscientiousness
Leader overall
LMX*
–
–
–
–m
LMX dimensions
Affect*
sp
Loyalty*
Leader
harmony
Leader
cultural knowledge
Contribution*
–
sp
m
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, ms = mediated by similarity, mp = mediated by inrole
performance
As in the case of leader LMX in intercultural dyads as well as follower LMX, these
findings indicate that perceptions of the dyadic partner are highly dispositional. These
212
results are consistent with the propositions made by e.g. Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) and
Brower et al. (2000).
The figure indicates that leader neuroticism has the most significant relationship with
leader LMX as compared to other leader characteristics. This finding is in line with the
results obtained for leader LMX in intercultural dyads. As already discussed, negative
affectivity is commonly seen as a facet of neuroticism (e.g. Judge et al., 1999) and
negative affectivity has been found to increase a person’s susceptibility or
responsiveness to stimuli that generate negative emotions (Larsen & Katelaar, 1991, as
cited in Skarlicki et al., 1999), which partly explains the negative perceptions neurotic
leaders have of their followers.
Only hypothetical explanations regarding the unexpected negative effect of leader
cultural knowledge on leader perceptions of leader-member exchange quality can be
offered. As this negative effect occurs through the mediation of inrole performance, a
possible explanation is that internationally experienced and trained Chinese leaders are
more demanding, and hence likely to rate leader-member exchange quality lower than
leaders who do not possess this cultural knowledge. It is also possible that cultural
knowledge and international experience increases the leaders’ self esteem and
appreciation of their own skills, which when unfounded, creates a negative reaction
from the followers, which in turn reduces the level of affect the leader has for the
followers. The additional mediating effect of perceived similarity suggests that leader
cultural knowledge reduces perceptions of similarity, possibly due to acculturation
effects. In addition, as cultural knowledge is supposed to increase specification and
accurate judgements (Brake et al., 1995) it is possible that cultural knowledge could
diminish what Adler (1997) calls cultural blindness (lack of attention to cultural
assumptions) and lack of cultural self-awareness (ignorance associated with not
knowing one’s own cultural conditioning), which could facilitate the recognition of
differences also in fellow countrymen.
b) Interpersonal antecedents
Leader LMX hypothesis 14 predicting that the level of demographic similarity between
leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was
supported with regard to the contribution dimension (mediated by inrole performance).
Gender and education differences also had a negative impact on professional respect,
and age differences on overall LMX (this relationship was mediated by inrole
performance). Gender differences also had a negative impact on inrole performance.
Leader LMX hypothesis 15 predicting that the level of personality similarity between
leader and follower will be positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was not
supported: differences in personality had a positive impact on the contribution
dimension (but a negative influence on perceived similarity).
Leader LMX hypothesis 16 predicting that a high level of similarity between leader and
follower in Interpersonal relatedness will have a positive effect on leader LMX quality
and all its dimensions was supported with regard to the loyalty dimension.
213
Leader LMX hypothesis 17 predicting that a high level of similarity in individualism
and collectivism between leader and follower will be positively related all dimensions
of leader LMX was partly supported as differences in individualism had a negative
impact on overall LMX.
Leader LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that leader perceptions of similarity with follower
will be positively related to all the dimensions of leader LMX, and that perceived
similarity will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural knowledge,
and all the dimensions of leader LMX. This hypothesis was partially supported, as
perceived similarity had a strong positive impact on overall LMX and the affect and
respect dimensions as well as inrole performance. Inrole performance mediated the
relationship between perceived similarity and overall LMX and respect.
Interpersonal variables as a group (excluding perceived similarity) explained
statistically significant incremental variance in overall LMX. Perceived similarity
explained significant incremental variance in overall LMX, affect and respect.
Figure 21: Interpersonal antecedents and leader LMX, intracultural
Demographic
differences
– mp
–
m
+
Leader overall
LMX*
+
LMX dimensions
p
Personality
differences
+
Perceived
similarity1
+
Differences
in interpersonal
relatedness
Affect
–
Differences
in individualism
Loyalty
–
Differences
in collectivism
Contribution
Respect
* the block of variables explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect, mp = mediated by inrole performance
As in the case of other dyad types, the support found for the hypothesised importance of
perceived similarity as an antecedent to leader-member exchange is strongly supported
by theory and past research (e.g. Tsui et al., 1996). However, it is noteworthy that based
on the present findings, Chinese leaders’ perceptions of their dyadic partners in terms of
214
LMX quality are far less influenced by perceptions of similarity than those of the
Western leaders and followers.
The finding that leader-member exchange quality is negatively influenced by
demographic differences and differences in Interpersonal relatedness and individualism
is in line with the hypotheses relying on the similarity-attraction paradigm. The reason
for why differences in personality demonstrate an unexpected positive effect could be,
as discussed earlier in the case of the other dyad types, that leaders may value different
personality traits in a follower as compared to the ones they possess themselves (cf.
Tsui et al., 1996). This could be due to differing role requirements (cf. e.g. Hui &
Graen, 1997).
Leader LMX hypothesis 18 predicted that leader perceptions of similarity with follower
will mediate the relationship between actual similarity, cultural knowledge, and all the
dimensions of leader LMX. This hypothesis was partially supported, as perceived
similarity mediated the relationships between leader cultural knowledge (negative
effect) and affect, follower cultural knowledge (negative effect) and loyalty, gender
differences (negative effect) and overall LMX and respect.
The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for which specific
hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships are presented
merely as additional information and will not be discussed.
Figure 22: The mediating effect of perceived similarity on leader LMX,
intracultural
Follower
agreeableness
+
Leader overall
LMX*
Follower cultural –
knowledge
LMX dimensions
Follower LMX
+
+
+
Demographic
differences (g)
Leader
neuroticism
–
–
–
Affect*
Perceived
similarity1
Loyalty
Contribution
–
–
Respect*
Leader cultural
knowledge
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
215
These findings support the assumptions made within the similarity-attraction paradigm
that individuals who possess similar individual characteristics and attitudes will
perceive one another as similar and will be attracted to each other. Perceived similarity
is hence, as expected, partly an outcome of actual similarity. Furthermore, it seems that
the Chinese leaders’ perceptions of similarity with their follower are based on the more
easily identifiable demographic differences than on personality differences or
differences in values.
The negative effect demonstrated by both leader and follower cultural knowledge on the
Chinese leaders’ perceptions of similarity is also in accordance with the hypotheses. As
discussed earlier, this effect could be due to an actual increase in diversity due to
acculturation. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, it is possible that cultural knowledge
could diminish cultural blindness and lack of cultural self-awareness, which could
facilitate the recognition of differences also in fellow countrymen.
c) Behavioural antecedents
Leader LMX hypothesis 19 predicting that follower inrole performance will be
positively related to all dimensions of leader LMX was supported (when performance
was measured from a leader perspective) with respect to overall LMX and all
dimensions, with the exception of, surprisingly, contribution. Inrole performance
measured from the follower’s perspective affected only overall LMX. Follower inrole
performance (including both leader and follower perceptions) explained statistically
significant incremental variance in overall LMX and all dimensions with the exception
of loyalty.
Leader LMX hypothesis 20 predicted that overall follower LMX will be positively
related to all dimensions of leader LMX, and that follower performance will mediate
this relationship. This hypothesis was supported with respect to the affect, loyalty and
contribution dimensions. Perceived similarity (as well as performance with regard to the
loyalty dimension) mediated the effect. Follower LMX explained statistically
significant incremental variance in the loyalty and contribution dimensions.
The figure below depicts all mediational relationships, not just those for which specific
hypotheses have been formulated. These non-hypothesised relationships are presented
merely as additional information and will not be discussed in detail.
216
Figure 23: The mediating effect of follower inrole performance on leader LMX,
intracultural
Follower
age
Follower
LMX
–
Follower
–
self-enhancement –
Leader overall
LMX*
Follower
–
cultural knowledge
Follower
inrole
performance
a–
eg–
Demographic
differences
+
Perceived
similarity
Affect*
Loyalty
+
+
–
–
Leader
neuroticism
LMX dimensions
Contribution*
–
–
Respect*
–
Leader
cultural knowledge
* the mediator explains significant incremental variance on the dimension
+ = positive effect, – = negative effect
The very significant direct and mediating effect demonstrated by follower inrole
performance on leader LMX quality in intracultural Chinese dyads supports the
proposition made by Cheng (1995, as cited in Farh & Cheng, 2000) that follower
competence is an important determinant of whether the Chinese leader categorises the
follower as belonging to the in-group or out-group. Follower inrole performance is far
more important in intracultural Chinese than in intercultural dyads, which in contrast is
more influenced by leader perceptions of similarity.
These findings also provide further support for the hypothesis that leader LMX quality
and follower LMX quality are interrelated. To recall, it was predicted that follower
perceptions of leader-member exchange quality would induce better follower
performance that in turn would lead to higher leader perceptions of leader-member
exchange quality. As noted earlier, the Confucian encouragement of reciprocation
(Yeung and Tung, 1996) may induce the Chinese followers to reciprocate for the highquality relationship with their leaders with increased performance.
d) Summary
The results pertaining to leader LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads (i.e. Chinese leader
LMX) presented above show that the relative weights of the different groups of
variables differ significantly across dimensions.
217
Beginning with the affect dimension, it can be noted that a significant part of variance in
the dimension is explained by perceived similarity and that follower inrole performance
and leader characteristics have an additional important effect. Regarding loyalty,
significant variance is explained foremost by follower characteristics and by
interpersonal variables (excluding perceived similarity) and follower LMX to a lesser
extent. Significant variance in the contribution dimension is explained both by leader
and follower characteristics, and to a lesser extent by follower inrole performance and
follower LMX. Concerning professional respect, very significant variance is explained
by follower inrole performance and to a lesser extent by perceived similarity. The final
model resulted in rather low adjusted R2 and low F value. Regarding overall LMX, the
most significant part of variance is explained by follower inrole performance, followed
by perceived similarity, interpersonal variables, and leader characteristics.
The contribution dimension stands apart from the other dimensions as it is very strongly
influenced by both leader and follower characteristics. The loyalty dimension stands
apart from the other dimensions, as it is the only dimension not influenced by the
perceptual variables (perceived similarity or inrole performance). The professional
dimension stands apart from the other dimensions, as it is the only dimension not
influenced by either leader or follower characteristics. In sum, there are significant
differences across dimensions.
Furthermore, these results show that some of the hypothesised antecedents do not
demonstrate a significant effect on any dimension. These include: leader extroversion,
follower neuroticism, follower conscientiousness, leader conscientiousness, and leader
harmony.
6.4.3 Comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads
The results indicate that intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads have some
common features with regard to the antecedents of leader LMX but that many specific
characteristics distinguish them from each other. As the Western and Chinese measures
of leader LMX as well as the measures of the antecedents of LMX are not identical
across groups (this concerns at least the measures of LMX, perceived similarity and
inrole performance, as the validation analyses demonstrated cross-cultural
inequivalence), it is not possible to make direct comparisons between Western and
Chinese leader LMX and their antecedents. However, although the employed constructs
are not identical across groups, it is presumed that they at least measure similar
constructs that are meaningful for both Western and Chinese leaders. The word
‘comparison’ is hence not used in this section to denote comparisons in a strict sense,
but it is used to represent general tendencies, including differences and similarities
across groups
What intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads have in common is that perceived
similarity explains a significant part of incremental variance in overall leader LMX,
affect and professional respect. Leader characteristics as a group adds incremental
variance for overall LMX and contribution and at least one additional dimension in both
218
dyad types. The fact that follower characteristics do not largely influence leader leadermember exchange quality implies that personal characteristics to a larger extent
influence how we perceive another person than how we are perceived by the other
person. Furthermore, the block of interactional variables explains incremental variance
in overall LMX in both dyad types.
More specific common features between intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads at
a variable level include:
a) Follower self-enhancement has a negative effect, although a much stronger negative
effect in intracultural Chinese dyads (i.e. for Chinese leaders). (As noted earlier,
follower self-enhancement could be especially negative in intracultural Chinese
dyads as the Confucian collectivism traditionally does not promote selfenhancement or self-interest, especially for those in a follower role);
b) Follower neuroticism and conscientiousness do not demonstrate a significant effect;
c) Leader neuroticism has a very strong negative effect on overall LMX and all
dimensions with the exception of affect:
d) Demographic differences have a negative impact;
e) Perceived similarity has a positive effect, although stronger in intercultural dyads
(i.e. for Western leaders) and the effect is largely mediated by inrole performance in
intracultural Chinese dyads;
f) Perceived similarity and inrole performance are important mediators, the mediating
role of inrole performance is especially strong in intracultural Chinese dyads;
g) Inrole performance has a positive influence, although a much stronger effect in
intracultural Chinese dyads;
h) Follower LMX has a positive effect;
i) Length of interaction is a control variable that demonstrates a positive effect,
although a much stronger effect in intracultural Chinese dyads.
However, the comparison of intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads also indicates
that leader LMX quality in these dyads is influenced by different factors and that some
factors have the opposite effect in intercultural as compared to intracultural Chinese
dyads.
More specific variable level differences between intercultural and intracultural Chinese
dyads include:
a) Follower extroversion is more important and positive in intracultural Chinese dyads
than in intercultural dyads;
b) Follower agreeableness has significant and positive effect in intracultural Chinese
dyads but is not significant in intercultural dyads. (Gabrenya and Hwang,
[1996:313] use the phrase “harmony within hierarchy” to characterise social
behaviour in Confucian societies. A person's fulfilment of the responsibilities of a
given role ensures the smooth functioning of society. As agreeableness reflects an
individual’s disposition to avoid arguments and motivation to actively advocate their
positions on controversial issues and attack another person’s position [Skarlicki et
al., 1999] the importance of follower agreeableness in intracultural Chinese dyads is
understandable);
219
c) Follower harmony has a significant and positive impact in intracultural Chinese
dyads but is not significant in intercultural dyads;
d) Follower cultural knowledge has a predominately negative effect (on loyalty and
contribution) in intracultural Chinese dyads (but a positive effect on professional
respect) whereas it only marginally and positively affects overall LMX in
intercultural dyads;
e) Leader neuroticism has a very strong negative effect in both dyad types (but this
effect is mediated by performance in intercultural dyads);
f) Leader harmony is a negative influences in intercultural dyads (but demonstrates a
positive correlation in intracultural Chinese dyads);
g) Personality differences have a positive effect in intracultural Chinese dyads, but a
negative effect in intercultural dyads (the Chinese may expect those in the leader
role to have different personalities from the followers);
h) Differences in individualism have a negative effect in intracultural Chinese dyads,
but a moderate positive effect in intercultural dyads. (The result that differences in
individualism have a negative effect in intracultural Chinese dyads but positive
effect in intercultural dyads could tentatively be explained by expectations. Western
leaders may expect the Chinese followers to differ in personality and values, and a
confirmation of these expectations could lead to a positive effect. However, Chinese
leaders working with their fellow countrymen may expect more similarities in
personality and values, and a differences in these characteristics would have
negative repercussions on leader perceptions in accordance with the similarityattraction paradigm as well as traditional Chinese values.);
i) Follower inrole performance is more important in Chinese than in intercultural
dyads, whereas similarity is more important in intercultural dyads:
j) Leader tenure in company is a control variable with a positive influence for Chinese
leaders (on all perceptions but affect) but strongly negative for Western leaders;
k) Interaction intensity (control variable) has a positive effect in intracultural Chinese
dyads but a non-significant or negative effect in intercultural dyads.
In sum, these findings suggest that Western expatriates’ perceptions of their Chinese
followers are largely influenced by different factors than the Chinese leaders’
perceptions of their followers in terms of LMX quality. Western and Chinese leaders
may have different bases for judging their followers. As mentioned in Chapter 2, some
evidence exists that cognitive leader and member structures have a cultural component,
meaning that the content and complexity of prototypes may differ across cultures (e.g. Ah
Chong & Thomas, 1997; Shaw, 1990; Ling et al., 2000). However, these findings must be
interpreted with caution as the Chinese and Western leader measures did not
demonstrate cross-cultural equivalence, which makes direct comparisons between
Western and Chinese leaders impossible.
The most distinctive difference between intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads
seems to be that follower inrole performance is a much more important determinant of
LMX quality for Chinese than for Western leaders. This finding supports the
proposition made by Cheng (1995, as cited in Farh & Cheng, 2000) that follower
competence is an important determinant of whether the Chinese leader categorises the
follower as belonging to the in-group or out-group. In contrast, perceived similarity is
more important for Western leaders, indicating that attraction plays a larger role in
220
intercultural than in intracultural Chinese dyads. This interpretation is supported by the
finding that factors that influence perceptions of similarity in general, i.e. mainly the
interpersonal variables, tend to have a larger impact on the perceptions of the Western
leaders than on the perceptions of the Chinese leaders. In contrast, the direct effect of
follower characteristics is more in terms of the perceptions of the Chinese leaders. In
sum, based on the present findings Chinese leader LMX quality is highly influenced by
follower performance and follower characteristics whereas Western leader LMX quality
is more influenced by the level of actual and perceived similarity as well as leader
predisposition.
221
6.5 OVERVIEW OF ANTECEDENTS OF LEADER AND FOLLOWER LMX IN
INTERCULTURAL AND INTRACULTURAL CHINESE DYADS
An overview of the antecedents of both leader and follower LMX in both intercultural
Western-Chinese and intracultural Chinese dyads is provided in the table on the
following page. This table presents an overview of the results of all the regression
analyses presented in Appendix 5. As the information in the table may be difficult to
grasp in all its width, a simplified version of the table that summarises these results is
presented in the end of this section.
The table below summarises the results obtained for: 1) follower LMX in intercultural
dyads, 2) follower LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads, 3) leader LMX in intercultural
dyads, and 4) leader LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads. The table enables the
examination of the effect of each individual independent variable across these four
groups, beginning with follower characteristics (including control variables) and
continuing with leader characteristics, interpersonal variables and finally perceptual and
behavioural variables. These independent variables are listed in Column 1. After each
group of variables, there is a row for information regarding the significance of the
variance explained by the group of variables. Column 2 contains information about
dyad type (i.e. Chinese or intercultural). The row for each independent variable is
divided into two sub rows, one for each dyad type, which facilitates the comparison of
the effect of a specific independent variable across intercultural and intracultural
Chinese dyads. However, as discussed earlier, it should be noted that as the Western and
Chinese leader measures and the leader and follower measures are not identical across
groups, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between Western and Chinese
leader LMX or leader and follower LMX and their antecedents. However, as noted
earlier, although the employed constructs are not identical across groups, it is presumed
that they at least measure similar constructs that are meaningful for both leaders and
followers in both intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads. As a result, examining
the effect of a specific variable across groups should increase our understanding of the
general impact of a certain type of factors in determining LMX quality. The six
following columns are designated for marking the effect of each independent variable
on the dependent variables that measure follower perceptions (i.e. similarity = Sim,
interactional justice = Jus, overall LMX = LMX, affect = Aff, loyalty = Loy,
contribution = Con, and finally respect = Res. The remaining six columns are reserved
for the effect on leader perceptions, beginning with the mediators (similarity = Sim,
inrole performance = Per) and continuing, as in the case of follower perceptions, with
overall LMX and its dimensions. As the regression models for leader and follower
LMX were slightly different, all independent variables are not relevant in both groups.
In this case, non-applicability is marked with a “na”. The other signs in the table are
explained in the last rows of the table as well as under the table.
Comparisons between follower LMX in intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads as
well as between leader LMX in intercultural dyads and intracultural Chinese dyads were
already conducted in sections 6.3.3 and 6.4.3. The focus in the discussions in this
section is hence on comparisons across perspectives, i.e. comparing the antecedents of
leader and follower LMX.
Self-enhancement
Harmony
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Cultural knowledge
Tenure, company
Demographics
Leader characteristics
∆
F (Step 1) F (if Step 2)
e+
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
r
r+
r+
r
e
a+
Chinese
Intercult
Jus
†
na
na
**
Sim
+
+
+++
▪
Self-enhancement
r
+
+
+•
ms+
++•r
( m)
r
( m)
Lmx
re am
s
(+m)
†
•rmj+
+•
Na
Na
+r
+
Na
Na
**
++•
ms
r-
r+
▪
▪
□▪
Harmony
▪□□
□▪
□▪
▪□□
▪
▪
▪
▪
Agreeableness
na
na
+
+
na
na
++ r
r+
+
na
na
□□
Conscientiousness
▪
Extroversion
▪
Neuroticism
+
r
(+ m)
▪
Cultural knowledge
( m)
++•
++•r
•rms
msr
+•r
na
na
*
**
Aff
r+
mjr+
na
na
na
na
r+
r
+•r
+
•
( •m)
( •m)
na
na
na
na
++•
ms
Loy
na
na
*
**
Con
+
na
na
+++•r
na
na
r+
++
na
na
rms+
(+m)
( •m)
++•
++•
++•
•
( m)
(•+m)
r+
•rms
ms
r+
( •m)
□
▪
□□
□
▪
Tenure, company
□
□□
□
□
□
▪
□
▪
Demographics
•
ms+
•rms
e
ermj
Res
na
na
†
na
na
r+
r+
r+
r
Res
na
na
r
na
na
Sim
++
Per
e a
a
na
na
na
+
ms
na
na
(+ m)
r
na
r+
r+
( m)
na
na
na
na
++ r
+r
na
na
( m)
na
na
r+
na
na
Per
Lmx
(•+m)
++•
r
++•r
r
( m)
++•
•r
(• m)
++•r
r
msp
(•m )
na
na
na
na
na
na
( r+m
na
na
( m)
na
na
(• m)
na
na
( m)
( m)
na
na
na
na
•rmp
r+
na
na
r+
•
na
na
(
r
)
na
++
na
+
na
•r
na
Con
***
mp
(• m)
+r
•r+
( m)
na
Loy
**
r
(•+m)
Con
na
na
na
na
Loy
na
na
na
na
na
Aff
r
ms
++•r
+
(+m)
+
(+•m)
•+
Aff
na
na
na
na
Lmx
a e r+
A e •
na
na
Sim
+++
▪□
▪
□
Con
na
na
(+m)
□
▪
Loy
na
na
r
□
▪□
□
□
□
Aff
na
na
□
▪□
▪□□□
▪□□
▪□□□
□□
□
Lmx
Na
Na
□
□
□
□
□□
□
▪□
▪
□
□
Jus
na
na
□
□
□□
□
□□
□
▪□
□
□
□
□□
Sim
na
na
□
□
□
Dyad type
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
□
□
□
Follower characteristics
□□□
□
▪□□□□
▪□
LEADER PERCEPTIONS
▪
□□
▪
▪□□□
□
□
FOLLOWER PERCEPTIONS
na
na
na
na
( •m)
msp
•r ms
p
na
na
Res
++r
(+m)
na
na
++
Res
amp
□
□
□
▪
□
□
□▪ ▪□
DETERMINANTS
□
□□
□▪
▪□□
□□
▪□
Table 20: Overview of results for leader and follower LMX
□
Chinese
Intercult
r+
g
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
†
r
( m)
Intercult
(g+)
g
r+
r+
++ r
Jus
+
Aff
msj+
ms
Lmx
++•r
•r
†
( m)
•r
(a m)
†
++•
•r
rms+
•r
†
•
•
ms
•rmj+
*
Con
ms+
•ms
( m)
r+
++•
+•
*
( m)
•r
(e+m)
(a m)
rms+
mj+
(• m)
Res
+++•r
r
++ r
***
Sim
( m)
g
+++
†
Per
+
□□□
▪
□
□
∆
∆
mp
Amp
(a •m)
Rms+
†
*
Lmx
+
(•+m)
•+
*
*
Lmx
( •m)
mp+
Rmp+
+++•r
*
**
na
na
++++•
+•r
+•
•
(+•m)
Lmx
++
r+
*
*
Aff
ms+
r+
++•
+++•r
**
***
na
na
+++•r
++•r
•+
+
• ms
ms+
Aff
rmsp+
*
•r+
na
na
+•r
•r+
r+
†
Loy
msp+
•
( •m)
++•r
†
***
Loy
•
*
na
na
(+ m)
r+
r+
rmp+
Con
rms+
rmp
•
+
+
***
**
Con
r+
†
++•
rmp+
++++•
†
***
na
na
++++
++r
Res
(+•m)
ms
•rmsp
+
g e
ams
Res
Entries beginning with ‘r’ indicate that there is a relationship only a correlational level; these variables are not considered to be significant determinants although they are included in
the table. In the row for demographic factors, ‘a’ stands for age, ‘e’ for education and ‘g’ for gender
ms = fully mediated by similarity, mj = fully mediated by interactional justice, mp = fully mediated by performance, na = non-applicable, (*m) = multicollinearity likely
□□□□
Sim
□
Perceptions & behaviour
▪
□
*
Aff
Loy
Con
Res
Sim
Per
Chinese
mj+
(• m)
++
Other’s perceptions of LMX
Intercult
( •m)
+
Chinese
++++
++r
•rmj+
+•r
+++•r
rmj+
++
Similarity
Intercult
+++
++++• ++•r
+•r
+++
++•r
Chinese
***
***
***
†
**
*
F at Step 5
Intercult
***
***
***
*
***
**
Chinese
++•r
++++• r+
r+
+++•r
na
na
Follower interactional justice
Intercult
++++• +++•r
+•r
r+
+++•r
na
na
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Leader inrole performance
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Follower inrole performance
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
+
Chinese
*
***
**
***
F at Step 6
Intercult
**
**
**
†
+ = positive effect (magnitude of beta weight or sign of correlation), + p < .10, ++ p < .05, +++ p < .01, ++++ p < .001
= negative effect, p < .10,
p < .05,
p < .01,
p < .001
r = significant correlation (p < .05) , = variable selected using backward deletion, * significance of F, † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
∆
F at Step 3
Differences in collectivism
Differences in individualism
Differences in interpers rel.
Personality differences
Demographic differences
□□
Months of interaction
▪
Interaction intensity
Jus
▪□
□□
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
∆
□□
□□□
□
□
Interpersonal variables
*
Loy
□
***
□
□
**
▪
□
□□
▪
▪□□
□
□□□
*
**
Sim
+++
▪
□
□
□
□□
∆
F (Step 1) F (if Step 2)
r+
□
▪□□□
▪□
( m)
**
□□
□
□
▪□□
□
+
□
□
rms+
□
□
( m)
▪
□
□
□
r+
□
▪
□□□
□
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
▪
□
□□
▪
□
□□
No. of supervised follow.
□
□
□▪ □
▪
□□
□
224
Below, the information concerning the personal, interpersonal, and behavioural
antecedents of LMX provided in the table above is presented by examining the effect of
each group of variables and each variable across groups (i.e. follower LMX in
intercultural dyads, follower LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads, leader LMX in
intercultural dyads, and leader LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads). The focus is on
comparisons across perspectives, i.e. comparing the antecedents of leader and follower
LMX. The effect of the variables will be examined following the order of the variables
in the tables.
a) Personal antecedents
Before the presentation of the effect of each personal leader and follower characteristic
across groups, a few words of explanation. Some personal characteristics are
hypothesised to influence how we perceive another person. If a personal characteristic
only influences LMX measured from the same perspective (e.g. follower
conscientiousness and follower LMX), it means that this characteristic falls within this
category. Other personal characteristics are hypothesised to influence how others
perceive us. Such personal characteristic are variables that only influences LMX
measured from the other perspective (e.g. follower self-enhancement and leader LMX).
These characteristics include agreeableness and self-enhancement (and demographic
control variables). In addition, some personal characteristics are hypothesised to
influence both how we perceive another person and how others perceive us (e.g. leader
neuroticism and leader and follower LMX). These are cultural knowledge, neuroticism,
extroversion, conscientiousness and harmony.
The table indicates that follower personal characteristics as a group exert strong
influence on follower LMX, while they do not have a large impact on leader LMX, with
the exception of the effect on loyalty and contribution in intracultural Chinese dyads. In
other words, follower personal characteristics mainly influence follower perceptions of
the leader, not how the leader perceives the follower.
The following general remarks can be made regarding the effect of specific follower
personal characteristics on both leader and follower LMX (if the effect differs
significantly across dyad type, i.e. intercultural or Chinese, this will be specifically
mentioned; for more specific information, please refer to the table above):
a) Follower cultural knowledge influences both leader and follower LMX in a different
way across groups. Follower cultural knowledge has a positive effect on how
followers perceive their Chinese leaders and on how Western leaders perceive
overall LMX with followers. A negative effect is demonstrated on how Western
leaders are perceived and on how Chinese leaders perceive the follower (with the
exception of respect). This leads to a dilemma: at the same time as cultural
knowledge has a positive or negative impact on how the dyadic partner is perceived
by the other party it has the opposite impact on the perceptions of the other party;
b) Follower neuroticism has significant negative effect on follower LMX only;
c) Follower extroversion demonstrates a consistently positive effect on both leader and
especially follower LMX although mainly at a correlational level;
d) Follower conscientiousness has significant positive effect on follower LMX only;
225
e) Follower agreeableness shows a positive effect on leader LMX (not predicted to
influence follower LMX);
f) Follower harmony demonstrates a positive effect on both leader and follower LMX;
g) Follower self-enhancement shows a negative effect on leader LMX (not predicted to
influence follower LMX).
The table indicates that leader personal characteristics as a group explain significant
variance in both leader and follower LMX, but especially in leader LMX. In sum, it
seems that personal characteristics to a larger extent influence how we perceive another
person than how we are perceived by the other person.
The following general remarks can be made regarding the effect of specific leader
personal characteristics on both leader and follower LMX:
a) Leader cultural knowledge mainly influences leader LMX, and it has a positive
effect in intercultural dyads and a negative effect in intracultural Chinese dyads;
b) Leader neuroticism is a strong negative influence on both leader and follower LMX,
with the exception of follower affect in intracultural Chinese dyads;
c) Leader extroversion mainly influences follower LMX, and it has a positive effect in
intercultural and a negative effect in intracultural Chinese dyads;
d) Leader conscientiousness demonstrates a significant effect only in intercultural
dyads and it has a negative effect on follower LMX (The negative influence of
leader conscientiousness on follower perceptions of their own contribution could be
due to the fact that conscientious leaders could be more demanding than less
conscientious leaders and hence likely to reduce the followers perception of their
own contribution);
e) Leader agreeableness influences follower LMX (not predicted to influence leader
LMX), and it has a negative impact in Chinese but a positive impact in intercultural
dyads;
f) Leader harmony has a positive effect on follower LMX (in intracultural Chinese
dyads) and a negative effect on leader LMX (in intercultural dyads);
g) Leader self-enhancement demonstrates a positive effect on follower LMX (not
predicted to influence leader LMX).
It is possible to compare the personal characteristics also at the level of the
characteristic: are there personal characteristics that both the leader and follower should
possess to enhance LMX quality measured from both leader and follower perspectives?
An examination of the table enables the following inferences (if the effect of a personal
characteristic differs across groups, i.e. across perspectives or dyad types, this is
specifically mentioned):
a) Cultural knowledge: In intracultural Chinese dyads, both leader and follower
cultural knowledge has a negative impact on leader LMX (with the exception of the
positive impact of follower cultural knowledge on leader respect), while follower
cultural knowledge demonstrates a positive effect on follower LMX. In intercultural
dyads, leader and follower cultural knowledge has positive influence on leader
LMX, while follower cultural knowledge has a negative impact and leader cultural
knowledge a positive impact on follower LMX. (This means that if the main concern
226
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
is leader LMX, no cultural knowledge is recommended in intracultural Chinese
dyads, whereas cultural knowledge for both leader and follower is beneficial in
intercultural dyads. To enhance follower LMX, cultural knowledge is not of
importance in intracultural Chinese dyads, whereas in intercultural dyads, the
leaders should have cultural knowledge but not the follower. Follower cultural
knowledge simultaneously decreases follower LMX while increasing leader LMX);
Neuroticism is a predominately negative personal characteristic for both leaders and
followers. It is negative especially as a leader characteristic and especially in
intercultural dyads. There is one exception for the negative effect of neuroticism: in
intracultural Chinese dyads, both leader and follower neuroticism has a positive
effect on follower affect;
Extroversion is a positive personal characteristic for both leaders and followers,
with the exception of as a leader characteristic in intracultural Chinese dyads;
Conscientiousness is positive as a follower characteristic (only influences follower
LMX) negative as a leader characteristic (only influences follower LMX);
Agreeableness is a predominately positive leader and follower characteristic as a
determinant of the dyadic partner’s perceptions of LMX (not predicted to influence
own perceptions of LMX) in both Chinese and intercultural dyads;
Harmony has a positive influence both as a leader and follower characteristic in both
Chinese and intercultural dyads, with the exception of as leader characteristic in
intercultural dyads;
Self-enhancement is a positive characteristic for leaders as an influence of follower
LMX (not predicted to influence leader LMX) but negative for followers as an
influence of leader LMX (not predicted to influence follower LMX) in both
intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads.
The examination of the incremental variance explained by different groups of factors
implied that follower personal characteristics as a group exert strong influence on
follower perceptions of leader-member exchange quality, while they do not have a large
impact on leader perceptions of leader-member exchange quality, with the exception of
the effect on loyalty and contribution in intracultural Chinese dyads. In other words,
follower personal characteristics mainly influence follower perceptions of the leader,
and not how the leader perceives the follower. Leader personal characteristics as a
group explain significant variance in both leader and follower perceptions of leadermember exchange, but especially pertaining to leader perceptions. It hence seems that
personal characteristics to a larger extent influence how we perceive another person
than how we are perceived by the other person.
b) Interpersonal antecedents
The interpersonal variables simultaneously influence both leader and follower
perceptions as they are formed through the interaction of leader and follower
characteristics and the context in which the interaction takes place.
The table indicates that interpersonal variables (excluding perceived similarity) as a
group explain incremental variance in follower LMX (in intracultural Chinese dyads
only) and in overall leader LMX (both in intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads).
227
In general, the effect of interpersonal variables is not as significant as the effect of the
other groups of variables.
The following general remarks can be made regarding the effect of specific
interpersonal variables on both leader and follower LMX:
Demographic differences have a negative effect on both leader and follower LMX;
a) Personality differences have a positive impact on follower LMX, but a negative
impact on leader LMX;
b) Differences in Interpersonal relatedness have a negative effect on both leader and
follower LMX, although not very significant;
c) Differences in individualism is a negative influence on leader and follower LMX in
intracultural Chinese dyads, but a positive influence on leader affect in intercultural
dyads;
d) Differences in collectivism demonstrate a positive effect on both leader and
especially follower LMX;
e) Perceived similarity is important for both leaders and followers in Chinese and
intercultural dyads. However, perceived similarity is slightly more important for
leaders and followers in intercultural dyads than in intracultural Chinese dyads.
Perceived similarity explained significant incremental variance in all leader-member
exchange dimensions across groups with the exception of leader loyalty and
contribution
f) Interaction intensity is a contextual control variable that demonstrates a strong
positive effect in intracultural Chinese dyads, but is insignificant in intercultural
dyads with the exception of a negative effect on leader contribution;
g) Length of interaction is a contextual control variable that demonstrates a positive
effect on both leader and follower LMX with the exception of the strong negative
effect in intracultural Chinese dyads on follower LMX.
c) Behavioural antecedents
The behavioural antecedents, namely interactional justice in the case of followers and
inrole performance in the case of leaders were hypothesised to influence follower LMX
and leader LMX, respectively. These hypotheses were supported. Furthermore, it was
hypothesised that these behavioural variables would act as mediators between the
impact of leader LMX on follower LMX and between follower LMX and leader LMX.
These hypotheses were supported with regard to intracultural Chinese dyads as well as
with regard to the relationship between follower and leader LMX in intercultural dyads.
A mediating effect of the behavioural variable was hence not detected in intercultural
dyads with regard to the relationship between leader and follower LMX quality. There
hence seems to be a linkage between the dyadic partners’ perceptions of LMX quality.
However this relationship is stronger in Chinese as compared to intercultural dyads. It
hence seems that the expatriate leaders’ perceptions of LMX quality with their followers
do not induce reciprocation in form of fair treatment that in turn would have a
favourable impact on follower LMX.
228
d) Summary
As an aid to identify a good combination of leader and follower characteristics, factors
that demonstrated a significant effect on leader-member exchange quality in
intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads are listed in the table below. All the factors
that demonstrated a significant impact on either leader or follower leader-member
exchange are included in the table. Those factors that have a different impact on leader
and follower leader-member exchange are marked as well as the factors that
demonstrate a significant effect only on either leader or follower leader-member
exchange (e.g. +F = positive effect on follower leader-member exchange, -L = negative
effect on leader leader-member exchange). The word “not” is used for variables that
have a negative impact on leader-member exchange quality; the remaining variables
demonstrate a positive effect. The first column lists follower characteristics. The second
column lists leader characteristics. The third column lists interpersonal and control
variables. The perceptual perceived similarity variable and the behavioural measures all
demonstrated a positive effect on leader-member exchange in all groups and are not
included in the table. Is should be noted that table greatly simplifies the results obtained
in the study, as it designates variables that have demonstrated a significant effect on any
dimension as having a significant effect on “leader-member exchange quality”.
Table 21: Summary of factors that contribute to high-quality LMX
Follower characteristics
Intercultural
dyads
Intracultural
dyads
Interpersonal &
Control variables
Leader characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cultural knowledge (-F, +L)
Not neuroticism (-F)
Extroversion
Conscientiousness (+F)
Ns L
Harmony
Not self-enhancement (-L)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cultural knowledge (+L)
Not neuroticism
Extroversion (+F)
Not conscientiousness (-F)
Agreeableness (+ F)
Not harmony (-L contr)
Self-enhancement (+ F)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not demographic differences
Personality differences (+F, -L)
Not dif. in interpers relatedn (-L)
Dif. in individualism (+affect)
Dif. in collectivism
Many supervised followers (+F)
Not interaction intensity (-L)
Months of interaction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cultural knowledge (+F, -L)
Not neuroticism (-F)
Extroversion
Conscientiousness (+ F)
Agreeableness (+L)
Harmony
Not self-enhancement (-L)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not cultural knowledge (-L)
Not neuroticism (+affect)
Not extroversion (-F)
Ns
Ns F
Harmony (+ F)
Self-enhancement (+F)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not demographic differences
Personality differences
Not dif. in interpers relatedn.(-F)
Not dif. in individualism
Dif. in collectivism (+F)
No. supervised followers(+-F)
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction (-F, +L)
229
6.6 LMX AND ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR
To recall, a total of 8 hypotheses concerning the relationship between follower LMX
quality and its relationship with follower organisational citizenship behaviour measured
from a leader perspective have been developed in the present study (see p. 111 for the
list of hypotheses). The majority of the hypotheses concern the moderating and
mediating effects of various variables on the relationship between LMX and
organisational citizenship behaviour. These hypotheses are expected to be relevant both
in intercultural Western-Chinese and intracultural Chinese dyads.
The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses. Two different
models for the relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour
were analysed. In the first model, the relationship between overall LMX and
organisational citizenship behaviour was examined using a composite measure of LMX.
In the second model, all the dimensions of LMX were entered as independent variables.
The effect of the moderating variables was only examined in the first model with regard
to overall LMX measured with the composite measure. Moderating effects were tested
by examining the significance of change in R2 attributable to the interaction terms as
well as the significance of the beta weight of the interaction term at the final stage. In
addition, in order to enable analyses of mediation in both models, the mediators were
regressed on LMX including the majority of the organisational citizenship behaviour
antecedents as control variables. As noted earlier, according to Baron and Kenny
(1986), the following conditions should be met for a independent variable-mediatordependent variable relationship: the independent variable (LMX) must affect the
mediator (justice, perceived organisational support, satisfaction, organisation-based selfesteem) in the first equation; the independent variable (LMX) must affect the dependent
variable (OCB) in the second equation; the mediator must affect the dependent variable
(OCB) in the third equation; and finally, the effect of the independent variable (LMX)
on the dependent variable (OCB) must be less in the third equation than in the second
equation (Baron & Kenny, 1986: 1177). In certain cases, LMX influences the
hypothesised mediator and the mediator demonstrates a significant effect on
organisational citizenship behaviour, but there is at no stage a direct relationship
between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour. This type of relationship does
not constitute a variable-mediator-dependent variable relationship according to the
definition of Baron and Kenny, but the stance taken in the present study is that such
relationships are relevant and that they will hence be reported.
In both models, the effect of overall LMX on organisational citizenship behaviour can
be examined. In the first model, this is the effect of the composite LMX measure on
organisational citizenship behaviour. In the second model, the effect of overall LMX
can be established by examining the significance of the incremental variance in
organisational citizenship behaviour explained by the LMX dimensions as a group. The
advantage of the second model is that it enables the identification of the LMX
dimensions with the most significant effect on organisational citizenship behaviour.
However, due to the fact that some of the LMX dimensions are closely interrelated,
potential multicollinearity problems can confound the results obtained with regard to the
different dimensions and the significance of their beta weights. The fact that the
230
perceptual mediating variables also are highly interrelated is likely to increase the
potential multicollinearity problem further as well as the inclusion of the interaction
terms and their components.
As in the LMX regression analyses, as a further aid to determine the relative importance
of various antecedents of LMX, the backward deletion method was used at the last step.
It should be noted again that the full hierarchical model is the theoretical model, while
the results obtained trough backward deletion serve only as additional aids during the
interpretation of results. The results obtained from both models will be used to test the
hypotheses. A significant effect demonstrated by a hypothesised antecedent of
organisational citizenship behaviour in either model (i.e. using either the composite
score or the dimensions of LMX) will be regarded as providing at least partial support
for the hypothesis.
The results pertaining to the relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship
behaviour in intercultural Western-Chinese dyads will be presented first (section 6.6.1),
continuing with the results obtained for intracultural Chinese dyads (section 6.6.2).
Finally, the results obtained in both intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads are
compared (section 6.6.3).
6.6.1 Intercultural dyads
The results of regressing organisational citizenship behaviour on follower LMX and
hypothesised mediators and moderators in intercultural dyads are presented in this
section. After reporting the results pertaining to each specific hypothesis the results are
summarised in figure format and discussed. The specific regression results including
beta weights and levels of significance are reported in tables in Appendix 5 on p. 372.
OCB hypothesis 1 predicted that follower perceptions of job breadth will moderate the
relationship between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour.
This hypothesis was not supported with regard to organisational citizenship behaviour
measured from a leader perspective. The interaction term between LMX and follower
perceptions of job breadth did not explain significant incremental variance in leader
perceptions of organisational citizenship behaviour or demonstrate a significant beta
weight in the final equation.
However, a moderating effect of definition of job breadth regarding organisational
citizenship behaviour measured from a follower perspective was found. The inclusion of
the moderator produced significant incremental variance and the interaction term was
significant in the final equation. The sign for the beta coefficient was positive,
suggesting that the higher the score for definition of job breadth, the stronger the
relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour (cf. Farh et al.,
1997).
OCB hypothesis 2 predicted that high follower LMX quality will be positively related to
follower organisational citizenship behaviour. The results suggest that overall follower
231
LMX and its dimensions are not significantly related to organisational citizenship
behaviour measured from a leader’s perspective. However, follower LMX is
significantly related to organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a follower
perspective when the composite measure is used.
OCB hypothesis 3 predicted that follower ren qin will moderate the relationship
between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour. This
hypothesis was not supported, as the interaction term between LMX and ren qin did not
explain significant incremental variance in organisational citizenship behaviour
(measured either from a leader or follower perspective) or demonstrate a significant beta
weight in the final equation.
OCB hypothesis 4 predicted that follower reports of organisational citizenship
behaviour (i.e. OCB measured from a follower perspective) will be positively related to
leader reports of organisational citizenship behaviour. This hypothesis was not
supported.
OCB hypothesis 5 predicted that follower organisational justice will mediate the
relationship between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour.
Follower LMX had a significant direct effect (and especially the professional respect
dimensions) on organisational justice, but neither justice nor LMX or any of its
dimensions had a significant effect on organisational citizenship behaviour measured
either from a leader or follower perspective
OCB hypothesis 6 predicted that follower perceived organisational support will
mediate the relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour.
Follower LMX (and especially the contribution dimension) had a significant direct
effect on perceived organisational support. Furthermore perceived organisational
support emerged as the most significant follower perception influencing organisational
citizenship behaviour from a leader perspective (but was less related to organisational
citizenship behaviour measured from a follower perspective). One could thus
hypothesise that LMX contributes to organisational citizenship behaviour by
influencing perceived organisational support, but this does not constitute mediation in a
strict sense as LMX is at no stage related to organisational citizenship behaviour.
OCB hypothesis 7 predicted that follower organisation-based self-esteem will mediate
the relationship between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship
behaviour. LMX did not have a very significant effect on organisation-based selfesteem, and organisation-based self-esteem was not significantly related to
organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a leader perspective (but for OCB
measured from a follower perspective, organisation-based self-esteem was the most
significant factor).
OCB hypothesis 8 predicted that follower job satisfaction will mediate the relationship
between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour. This
hypothesis was only very partially supported, as only the loyalty dimension had a
significant influence on job satisfaction, which was negatively related to organisational
citizenship behaviour measured from a leader perspective.
232
Regarding the control variables, it could be noted that leader agreeableness, follower
age, follower neuroticism, follower time in position exerted significant negative
influence on organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a leader perspective in
intercultural dyads. organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a follower
perspective was negatively influenced by follower agreeableness and time in position
and positively by follower collectivism.
These results are summarised in the figure below.
Figure 24: OCB-related results, intercultural dyads
Job breadth
moderator
Follower overall
LMX
Ren qin
moderator
Justice
LMX dimensions
Affect
Loyalty
Satisfaction
Contribution
Respect
OCB, follower
perspective
POS
_
OCB, leader
perspective
OBSE
All relationships positive with the exception on satisfaction-OCB
On the basis of social exchange theory, Wayne et al. (1997) expected that the quality of
the exchange that develops between a leader and member will influence the latter's
behaviour toward the leader and that leader-member exchange should be positively
related to organisational citizenship behaviour. As discussed in Chapter 3, past research
on organisational citizenship behaviour has investigated both leader and follower
reports of organisational citizenship behaviour, without making a clear distinction
between these two perspectives. However, in both the leader and follower version of the
organisational citizenship behaviour scale, follower organisational citizenship behaviour
is being evaluated. The figure indicates that follower LMX is directly related only to
organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a follower perspective. The
problem with the use of self-reports is self-serving bias on the part of respondents who
wish to appear to be good citizens (Organ, 1988). Follower reports of their own OCBs
could hence be seen as less reliable than leader reports. Furthermore, it is noteworthy
233
that leader and follower perceptions of organisational citizenship behaviour are not
related.
It is interesting to note that follower LMX has a significant direct effect on
organisational justice and perceived organisational support, but not on organisationbased self-esteem. These findings hence partly support the findings of extant leadermember exchange research that has normally shown that individuals in high-quality
leader-member exchange relations have more positive job attitudes and engage in more
positive behaviours than those in lower-quality relationships engage (cf. Graen & UhlBien, 1995). An interesting discovery is also that all the LMX dimensions affect
different mediating variables, providing support for the multidimensional
conceptualisation of LMX (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Somewhat surprising is the finding
that the contribution dimension does not influence organisational citizenship behaviour,
although both concern the followers’ perceptions of their own contribution.
The results suggest that LMX quality influences follower job attitudes and job attitudes
influence organisational citizenship behaviour. However, this does not constitute
mediation due to the insignificant direct effect of LMX quality on organisational
citizenship behaviour. Perceived organisational support emerged as the most significant
follower perception influencing organisational citizenship behaviour from a leader
perspective. This supports the argument made by Wayne et al. (1997) that leadermember exchange could be a predictor of perceived organisational support as leaders
often administer discretionary rewards linked with job performance, which previous
research has found likely to affect perceived organisational support (Eisenberger et al.,
1986). For follower perceptions of organisational citizenship behaviour, organisationbased self-esteem was the most significant influence. Past research indicates that high
organisation-based self-esteem individuals are more likely to perform organisational
citizenship behaviours than low organisation-based self-esteem individuals (Van Dyne,
Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham & Cummings, 2000; as cited in Aryee et al., 2002). A
result difficult to explain is the strong negative effect of job satisfaction on leader
organisational citizenship behaviour. Do satisfied followers appear to contribute less or
are they satisfied due to job roles that do not require performing organisational
citizenship behaviours?
To recall from Chapter 3, an important issue in organisational citizenship behaviour
research is the boundary between in-role and extra-role behaviour and the extent to
which what is measured as organisational citizenship behaviour, or extra-role behaviour,
in fact is part of the job or so called in-role behaviour (see e.g. Morrison, 1994; Lam et
al., 1999). The argument made is that employees’ behaviour is influenced by whether
they define a given activity as in-role or extra-role and that this definition could differ
from the one of their leaders (e.g. Morrison, 1994). The moderating effect of definition
of job breadth regarding organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a follower
perspective was not as expected. The sign for the beta coefficient was positive,
suggesting that the higher the score for definition of job breadth, the stronger the
relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour (cf. Farh et al.,
1997). It was expected that for followers with broad work role definitions, attitudinal
factors and LMX quality would be less important in determining organisational
citizenship behaviours than for followers with narrow work role definitions. In the
234
former case, a person may feel obliged to “do one’s job” despite negative job attitudes.
In the latter case, where the same behaviours are considered as extra-role, these
behaviours may not be performed unless they were a way to reciprocate for e.g. fair
treatment or a high-quality relationship with the leader. In contrast, the results indicate
that the relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour is stronger
for those with broad role definitions.
6.6.2 Intracultural Chinese dyads
The results of regressing organisational citizenship behaviour on follower LMX and
hypothesised mediators and moderators in intraculturalChinese dyads are presented in
this section. After reporting the results pertaining to each specific hypothesis the results
are summarised in figure format and discussed. The specific regression results including
beta weights and levels of significance are reported in tables in Appendix 6.
OCB hypothesis 1 predicted that follower perceptions of job breadth will moderate the
relationship between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour.
This hypothesis was not supported with regard to organisational citizenship behaviour
measured either from a leader or follower perspective. The interaction term between
LMX and follower perceptions of job breadth did not explain significant incremental
variance in organisational citizenship behaviour or demonstrate a significant beta weight
in the final equation.
OCB hypothesis 2 predicted that high follower LMX quality will be positively related to
follower organisational citizenship behaviour. This hypothesis was supported with
regard to organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a leader perspective but
not supported with regard to organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a
follower perspective. The results suggest that overall follower LMX and the loyalty
dimension are significantly related to organisational citizenship behaviour measured
from a leader’s perspective.
OCB hypothesis 3 predicted that follower ren qin will moderate the relationship
between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour. This
hypothesis was not supported, as the interaction term between LMX and ren qin did not
explain significant incremental variance in organisational citizenship behaviour
(measured either from a leader or follower perspective) or demonstrate a significant beta
weight in the final equation.
OCB hypothesis 4 predicted that follower reports of organisational citizenship
behaviour (i.e. OCB measured from a follower perspective) will be positively related to
leader reports of organisational citizenship behaviour. This hypothesis was not
supported.
OCB hypothesis 5 predicted that follower organisational justice will mediate the
relationship between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour.
Follower LMX had a significant direct effect (and especially the affect and professional
235
respect dimensions) on organisational justice. However, justice did not have a
significant effect on organisational citizenship behaviour measured either from a leader
or follower perspective (although the correlation with the latter was positive and
strong).
OCB hypothesis 6 predicted that follower perceived organisational support will
mediate the relationship between LMX and organisational citizenship behaviour.
Follower LMX as a composite or group had a significant direct effect on perceived
organisational support. However, perceived organisational support did not have a
significant effect on organisational citizenship behaviour measured either from a leader
or follower perspective (although the correlation with the latter was positive and
strong).
OCB hypothesis 7 predicted that follower organisation-based self-esteem will mediate
the relationship between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship
behaviour. Follower LMX (and especially the contribution dimension) had a significant
effect on organisation-based self-esteem, but organisation-based self-esteem was not
significantly related to organisational citizenship behaviour measured either from a
leader or follower perspective (although the correlation with the latter was positive and
strong).
OCB hypothesis 8 predicted that follower job satisfaction will mediate the relationship
between follower LMX and follower organisational citizenship behaviour. This
hypothesis was not supported, as LMX did not have a significant influence on
satisfaction (with the exception of the contribution dimension), and job satisfaction was
not related to organisational citizenship behaviour measured either from a leader or
follower perspective.
Regarding the antecedents of organisational citizenship behaviour in Chinese dyads in
general, it could be noted that leader neuroticism, follower position and follower
individualism exerted a significant negative influence on organisational citizenship
behaviour measured from a leader perspective whereas follower age had a positive
effect. For follower organisational citizenship behaviour, follower conscientiousness
and age had a positive effect.
These results are summarised in the figure below. All the marked relationships are
positive.
236
Figure 25: OCB-related results, intracultural Chinese dyads
Job breadth
moderator
Follower overall
LMX
Ren qin
moderator
Justice
LMX dimensions
Affect
POS
Loyalty
Satisfaction
OCB, follower
perspective
OCB, leader
perspective
Contribution
OBSE
Respect
The figure indicates that there is a strong relationship between leader-member exchange
quality and organisational citizenship behaviour as well as between leader-member
exchange quality and job attitudes in Chinese dyads. This provides support for the
argument made by Hui et al. (1999) that as interpersonal relationships and guanxi play
an important role in China, leader-member exchange, which is an interpersonal variable,
should have a strong effect on the employees’ willingness to participate in
organisational citizenship behaviours. The argument made by Aryee et al. (2002) that
the relational leader-member exchange approach to leaderships is especially well suited
for the relationship-oriented Eastern cultures is also supported. In addition, the
significant effect of the loyalty dimension is in line with the suggestion made by
Dienesch and Liden (1986) that as the loyalty dimension is primarily concerned with the
degree to which the dyad members protect each other relative to those outside the
relationship, performing organisational citizenship behaviours could constitute a means
of showing loyalty.
The finding that LMX is linked to organisational justice supports the study conducted
by Mansour-Cole and Scott (1998) showing that followers in high-quality leadermember exchange relationships tend to have higher perceptions of procedural justice.
Furthermore, Lee (2001) found support for a positive relationship between leadermember exchange and procedural and distributive justice. In addition, the strong
relationship between LMX and organisation-based self-esteem supports the previously
not empirically tested hypothesis that leader-member exchange influences organisationbased self-esteem, as it is conceivable that an employee who has a high-quality
relationship with his or leader including mutual perceptions of affect, loyalty,
contribution and professional respect should perceive themselves as “important,
237
meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within their employing organisation” (Pierce et
al., 1989, p. 625).
It is noteworthy that none of the mediating variables demonstrated a significant effect
on organisational citizenship behaviour measured either from a leader or follower
perspective. This accentuates the importance of LMX quality even further. (However,
when the mediating variables where entered into the equation, the effect of LMX on
organisational citizenship behaviour was reduced). Furthermore, it is interesting to see
that, as in intercultural dyads, leader and follower perceptions of organisational
citizenship behaviour are not related. Furthermore, again, all the LMX dimensions
affected different mediating variables, providing support for the multidimensional
conceptualisation of LMX (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
6.6.3 Comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads
The results pertaining to the relationship between follower leader-member exchange and
organisational citizenship behaviour indicate that leader-member exchange is a more
important determinant of organisational citizenship behaviour in intracultural Chinese
than in intercultural dyads. In addition and more specifically, in intracultural Chinese
dyads, follower leader-member exchange was significantly related to organisational
citizenship behaviour measured from a leader perspective. However, in intercultural
dyads follower leader-member exchange is significantly related to organisational
citizenship behaviour measured from a follower perspective when the composite
measure is used. The finding that leader-member exchange is a more important
determinant of organisational citizenship behaviour in intracultural Chinese than in
intercultural dyads could hypothetically be explained by differences in rules of
reciprocation. In intracultural Chinese dyads, the followers may be able to reciprocate to
high levels of loyalty and respect felt for leader in a way that is identified as
organisational citizenship behaviour by the Chinese leaders whereas this could be more
difficult in the case of Western leaders.
Regarding the effect of the different dimensions of leader-member exchange, in
intercultural dyads follower perceptions of their own contribution and follower respect
for their leader influenced follower perceptions of organisational citizenship behaviour,
whereas in intracultural Chinese dyads, follower perceptions of leader loyalty and
respect for leader determined leader perceptions of organisational citizenship behaviour.
Follower respect for leader was related to organisational justice in both dyad types.
What both intracultural Chinese and intercultural dyads have in common is that leadermember exchange quality was found to influence most job attitudes (i.e. the
hypothesised mediating variables) including organisational justice, perceived
organisational support and organisation-based self-esteem, but excluding job
satisfaction. However, in intercultural dyads, leader-member exchange is not related to
organisation-based self-esteem as in intracultural Chinese dyads. Furthermore, in
neither dyad type is organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a follower
perspective related to organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a leader
238
perspective. What differentiates intercultural dyads from Chinese dyads is that job
attitudes are much more closely related to organisational citizenship behaviour in
intercultural than in Chinese dyads (but this result could partly be confounded by
multicollinearity).
239
7 CONCLUSIONS
This concluding chapter begins with a summary of the present study (section 7.1). Next,
some general conclusions pertaining to the major findings are drawn (section 7.2).
Finally, some implications of the findings are discussed, including theoretical and
practical implications as well as limitations and suggestions for further research (section
7.3).
7.1 SUMMARY
The aim of the present study is to increase our understanding of the influences on
leader-follower relationships in an intercultural Chinese context and to increase our
knowledge of the work-related implications of the quality of these relationships. An
attempt is made to answer the following two research questions: 1) Which personal,
interpersonal, and behavioural characteristics influence the quality of leader-follower
relationships? and 2) How is the quality of the leader-follower relationship related to the
employees’ willingness to co-operate and contribute to their organisation? These
questions are examined using leader-member exchange theory (LMX; Graen, Novak, &
Sommerkamp, 1982) as a theoretical basis. The leader-follower dyad is in the centre of
attention, and as both leader and follower perceptions and characteristics are examined
and related to each other, it is suggested that the term individual within dyad
corresponds most closely to the level of analysis of the present study.
Leader-member exchange quality is conceptualised as a multidimensional construct in
accordance with Liden and Maslyn (1998). This multidimensional conceptualisation is
combined with the view of leader-member exchange quality as perceptions of the
quality of the relationship that reside within the individual independently of the
perceptions of the quality of the relationship of the dyadic partner. This entails that
leader and follower perceptions are separate constructs that do not require mutuality.
However, it is argued that even if the perception of leader-member exchange quality is
an individual perception, it has been formed as a result of dyadic interaction and the
interplay between leader and follower characteristics. This implies that leader and
follower perceptions are likely to influence each other and be mutually reinforcing.
It was suggested that the Western LMX framework is applicable in the present
intercultural Chinese context, taking into consideration both the previous use of the
leader-member exchange construct in China and the possible acculturation taking place
in the Western-owned subsidiaries in China. However, extensive validation analyses of
the employed measures have been necessary. Contextual considerations have together
with the leader-member exchange framework influenced the hypothesis formulation and
choice of variables to be examined in this study.
Twenty hypotheses concerning the antecedents of leader-member exchange quality and
their dimensions were developed separately for leaders and for followers. The leader
and follower personal characteristics that were included in the hypotheses based on
240
theoretical and contextual considerations include personality traits, values, cultural
knowledge and demographic factors. Interpersonal variables that were examined in the
present study are differences in personality, values, and demographics as well as
perceived similarity. In addition, leader and follower behaviours were included. These
are follower performance and fair treatment provided by leader (i.e. interactional
justice). Finally, one dyad-level-LMX hypothesis was presented, predicting that the
quality of the leader-follower relationship would be higher in intracultural Chinese than
in intercultural Western-Chinese dyads.
In addition to the LMX-related hypotheses, eight hypotheses concerning the relationship
between follower leader-member exchange quality and follower organisational
citizenship behaviour were presented. The majority of these hypotheses concern the
moderating and mediating effects of various perceptual variables on the relationship
between leader-member exchange and organisational citizenship behaviour. The
hypothesised moderators were follower ren qin and definition of job breadth. Mediators
included in the study were perceived organisational support, organisational justice, job
satisfaction and organisation-based self-esteem. In addition, some relevant personal
characteristics were included in the analyses. All these hypotheses were expected to be
relevant both in intercultural Western-Chinese and intracultural Chinese dyads.
Data were collected from employees at 13 companies operating in the Shanghai area.
These companies represented a variety of industries from the secondary industry
including telecommunications, forestry, construction, engineering, chemicals, food and
beverages. Five of these companies were Finnish, four Swedish, two British and one
Australian. Two types of questionnaires were used for this study: a leader version and a
follower version. The contents of these questionnaires were very similar and identical
regarding the items related to personality and values. Both questionnaires were available
in English and in Mandarin and contained around 350 questions. The leader
questionnaire was distributed to expatriate managers as well as local Chinese managers
occupying positions at multiple levels in the organisation. The follower questionnaire
was distributed to up to three Chinese subordinates for each leader participating in the
study. A total of 318 employees participated in the study, of whom 85 leaders (48
Chinese and 37 Western) and 233 followers (all Chinese). The response rate was 65
percent. 232 matched manager-subordinate dyads (154 completely Chinese and 78
Western-Chinese dyads) were obtained for analysis.
Before testing the hypotheses, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess
the factor structure and convergent and discriminant validities of the perceptual
constructs employed in the study (i.e. leader-member exchange, organisational
citizenship behaviour, organisation-based self-esteem, perceived organisational support,
inrole performance, perceived similarity and justice). Separate confirmatory factor
analyses were conducted for followers and leaders and for the English and Chinese
leader measures. In other words, three confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for
each central construct: one for the Chinese followers, one for Western leaders and one
for Chinese leaders. The small sample size restricted the level of complexity of the
analysed models and perfect fitting models were not obtained in most cases, but the
confirmatory factor analyses nevertheless enabled an improvement of the measures and
an awareness of potential problems associated with their use. In addition, the level of
241
equivalence between the Western and Chinese leader measures was assessed through
multiple-sample confirmatory factor analyses. Item-bias analysis was also conducted. In
most cases, these results suggested non-equivalence and bias regarding the Chinese and
Western leader perceptual measures. As a result, Western and Chinese leader responses
are not comparable, and the decision was made to analyse intercultural and intracultural
Chinese dyads separately.
The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses (with the exception
of the dyad-level hypothesis). The results obtained confirm and extend a number of
findings in the leader-member exchange literature. For instance, the importance of
perceived similarity, follower personal characteristics and behavioural measures in
determining leader-member exchange were confirmed in the present study. Previous
findings pertaining to the outcomes of leader-member exchange were also corroborated,
as leader-member exchange quality was found to be related to organisational citizenship
behaviour as well as job attitudes that have previously been linked to LMX. The
application of the leader-member exchange framework to an intercultural Chinese
context enabled an expansion of the framework through an inclusion of new variables
not examined in previous leader-member exchange research. Values, for instance, have
not been examined in previous leader-member exchange research and leader
characteristics have not been examined extensively. Values and leader characteristics as
well as cultural knowledge were found to influence leader-member exchange in the
present study. However, it should be noted that the relative importance of the different
antecedents and outcomes of leader-member exchange differed across dimensions,
perspectives (i.e. leader or follower) and dyad type (inter- or intracultural). The results
indicate that intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads have some common features
with regard to the antecedents and outcomes of leader-member exchange quality as well
a the degree of perceived leader-member exchange quality, but also many specific
characteristics that distinguish the dyad types from each other. Furthermore, the analysis
of covariance indicated that the level of overall leader-member exchange quality and
affect as perceived by followers is higher in intercultural than in intracultural dyads.
The major findings are summarised in the next section, where some general conclusions
pertaining to the results of the study are drawn.
242
7.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Some general conclusions pertaining to the major findings of the present study are
drawn in this section. The results were discussed more in detail in the previous chapter,
while the aim of this section is to present some general tendencies detected through the
analyses conducted in the study.
The following general conclusions can be made based on the findings of the present
study:
1. The Chinese followers have higher perceptions of their Western than their Chinese
leaders. The finding that leader-member exchange quality is higher in intercultural
Western-Chinese dyads than in intracultural Chinese dyads contradicts the
proposition made by Tsui et al. (1996) that higher leader-member exchange quality
will follow when leaders are of the same race or gender as their followers than in the
case of race and gender dissimilarity. Previous research has shown that a person’s
appearance and cultural background alone can have an impact on how the person is
assessed (e.g. Gilbert et al., 2002). The higher quality of leader-member exchange
reported in intercultural dyads could partly have been caused by a general
admiration by Chinese followers for Western management and hence positive
stereotypes of Western leaders. The Chinese followers who work in the subsidiary
may have chosen to work for the Western company in expectation of personally and
professionally rewarding opportunities that exceed those offered by Chinese
companies (see e.g. Wang, 2001).
2. Very few personal and interpersonal characteristics have the same effect on leadermember exchange quality across different groups (i.e. across leader and follower
perspectives and dyad types). The majority of the personal characteristics hence
cannot clearly be defined as “good” or “bad”. How favourable these characteristics
are depends on the situation and the interacting party. This finding implies that
different people have different expectations of the people they interact with and
different personality traits are required for different tasks (cf. Neuman, Wagner, &
Christiansen, 1999). In other words, what constitutes “appropriate leadership” is
likely to be highly perceptual and vary across cultures, situations or tasks (cf. e.g.
Jung & Avolio, 1999). It has also been suggested that in contemporary Chinese
societies, traditional Confucian values coexist with modern (or Western) values and
that it hence is increasingly difficult to define a set of values that is accepted by all
(Farh & Cheng, 2000). In a similar vein, Warner (2003) suggests that Chinese
employees may be inclined to accept Western norms and practices if these are
perceived as “best international practice” (p. 218) whereas they could revert back to
more traditional Chinese values and practices in other instances. This is a possible
explanation for why consistent effects across groups of personality and values on
leader-member exchange were not detected in the present study. Some more specific
conclusions pertaining to the divergent effect of personal and interpersonal
characteristics across groups are presented below. However, it should be
remembered that as the perceptual measures did not demonstrate cross-cultural
243
equivalence, strict comparisons across groups are not possible. The present findings
hence only highlight some general tendencies.
3. The effect of certain leader personal characteristics on follower perceptions of
leader-member exchange quality is dependent upon whether the leader is Western
or Chinese; the same characteristics are not always valued in Western and Chinese
leaders. In the present study, leader extroversion had an opposite effect on follower
LMX quality in intercultural as compared to intracultural Chinese dyads. In
addition, there were a number of leader characteristics that were significant as a
Chinese leader trait but not as a Western trait and vice versa. Thomas and Toyne
(1995) suggest that follower reactions to a leader representing a different country
may be affected by the extent to which the manager’s behaviour matches
expectations and stereotypes of and the extent to which the behaviour induces
perceptions of similarity. If the stereotype of the successful Western leader is that of
an extroverted person, leader extroversion would have a positive influence on
leader-member exchange quality in intercultural dyads. However, extroversion may
not be a personality trait associated with Chinese leadership, which would lead to a
different effect in intracultural Chinese dyads. One leader personal characteristic,
however, was viewed favourably as a trait for both Western and Chinese leaders:
self-enhancement. Leader neuroticism was also predominately a negative trait,
although as a Chinese leader characteristic it had a positive effect on follower
perceptions of affect.
4. Western expatriates’ perceptions of their Chinese followers are influenced by
different factors than the Chinese leaders’ perceptions. This finding implies that
Western and Chinese leaders may have different bases for judging their followers.
Some evidence exists that cognitive leader and member prototypes have a cultural
component, meaning that the content and complexity of prototypes may differ across
cultures (e.g. Ah Chong & Thomas, 1997; Shaw, 1990; Ling et al., 2000). A distinctive
difference between intercultural and intracultural Chinese dyads is that follower
inrole performance is a stronger determinant of LMX quality for Chinese than for
Western leaders. This finding supports the proposition made by Cheng (1995, as
cited in Farh & Cheng, 2000) that follower competence is an important determinant
of whether the Chinese leader categorises the follower as belonging to the in-group
or out-group. In contrast, perceived similarity is more important for Western
leaders, indicating that affect-related variables and attraction play a larger role in
intercultural than in intracultural Chinese dyads. This interpretation is supported by
the finding that factors that influence perceptions of similarity in general, i.e. mainly
interpersonal variables, tend to have a larger impact on the perceptions of the
Western leaders than on the perceptions of the Chinese leaders. In contrast, the
direct effect of follower characteristics is more significant with regard to the
perceptions of the Chinese leaders. Furthermore, the confirmatory factor analyses
indicated that overall Chinese leader LMX is highly related to the contribution
dimension whereas the affect dimension was more important for Western leaders. In
sum, Chinese leader LMX quality is highly influenced by follower performance and
follower characteristics whereas Western leader LMX quality is more influenced by
the level of actual and perceived similarity as well as leader predisposition.
Furthermore, in the present study follower cultural knowledge had an opposite
244
effect on leader LMX quality in intercultural as compared to intracultural Chinese
dyads. However, both Western and Chinese leaders appear to value follower
extroversion, harmony, and low self-enhancement.
5. Differences between leader and follower personal characteristics are not always
negative in terms of leader-member exchange quality. E.g. differences in
collectivism have a positive effect in all dyad types, personality differences are
positive for all but expatriate leader perceptions, and differences in individualism
have a positive impact on leader affect in intercultural dyads. However,
demographic differences are always negative and differences in Interpersonal
relatedness demonstrate either a negative or non-significant effect. The reason for
why differences in values and personality do not demonstrate a consistent negative
effect could be that leaders might not be expected to possess the same personality
traits as followers. Followers may value different personality traits and
characteristics in a leader than the ones they possess themselves. In other words,
dissimilarity on some variables could be desired. For instance, Tsui et al. (1996)
propose that if someone is in a power of authority, as the leader is in relation to the
follower in the dyad, the followers would expect the leader to be different from
them in the capacity to lead. This seems to be the case especially for Chinese
employees as personality differences have a positive effect on both the Chinese
leaders’ and followers’ perceptions of their dyadic partner (whereas these
differences have a negative effect on the perceptions of the Western leader).
Furthermore, diversity between the actors could have a favourable effect if the
unique attributes of each follower are necessary for the dyad to function well,
whereas compatibility could have a positive effect by facilitating communication
between the actors and the motivation to work together (cf. Neuman et al., 1999).
6. Leader-member exchange quality is largely determined by factors that predispose
our perceptions of the dyadic partner and not as much by the characteristics of the
dyadic partner. A more specific sub-aim of the present study was the examination of
the extent to which the quality of the leader-follower relationship is a result of
relatively stable personal characteristics that predispose us to approach interpersonal
interaction in a specific way in relation to the characteristics of the person we are
interacting with and his or her behaviour. The results indicate that follower personal
characteristics as a group exert strong influence on follower perceptions of leadermember exchange quality, while they do not have a large impact on leader
perceptions of leader-member exchange quality (with the exception of the effect on
loyalty and contribution in intracultural Chinese dyads). In other words, follower
personal characteristics mainly influence follower perceptions of the leader, and not
how the leader perceives the follower. Leader personal characteristics as a group
explain significant variance in both leader and follower perceptions of leadermember exchange, but especially pertaining to leader perceptions. It hence seems
that personal characteristics to a larger extent influence how we perceive another
person than how we are perceived by the other person.
7. The fact that leader characteristics influence follower leader-member exchange
quality while follower characteristics do not largely influence leader leader-member
exchange quality implies that leader characteristics are more important
245
determinants of leader-member exchange quality than follower characteristics. The
significant effect demonstrated by leader characteristics on leader-member exchange
quality is in line with the argument that leaders occupy a central role as they are the
ones who are expected to make the initial “offer” to develop a high-quality leadermember exchange relationship (Bauer & Green, 1996). The lesser significance of
follower characteristics could be due to the fact that the Chinese followers’
behaviours may reflect their role obligations more than their personalities and
values, or at least it is possible that personality is not such a strong determinant of
behaviour in China as it is in the West (cf. Church & Lonner, 1998). Furthermore,
the Chinese followers may not express their personalities and values in a way that
conforms to Western norms and the expectations of the Western expatriate leaders,
which could reduce the effect of follower personality and values on leader
perceptions of LMX quality even further.
8. Leader cultural knowledge influences leader perceptions of their follower but not
follower perceptions of their leaders. More specifically, the expatriate leaders’
cultural knowledge and experience has a positive effect on the expatriates’ own
perceptions of their Chinese followers but has no effect on how the Chinese
followers perceive their expatriate leaders. Cultural knowledge could have a positive
impact on leader-follower relations by enabling the expatriate to make accurate (and
positive) interpretations of the culturally different follower (cf. Shaw, 1990). A
possible explanation for the non-significant effect of expatriate leader cultural
knowledge is that Chinese followers may not expect the expatriates to adjust their
behaviour to suit the local standards. Instead, they may value characteristics that are
perceived as typically Western. Gertsen (1990) goes as far as suggesting that as the
expatriates are considered to be representatives of their cultures, “native” behaviour
could create confusion and uncertainty among the locals and even convey an
untrustworthy image of the expatriate. It is also possible that leaders overestimate
their cultural knowledge and abilities to behave according to local standards, in
which case cultural knowledge could produce a negative effect (cf. Gertsen, 1990).
Chinese leaders’ cultural knowledge had a negative impact on their perceptions of
their followers, but no effect on how the followers perceive their leader. It is
possible that internationally experienced and trained Chinese leaders are more
demanding, and hence likely to rate leader-member exchange quality lower than the
leaders who do not possess this cultural knowledge.
9. Follower cultural knowledge has an opposite effect on how the followers perceive
the leaders and the leaders perceive the followers. Furthermore, follower cultural
knowledge has the opposite effect in intercultural versus intracultural Chinese
dyads. More specifically, in intercultural dyads follower cultural knowledge has a
negative effect on how the expatriates are perceived but a positive effect on how the
expatriates perceive the follower. A possible explanation for the negative impact of
follower cultural knowledge is that cultural knowledge could reduce the effect of
projected similarity (Adler, 1997). The Chinese followers with less cultural
knowledge could overestimate the level of similarity with the Western leader
(perceived similarity is closely related to LMX quality), whereas those with more
cultural knowledge could estimate the level of similarity more accurately, and hence
more negatively. This interpretation was supported by the fact that the negative
246
effect of cultural knowledge on leader-member exchange was mediated by
perceived similarity and perceived similarity was negatively influenced by the
length of interaction between leader and follower. The positive effect of follower
cultural knowledge on the perceptions of the expatriate leader is possibly due to the
fact that cultural knowledge could enable the follower to adjust his or her behaviour
in accordance with the perceived expectations of the leader (cf. Thomas & Toyne,
1995). Conversely, in intracultural Chinese dyads, follower cultural knowledge has
a positive impact on how the Chinese leaders are perceived but a negative impact on
how the Chinese leaders view their followers. The positive effect of follower
cultural knowledge on follower perceptions of their Chinese leaders could very
tentatively be explained by a rectification of the overly positive stereotypification of
Western leaders in favour of the Chinese leader. Regarding the negative impact on
the Chinese leaders’ perceptions of their followers, it is possible that followers with
cultural knowledge have undergone higher levels of acculturation than those with
less cultural knowledge. This acculturation, in turn, could reduce adherence to
traditional norms and deviation from the role requirements prescribed by the wu lun,
which could reduce the leader’s perceptions of leader-member exchange quality if
the leader still endorses more traditional Chinese values. Furthermore, Chinese
leaders may have high expectations of followers with cultural knowledge, leading to
a negative effect in case these expectations are not met.
10. All the perceptions one dyadic partner has of the other dyadic partner are closely
related (i.e. leader-member exchange quality, perceived similarity, and interactional
justice or inrole performance are linked). The support found for the hypothesised
importance of perceived similarity as an antecedent to leader-member exchange
quality supports the argument that perceptions of similarity lead an individual to
identify with the other dyadic member and produce an affective reaction that has a
direct influence on social relationships (Engle & Lord, 1997). The finding that
interactional justice is significantly related to follower leader-member exchange
provides support for the assumption that one of the requirements for the
development of high-quality relationships is that each party must see the exchange
as reasonably fair (Graen & Scandura, 1987). The close association between
follower inrole performance is also supported by past research (e.g. Wayne &
Ferris, 1990) suggesting that the leaders assess the followers’ ability, performance
and competence through a series of assignments and eventually develop highquality exchanges with high-ability, competent, and high-performing followers.
However, due to the dynamic nature of the relationship where repeated interactions
result in the formation of relationships of different types and quality that in turn
influence future exchanges (cf. e.g. Uhl-Bien et al., 2000) it is difficult to determine
the causal order between the behavioural variables and leader-member exchange.
11. Leader perceptions of leader-member exchange quality and follower perceptions of
leader-member exchange quality are interrelated through the behaviour of the other
party. As predicted, it seems that positive leader perceptions of leader-member
exchange quality will increase the fairness of treatment provided by the leader. This
fairness (i.e. interactional justice), in turn, has a positive influence on follower
perceptions of leader-member exchange quality. It is noteworthy that this effect was
not demonstrated in intercultural dyads, i.e. Western leader perceptions of LMX
247
quality are not related to fair treatment provided by the leader. As Confucianism
encourages reciprocation (cf. e.g. Yeung & Tung, 1996), Chinese leaders may feel
obliged to reciprocate for the affect, loyalty, contribution and respect they perceive
their followers to provide them with in terms of fair treatment whereas the Western
leaders do not appear to feel as obliged to reciprocate. In a similar vein, positive
follower perceptions of leader-member exchange quality seem to induce better
follower performance that in turn leads to higher leader perceptions of leadermember exchange quality. In sum, the results indicate that Chinese employees,
working either with Chinese or Western leaders or as leaders, may reciprocate for
the affect, loyalty, and respect they perceive their dyadic partners to provide them
with through increased performance or fair treatment.
12. Leader-member exchange quality influences most job attitudes including
organisational justice, perceived organisational support and organisation-based selfesteem, but excluding job satisfaction. What differentiates intercultural dyads from
intracultural Chinese dyads is that job attitudes are much more closely related to
organisational citizenship behaviour in intercultural than in intracultural Chinese
dyads.
13. Leader-member exchange quality is a more important determinant of organisational
citizenship behaviour in intracultural Chinese than in intercultural dyads. In
intracultural Chinese dyads, follower leader-member exchange quality was
significantly related to organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a leader
perspective. In intercultural dyads, follower leader-member exchange quality was
related to perceived organisational support, which in turn was related to
organisational citizenship behaviour measured from a leader perspective. These
findings could hypothetically be explained by differences in rules of reciprocation.
As noted e.g. by Tsui and Farh (1997), there is a Chinese tendency of treating
people differently depending on one’s relationship to them. This is the basic reason
why guanxi is of such importance in China. It is likely that Chinese followers have
more extensive guanxi bases with their Chinese than with their Western leaders. The
followers may hence feel more obliged to reciprocate to the Chinese leaders as
compared to the Western leaders for high levels of affect, loyalty and respect.
Additionally, the Western origin of the leader might in itself be sufficient to reduce
adherence to traditional rules of reciprocation. Alternatively, it is possible that the
Chinese followers are able to reciprocate to their Chinese leaders in a way that is
identified as organisational citizenship behaviour by the Chinese leaders.
Conversely, it could be more difficult for the Chinese followers to reciprocate
appropriately to Western leaders. The finding that in intercultural dyads, perceived
organisational support is related to leader perceptions of organisational citizenship
behaviour indicates that Chinese followers working with Western leaders could be
more prone to reciprocate to support gained from the organisation in general than to
support provided just by the leader. However, leader-member exchange quality
contributes to these general perceptions of organisational support. In sum, the
argument made by Aryee et al. (2002) that the relational leader-member exchange
approach to leadership is especially well suited for the relationship-oriented Eastern
cultures is supported. The importance of leader-follower relations for the Chinese
employees is further accentuated by the finding that leader-member exchange
248
quality is not only related to organisational citizenship behaviour but also to
follower performance and fair treatment provided by the leader. In other words, the
quality of the leader-follower relationship seems to influence the behaviour of
Chinese employees more than the behaviour of Western employees.
14. The relative importance of different antecedents of leader-member exchange quality
varies across the different dimensions of leader-member exchange and the different
dimensions influence different job attitudes. This finding supports the argument
made by Liden and Maslyn (1998) that leader-member exchange relationships may
develop and endure in a number of ways and that the different dimensions could be
affected by different factors and predict different organisational behaviours and
outcomes.
249
7.3 IMPLICATIONS
In Chapter 1, some theoretical and empirical gaps pertaining to leader-member
exchange research were identified. An attempt to fill some of these gaps was made in
the present study by applying the leader-member exchange framework and the
multidimensional conceptualisation of the construct to an intercultural Chinese context
using an extensive set of variables. To the extent that these attempts were successful, the
present study makes a contribution to leader-member exchange research and the field of
organisational behaviour in general. The findings of the study also have implications for
practice. However, the findings and their implications are tempered by some limitations.
Due to these limitations and unfilled gaps, there are many interesting areas for future
research to cover. The theoretical and practical implications of the present study will be
discussed below, followed by a presentation of some limitations and suggestions for
future research.
7.3.1 Theoretical implications
This study contributes to leader-member exchange research by applying the LMX
construct and framework to a new setting: the intercultural context. The confirmation of
extant findings in leader-member exchange research to the present intercultural Chinese
context increases the external validity of the leader-member exchange framework. For
instance, the importance of perceived similarity, follower personal characteristics and
behavioural measures in determining leader-member exchange quality was confirmed in
the present study. External validity was also increased regarding the outcomes of leadermember exchange, as the quality of the relationship was found to be related to
organisational citizenship behaviour and many job attitudes that have previously been
linked to leader-member exchange quality. Additionally, the application of the leadermember exchange framework to an intercultural Chinese context has enabled an
expansion of the framework through an inclusion of new variables not examined in
previous leader-member exchange research, such as values. The inclusion of a large
number of leader characteristics is also new to leader-member exchange research.
Conceptualising leader and follower leader-member exchange as separate constructs
and including both measures in the same study also contributes to leader-member
exchange research. To recall, of the over 100 studies of leader-member exchange to
date, the majority have been concerned with leader-member exchange quality measured
from a follower perspective and only a few published studies have simultaneously
assessed the exchange from both leader and follower perspectives (Minsky, 2002).
Furthermore, the results of the confirmatory factor analyses give some further support
for the construct validity of the multidimensional measure of LMX (LMX-MDM; Liden
& Maslyn 1998) in a non-western context. The use and validation of the leader version
of this measure is an additional contribution of the present study, as the
multidimensional leader measure has previously rarely been used, and to the best of my
knowledge, it has not been used in a Chinese context before.
250
In addition, a significant contribution can be found in the identification of dimensionspecific antecedents and outcomes of LMX quality. Although the multidimensional
measure of leader-member exchange has been used in previous studies, only few studies
have been found that examine the antecedents and outcomes of the specific dimensions
of leader-member exchange (e.g. Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001).
The findings regarding the influence of personal characteristics on the quality of leaderfollower relations have implications for international human resource management
research and areas such as selection, placement and training. Furthermore, the findings
of the present study add to the expatriation research through the inclusion of the local
employees in the analyses. As mentioned earlier, the expatriation literature has largely
focused on the characteristics of the expatriate while the local employees have mostly
been unexamined.
7.3.2 Practical implications
The finding that leader-follower relations influence follower job attitudes and
organisational citizenship behaviours supports the general recommendation that
attention in organisations should be paid to fostering high-quality relationships between
leaders and followers. The findings of the study induce a number of additional and more
specific practical recommendations, which however are tempered by the limitations of
the study to be discussed later in this chapter.
The results regarding the influence of personal characteristics on the quality of leaderfollower relations have practical implications for international human resource
management and areas such as selection, placement and training. As personality traits,
which were found to influence the quality of leader-follower relations, are relatively
stable characteristics, personality tests may serve as a useful selection tools. These
results more specifically suggest that there is utility in selecting non-neurotic
individuals, both leaders and followers, as neuroticism is a personality trait that
demonstrated a strong negative effect on perceptions of the quality of the leaderfollower relationship. Furthermore, it seems that in the present context, the selection of
leaders who demonstrate a high level of self-enhancement and followers who
demonstrate a high level of extroversion and harmony but low levels of selfenhancement has a favourable impact on the quality of leader-follower relationships. As
leader characteristics influence both leader and follower perceptions (while follower
characteristics mainly influence the followers’ own perceptions), special attention
should be given to the selection of leaders.
However, the results of the present study imply that the selection of individuals
possessing specific characteristics is not the only factor of importance when staffing
decisions are made in organisation. Important is also how leaders and followers are
matched to work together. The findings of the study suggest that leaders and followers
with similar demographic characteristics should be matched. However, differences
between leader and follower regarding other personal characteristics do not always have
a negative impact on the quality of leader-follower relationships. It was expected that
251
similar individuals would like each other more than dissimilar individuals and hence
have higher perceptions of each other. While demographic differences between leader
and follower demonstrate a negative impact in all cases as expected, personality
differences have positive impact on the perceptions of Chinese followers and leaders
although it has a negative effect on the perceptions of the Western leader. Differences in
collectivism also demonstrated a consistent positive effect. People possessing similar
personal characteristics should hence not automatically be matched to work together as
the employees may value and expect differences in leader and follower characteristics.
It should also be noted that Chinese and Western leaders’ perceptions of their followers
are not influenced favourably by the same follower characteristics. In general, it seems
that Chinese leaders value performance and contribution whereas Western leaders value
similarity. Furthermore, follower cultural knowledge has positive impact on follower
perceptions of Western leaders but a negative impact on follower perceptions of
Chinese leaders. Followers with cultural experience and knowledge should hence be
matched with the expatriate leaders.
What makes matching leaders and followers together even more difficult is the finding
that Chinese followers value different traits in Western versus Chinese leaders. A high
level of extroversion in a Western leader has a positive effect on the followers’
perceptions of the leader while extroversion has a negative effect as a Chinese leader
characteristic. In addition, there are a number of leader characteristics that are important
as a Chinese leader trait but not as a Western trait and vice versa. A policy of selecting
“extroverted leaders” would hence not have a positive impact on follower perceptions;
the decision has to be made taking into consideration whether the leader is Western or
Chinese.
An important finding of the present study is that Chinese followers have higher
perceptions of their Western than their Chinese leaders. Cross-cultural differences did
not demonstrate the expected negative impact. It is possible that the Chinese employees
have sought themselves to the Western multinationals due to a general admiration of
Western values and management and that the Chinese employees may hence prefer to
work with Western leaders. This preference could be a result of positive stereotypes of
Western leaders. Many multinational companies have reduced the number of expatriate
managers in recent years in order to reduce costs (cf. e.g. Wang, 2001), but the negative
influence of this policy on Chinese follower perceptions should be borne in mind. It
could also be useful to identify the expectations of the employees and those employees
with a desire to work with Western leaders.
The findings of the present study also have ramifications for designing training
programs for local and expatriate staff employed in the Western-owned subsidiaries.
The fact that cultural knowledge demonstrated a different effect or no effect across dyad
types and perspectives indicates that the favourable effect of cross-cultural training for
all employees cannot be taken for granted. Especially problematic is the question of
follower cultural training as follower cultural knowledge has a certain effect on how the
follower perceives the leader while it simultaneously has the opposite effect on how the
leader perceives the follower. Furthermore, follower cultural knowledge has the
opposite effect in intercultural versus intracultural Chinese dyads. Regarding leader
252
cultural knowledge, it influences leader perceptions of their follower but not follower
perceptions of their leaders. The partly contradictory effect of cross-cultural training
could maybe be avoided if training was not offered separately for leaders and followers
and each cultural group. When both interacting parties receive cross-cultural training
separately and try to adapt to the culture of their counterpart, confusion and
misunderstanding could be the result. These misunderstandings could derive from
behaviour that does not agree with expectations and stereotypes or clumsiness in
attempts to trying to adopt to the other culture. Such misunderstandings could maybe be
avoided through intercultural training and possibilities to clarify expectations provided
jointly for both leaders and followers representing different cultural groups.
In sum, due to the different effect of personal and interpersonal antecedents across
groups, it is difficult to achieve the “perfect match” between leader and follower
characteristics that simultaneously contribute to positive perceptions of leader-member
exchange for both leader and followers in intercultural as well as intracultural Chinese
dyads. However, the ability of organisations to enhance the quality of leader-follower
relations by selecting and matching people with suitable characteristics may provide an
effective means for organisations to increase positive job attitudes and work-related
outcomes.
7.3.3 Limitations
The present study has some limitations that lessen the validity of the findings and their
implications. Some of these limitations pertain to scope (i.e. what was included in the
study and what was not) and some of these are due to deficiencies with regard to the
data and the procedures adopted during analysis. Although the aim has been to present
these limitations throughout the thesis, some of the major limitations will be
summarised below.
A very general limitation of the present study is cultural bias. As the cultural
background of the researcher influences the choice of what should be studied in a target
culture (cf. Price-Williams, 2002), the hypothesis formulation and study design in the
present study is culturally biased. In other words, my Western cultural background has
influenced the individualistic nature of this study expressed as a focus on individual
characteristics. However, as Billings (2001, p. 51) points out “the various paths to
knowledge are complementary, not oppositional”, and my approach provides one of
many possible complementary perspectives to view leader-follower relations.
A major limitation of the study is the small sample size in relation to the number of
variables examined. What reduced the sample size even further was the decision to
analyse intercultural and intracultural dyads separately. Around 80 intercultural and 150
intracultural does not enable the inclusion of all hypothesised variables in one model
without reducing the power to detect statistically significant relationships. It is hence
possible that some of the insignificant relationships are due to Type II error, and that
additional significant relationships would have been found with a greater sample size.
The large number of variables that enables the assessment of the relative importance of
253
different variables is hence both the strength and a weakness of the present study.
Furthermore, despite the large number of included variables, unmeasured factors may
also have been relevant.
The inclusion of a large number of companies representing different countries and
industries creates the potential problem that differences and relationships detected
between the studied factors could be due to country, industry and company level
influences and not the individual-level influences that are in focus in this study.
Naturally, a more ideal case would have been to have a large number of participants
from each company as this would have enabled comparisons across companies and a
more thorough analysis of potential confounding variables. However, in practice it is
very difficult to study many expatriates in one subsidiary as Western multinationals are
increasingly decreasing the number of expatriates, and most subsidiaries employ only a
handful expatriates. However, as noted earlier in Chapter 4, alarmingly high differences
between companies could not be detected. Furthermore, the fact that there are certain
company-level differences does not necessarily undermine the importance of the
individual level influences that are arguably important in this study. It could be that
certain personal characteristic and job attitudes prevail in certain countries, industries
and companies if these industries and companies attract people with particular
predisposition and attitudes. In this case, it is hoped that the variables included in the
study capture these individual differences that could be reflected as company-level
differences.
The sample is limited to subsidiaries operating in the Shanghai area. A question arises
as to whether the results of the present study are applicable to other contexts. Although
the Shanghai sample is not expected to be representative of the entire Chinese
population and although the Finnish, Swedish, British and Australian expatriates may
not represent all Western expatriates, it is expected that some of the general conclusions
of this study are generalisable to other contexts. This argument is supported to the
extent that the present study partly conceptually replicates previous studies and to the
extent that the findings confirm the results obtained in extant research. There is hence
some evidence to support the finding that personal, interpersonal and behavioural
antecedents influence LMX quality and that LMX quality is related to organisational
citizenship behaviours in a US setting (where the theory mainly has been developed and
tested), China (where the framework also has been used) as well as in the interaction
between the East and West (the present study). However, it is not claimed that all the
detected relationships between individual variables are generalisable to other contexts,
especially as an important finding of the study is that the importance of specific
variables is highly dependent on the situation or the interacting individuals.
Another reason for caution in interpreting the results of the present study is due to the
self-report nature of the majority of the measures. The self-report nature of the
measures could potentially lead to the provision of socially desirable answers. With
self-report measures, one cannot entirely rule out the possibility that common method
bias could have augmented the relationships between constructs. This concerns
especially the perceptual measures. The confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated
some overlapping between the perceptual constructs, although the multiple factor
254
models demonstrated better fit than the one-factor models, indicating that no pervasive
method factor fully accounted for observed causal effects.
Finally, as the present study relies on cross-sectional data, causal conclusions and
especially attempts to determine the causal order of interactional justice, perceived
similarity, and follower leader-member exchange as well as between follower
performance, perceived similarity, and leader leader-member exchange are highly
tentative.
7.3.4 Suggestions for further research
The findings and limitations of the present study have implications for future research.
As noted earlier, leader-member exchange research up to date has largely focused on the
follower. Leader-member exchange has predominately been measured from a follower
perspective, mainly follower characteristics have been included as antecedents of LMX
quality, and mainly follower-related outcomes of LMX have been examined. The
present study differs from the majority of extant leader-member exchange studies to the
extent that it measures leader-member exchange quality from both a leader and a
follower perspective and to the extent that it includes a large number of leader
characteristics as antecedents. However, what has not been examined in the present
study or previous research is how leader-member exchange quality influences leaderrelated outcomes. The focus in the present study is on follower organisational
citizenship behaviour, which is a follower-related outcome although it is measured from
a leader perspective. Interesting results may accrue from examining how leader-member
exchange quality influences leader perceptions and work- related behaviour and the
impact on organisation-level outcomes. Future research pursing this line of inquiry in
the intercultural context could for instance investigate the question whether leadermember exchange quality is related to expatriate adjustment and performance in
overseas assignments. (The results obtained by Kraimer, Wayne and Jaworski [2001]
indicate that the quality of the LMX relationships expatriates have with their leaders
influence expatriate task and contextual performance [rated by leader] but not
adjustment. However, this study did not examine the influence of the relationships the
expatriates have with their followers).
As research in this area develops, it may be useful to refine the employed constructs and
measures further. Contemporary leader-member exchange measures including the
measures used in the present study mainly capture one of the dyadic partner’s
perceptions of the quality of the relationship. Actual exchange is hence not measured.
Future leader-member exchange research might benefit from the development of a
measure with a more dyadic nature and which is closer to measuring actual exchange
taking place between the leader and the follower instead of individual perceptions. The
recent attempt by Paglis and Green (2002) in this regard should be noted. The
development off cross-culturally equivalent measures is also warranted. The partial
overlapping of the LMX, perceived similarity, interactional justice, and inrole
performance constructs found in the confirmatory factor analyses indicate that further
255
construct development and measurement refinement with regard to these perceptual
measures would be appropriate. Additionally, it is apparent that more work needs to be
done on determining the causal order of interactional justice, perceived similarity, and
follower leader-member exchange as well as between follower performance, perceived
similarity, and leader leader-member exchange. Longitudinal research is thus needed.
Extant leader-member exchange research has also been criticised for being rather
unclear regarding the level of analysis (cf. Schriesheim et al., 1999). Some researchers
have asserted that leader-member exchange is clearly a within-groups leadership model
(cf. Schriesheim et al., 1999), meaning that differences must occur within groups,
whereas the individualised approach adopted in the present study states that differences
can occur, depending on the individuals (cf. Dansereau et al., 1995). To show that the
individualised approach is correct, one should demonstrate variation both between and
within groups (c.f. Dansereau et al., 1995). Within- and between-group analyses
(WABA; Dansereau et al., 1986) should be conducted to gain further information about
the exact level of analysis at which the hypothesised relationships occur (cf. Dansereau,
1995).
Future research might also address the salience and relative influence of other relevant
LMX-related antecedents and outcomes, such as contextual factors, which have not
been examined in an intercultural context or in the present study. In the Chinese
context, it would also be of interest to examine the mechanisms by which guanxi
influences leader-member exchange. The dearth of studies examining leader-related
outcomes of LMX quality was already mentioned. Furthermore, the impact of leadermember exchange quality on more objective indicators of performance and
organisational outcomes needs investigation. Additionally, testing LMX-related
hypotheses in other cultural contexts would be of interest. The moderating effect of
values could also be examined further.
The finding that the perceptions of leader-member exchange quality are higher in
intercultural than in intracultural Chinese dyads also has implications for further
research. In the earlier discussion, it was hypothesised that the higher quality of leadermember exchange reported in intercultural dyads could have been partly caused by a
general admiration by Chinese followers for Western management and hence positive
stereotypes of Western leaders. Previous research has shown that a person’s appearance
and cultural background alone can have an impact on how the person is assessed (e.g.
Gilbert et al., 2002). Future research could benefit from examining the influence of
positive stereotypes and investigating the consequences of positive stereotypes held
toward Western managers. An additional related issue for future research concerns the
effect of expatriate adaptation; if the Chinese followers prefer to work with Western
leaders, to what extent are there needs for the Western expatriates to adapt their
behaviour to the Chinese context?
In the earlier discussion, it was also suggested that the Chinese followers who work in
the Western-owned subsidiaries might have chosen their place to work as a result of a
general appreciation for Western values and management as well as endorsement of
Western values. The motives of the Chinese employees to seek themselves to the
Western companies could be explored further. More specifically, it seems that our
256
understanding of the influences and outcomes of the quality of leader-follower relations
would be increased through an examination of the expectations both Chinese and
Western respondents have of their dyadic partner. The importance of the examination of
expectations is supported by recent suggestions that increased work diversity is likely to
increase the diversity of individual preferences toward leadership (Dunegan, 2003). As
leader expectations and categorisation of employees could produce a “Pygmalion
effect” in which the supervisors’ expectations influence the quality of the exchange
relationship with the employee (e.g. Feldman, 1986), the examination of leader
expectations seems especially relevant. As expectations seem to play a major role
before or in the beginning of the relationship, it seems advisable in the future to
examine newly formed dyads and adopti a longitudinal perspective, as in the study
conducted by Liden et al. (1993). Furthermore, recent findings indicate that satisfaction
with a leader may not be based on leader behaviour per se but the extent to which the
actions of the leader fit with the follower’s image of how the leader should act
(Richmond, Bissel & Beach, 1998; as cited in Dunegan, 2003). The linkage between
LMX and the level of image compatibility between the ideal and actual leader in an
intercultural context could hence be explored further.
The fact that cultural knowledge demonstrated a very different effect across dyad types
and perspectives indicates that further investigation concerning the effect of crosscultural training and different types of cross-cultural training should be undertaken. So
far, cross-cultural training has mainly been studied from a one-sided point of view,
focusing either on the observer’s own culture or the foreign culture, without considering
the intercultural aspects or the interdependency between cultures (Thomas, 2002).
Thomas notes that it is often taken for granted that the counterpart does not receive any
cross-cultural training, although preparations, in fact, take place on both sides. When
both interacting parties receive cross-cultural training separately and try to adapt to the
culture of their counterpart, as severe misunderstandings can result as when no crosscultural training is provided. Misunderstandings could result from behaviour that does
not agree with expectations or stereotypes, or clumsiness in attempts to trying to adopt
to the other culture. However, such misunderstanding has according to Thomas (2002),
not been scientifically reported or incorporated into intercultural trainings.
257
REFERENCES
Adler, N. & Bartholomew, S. (1992): “Academic and professional communities of
discourse: generating knowledge on transnational human resource
management”. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 551
- 570.
Adler, N. (1997): International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd edition,
Thompson Publishing.
Ah Chong, L. & Thomas, D. (1997): “Leadership perceptions in cross-cultural context:
Pakeha and Pacific islanders in New Zealand”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8,
No. 3, pp. 275 - 293.
Antonioni, D. (1998): “Relationship between the big five personality factors and
conflict management styles”. International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 336 – 355.
Arthur, W. & Bennett, W. (1995): “The international assignee: The relative importance
of factors perceived to contribute to success”. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48,
pp. 99 – 114.
Aryee, S., Tan. H.W. & Budhwar, P. (2002): “Relational leadership: Antecedents,
mediators and a moderator of the leader-member exchange – organizational
citizenship behavior relationship“. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Meeting. August 11-14. Denver, U.S.A.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986): “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp.
1173-1182.
Barrick, M & Mount, M (1991): ‘The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis’. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 1 -26
Bateman, T. & Organ, D. (1983): “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee citizenship”. Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 587 – 595.
Bauer, T. & Green, S. (1996): “Development of leader-member exchange: A
longitudinal test”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 1538 1567.
Berry, J. & Kim., U. (1988): “Acculturation and mental health”. In P. Dasen, J.W.
Berry, and N. Sartorius (Eds.): Health and Cross- Cultural Psychology, (pp.
207-236). London: Sage.
Berry, J. (1997): “An ecocultural approach to the study of cross-cultural I/O
psychology”. In Earley, C. & Erez, M. (Eds.): New Perspectives on
International I/O Psychology (pp. 130 – 147). San Fransisco: Lexington.
258
Berry, J. (1999): Intercultural Relations. Ontario: Cross-cultural/multicultural
associates Inc. (course textbook, non-published version).
Berry, J., Poortinga, Y., Segall, P. & Dasen, P. (1992): Cross-cultural psychology:
Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bhal, K.T. & Ansari, M.A. (1996): ”Measuring quality of interaction between leaders
and members”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 945-972.
Billings, D.K. (2002): “Through culture-colored glasses: Is there a native point of
view?” In Boski, P., van de Vijver, F. & Chodynicka, A.M. (Eds.): New
directions in cross-cultural psychology: Selected papers from the Fifteenth
International Congress of the IACCP. Warsaw: Polish Psychological
Association.
Björkman, I. & Fan, X. (2002): “Human resource management and the performance of
Western firms in China”. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, p. 853 Black, J. & Mendenhall, M. (1990): “Cross-cultural training effectiveness: a review
and a theoretical framework for future research”. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 15., No. 1, pp. 113 - 136.
Block J. (1995): “A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality
description”. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117, pp. 187-215.
Bollen, K. A. (1989): Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley
Bond, M. (2002): “Me, you and the IACCP: Some social psychological reflections on
organizational homebuilding”. In Boski, P., van de Vijver, F. & Chodynicka,
A.M. (Eds.): New directions in cross-cultural psychology: Selected papers from
the Fifteenth International Congress of the IACCP. Warsaw: Polish
Psychological Association.
Boon, Benjamin Tan Lin (2001): “Convergence or Divergence? Impact of Globalisation
on Managerial Values”. Today’s Manager, Oct--Nov, 2001
Brake, T., Walker, D., & Walker, T. (1995): Doing Business Internationally: The Guide
to Cross-Cultural Success. Burr Ridge, IL, and New York: Irwin, Inc.
Brew, F.P. & Cairns, D. (2002): “Situational determinants of direct and indirect
communication strategies in intercultural organizational conflicts: A study of
Western expatriates and East-Asian host nationals in Singapore”. In Boski, P.,
van de Vijver, F. & Chodynicka, A.M. (Eds.): New directions in cross-cultural
psychology: Selected papers from the Fifteenth International Congress of the
IACCP. Warsaw: Polish Psychological Association.
Brief, A. & Motowidlo, S (1986): “Prosocial Organizational Behaviors”. Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 2, pp. 307-11.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D. & Tan, H.H. (2000): "A Model of Relational
Leadership: The Integration of Trust and Leader-Member Exchange."
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 227-250.
Brown, J. D. (1996): Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall Regents.
259
Bu, N. & Xu, J-X (2000): “Work-related attitudes among Chinese employees vis-à-vis
‘American’ and ‘Japanese’ management models”. In Warner, M. (Ed.):
Changing Workplace Relations in the Chinese Economy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (1997): Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Window.
Routledge
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989): “Testing for the equivalence of
factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement
invariance”. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 456-466.
Caldwell, D. & Burger, J. (1998): “Personality characteristics of job applicants and
success in screening interviews”. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 119
- 136.
Chen, X-P., Hui, C. & Sego, D. (1998): “The role of organizational citizenship in
turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses”. Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 6, pp. 922–931.
Cheung, F. & Leung, K. (1998): “Indigenous personality measures: Chinese examples”.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 233 – 248.
Cheung, F. M., & Cheung, S. F. (2003). Measuring personality and values across
cultures: Imported versus indigenous measures. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel,
S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture
(Unit 6, Chapter 5), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture), Center for Cross-Cultural
Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington USA.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X. Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song W. Z., & Xie, D.
(2001): “Indigenous Chinese personality construct: Is the Five Factor Model
complete?” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 407-433.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. G., Song, W. Z., Xie,
Dong. (2001): “Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the Five-factor
Model complete?” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 407-433.
Cheung, F., Leung, K., Song, W-Z., Zhang, J-X. & Zhang, J-P. (1996): “Development
of the Chinese personality assessment inventory”. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 181 – 199.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (1999): “Testing factorial invariance across groups:
A reconceptualization and proposed new method”. The Journal of
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1-27.
Child, J. & Stewart, S. (1997): “Regional Differences in China and their Implications
for Sino-Foreign Joint Ventures”. Journal of General Management, Vol. 23, No,
2, pp. 65-86.
Chiu, C. & Hong, Y. (1997): “Justice in Chinese societies: A Chinese perspective”. In
Kao, H. & Sinha, D. (Eds.): Asian perspectives on psychology (pp. 164 -184).
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Church, A. & Lonner, W. (1998): “The cross-cultural perspective in the study of
personality: Rationale and current research”. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 32 – 62.
260
Cogliser, C. C. & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000): “Exploring work unit context and leadermember exchange: A multi-level perspective”. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 5; p. 487
Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Neider, L. L. (1999, August):
“Balanced and unbalanced leadership relationships: A three-sample
investigation into the outcomes associated with four different types of leadermember exchanges”. Paper presented at the Academy of Management annual
meeting, Chicago, IL.
Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1975): Applied Multiple Regression and Correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual.
Odessa, FL: psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P & McCrae, R (1992): Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
Neo Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa:
Psychological Assesment Resources.
Cronbach, L . (1987): Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses
recently proposed . Psychological Bulletin, Vol.102, No. 3, pp. 414-417.
Cronshaw, S. & Lord, R. (1987): “Effects of categorisation, attribution, and encoding
processes on leadership perceptions”. Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 72,
pp. 97 - 106.
Dallal, G. (2001): ”Collinearity”. http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/collin.htm
Dansereau, F. (1995): “A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this
approach under fire”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 479- 490.
Dansereau, F., Chandrasekaran, G., Dumas, M., Coleman, D., Ehrlich, S., Bagchi, D.
(1986): DETECT = Data Enquiry that Tests Entity and Correlational/Causal
Theories: Application and User's Guide, Williamsville, NY.: The Institute for
Theory Testing.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J. M.,
Dumas, M., Nachman, S. A., Naughton, T. J., Kim, K., A1-Kelabi, S. A. H.,
Lee, S., & Keller, T. (1995): “Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level
approach”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 413 - 450.
De Raad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebícková. M. & Szarota, P. (1998): “Lingua franca of
personality: taxonomies and structures based on the psycholexical approach”.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 212 – 232.
De Vellis, R.F. (1991): Scale development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications.
Deluga, R. (1994): “Supervisor trust-building, leader-member exchange and
organisational citizenship behaviour”. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 315 - 326.
Deluga, R. (1998): “Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings”. Group
& Organization Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 189 - 216.
261
Dienesch, R & Liden, R (1986): “Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A
Critique and Further Development”. The Academy of Management Review, Vol.
11, No. 3; pp. 618 – 64.
Digman, J. M., (1990): “Personality Structure: An Emergence of the Five-Factor
Model”. The Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 417-440.
Dockery, T, M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990): “The role of initial interaction in leadermemberexchange”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol.15, pp. 395-413.
Dorfman, P. (1995): “International and Cross-Cultural Leadership”. In: Ferris, G. et al.
(Eds.): Handbook of Human Resource Management (1st edition), Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Dorfman, P., Howell, J., Hibino, S., Lee, J., Tate, U & Bautista, A. (1997): ”Leadership
in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective
leadership processes across cultures”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.
233 - 274.
Duarte, N., Goodson, J. & Klich, N. (1994): “Effects of dyadic quality and duration on
performance appraisal”. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 37, No. 3, p.
499
Duffy, M., Ganster, D. & Shaw, J. (1998): “Positive Affectivity and Negative
Outcomes: the role of tenure and job satisfaction”. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83, No 6, pp. 950 – 959.
Dunegan, K. (2003): ”Leader-Image Compatibility: An Image Theory View of
Leadership”. Journal of Business & Management”, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 61-78.
Dunegan, K., Uhl-Bien, M. & Duchon, D. (2002): ”LMX and subordinate performance:
The moderating effects of task characteristics”. Journal of Business &
Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 275-278.
Earley, C. (1997): Face, harmony and social structure: An analysis of organizational
behaviour across cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ehrnrooth, M. (2002): Strategic Soft Human Resource Management - The Very Idea. An
Exploration Into A Social Science. Doctoral dissertation, Ekonomi och samhälle:
Publications of the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration,
Nr 105, Helsinki.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986): “Perceived
organizational support”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-507.
Engle, E. & Lord, R. (1997): ”Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member
exchange”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 988 - 1010.
Epitropaki, O. & Martin, R. (1999): ”The impact of relational demography on the
qualtiy of leader-member exchanges and employees' work attitudes and wellbeing”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 72; p.
237 (4 pages)
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. & Liden, R. (2002): “Person-organization fit and work
attitudes: The moderating role of leader-member exchange”. Academy of
Management Proceedings, pF1, 6p.
262
Farh, J.-L. & Cheng (2000): “A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organisations”. In Li, J., Tsui, A. & Weldon, E. (Eds.): Management and
organizations in the Chinese context. London: MacMillan press.
Farh, J-L., Earley, C. & Lin S-C. (1997): “Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of
justice and organisational citizenship behaviour in Chinese society”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 421 – 444.
Farh, J-L., Tsui, A., Xin, K. & Cheng, B-S. (1998): “The influence of relational
demography and guanxi: the Chinese case”. Organization Science, Vol.9, No. 4,
pp. 471 – 489.
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (forthcoming): “Organizational citizenship
behavior in the People’s Republic of China.” Forthcoming in Organization
Science
Field, A. P. (2000): Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: advanced
techniques for the beginner London: Sage.
Gabrenya, W. & Hwang, K-K. (1996): “Chinese social interaction: harmony and
hierarchy on the good earth”. In Bond, M. (Ed.): The handbook of Chinese
psychology (pp. 309-321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gao, G. et al (1996): “Chinese Communication Processes”. In Bond, M. (Ed.): The
handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 294-321). Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Gerstner, C. & Day, D. (1997): “Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange
theory: correlates and construct issues”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82,
No.6, pp. 827 – 844.
Gertsen, M.C. (1990): “Intercultural competence and expatriates”. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 341-363.
Ghorpade, J., Hattrup, Keith & Lackritz, J. (1999):“The use of personality measures in
cross-cultural research: a test of three personality scales across two countries”.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp.670 - 679.
Gierl, M.J., Rogers, W.T., & Klinger, D.A. (1999): “Using statistical and judgmental
reviews to identify and interpret translation differential item functioning”. The
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 45, No. 4, 353-376.
Gilbert, J., Carr-Ruffino, N., Ivancevich, J.M. & Lownes-Jackson, M. (2002): “An
empirical examination of inter-ethnic stereotypes: Comparing Asian American
and African American employees”. In Boski, P., van de Vijver, F. &
Chodynicka, A.M. (Eds.): New directions in cross-cultural psychology: Selected
papers from the Fifteenth International Congress of the IACCP. Warsaw: Polish
Psychological Association.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990): “An alternative "description of personality": The Big Five
factor structure”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp.
1216-1229.
Gomez, C. & Rosen, B. (2001): “The leader-member exchange as a link between
managerial trust and employee empowerment“. Group & Organization
Management. Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 53 -
263
Goodwin, R. & Tang, C. (1996): “Chinese personal relationships”. In Bond, M. (Ed.):
The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 294-321 ). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Graen, G & Scandura, T (1987) ‘Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing’ In
Cummings, L & Staw, B (Eds): Research in Organizational Behavior, No 9, pp
175 – 208
Graen, G. & Schiemann,W. (1978): “Leader-Member Agreement: A Vertical Dyad
Approach”. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 63, pp. 206-212.
Graen, G, Novak, M & Sommerkamp, P (1982): “The effects of leader-memeber
exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual
attachment model”. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, No 30,
pp 109 – 131
Graen, G. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995): “Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective”. Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 6, pp. 219-247.
Green, S.G., Anderson, S.A., & Shivers, S.L. Shivers (1996): “Demographic and
organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work
attitudes”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 66,
No. 2, pp. 203-214.
Hart, W. B. (1998): “What is intercultural relations?” The Edge: The E-Journal of
Intercultural
Relations,
Summer
1998,
Vol.
1(3),
http://www.interculturalrelations.com/v1i3Summer1998/sm98hart.htm
Heneman, R.L., Greenberger, D.B., & Anonyuo, C. (1989): “Attributions and
exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee
performance”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 466-476.
Ho, D. (1998): “Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives”. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 88 – 103.
Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. (1988): "The Confucian Connection: from cultural roots to
economic growth." Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16, No.4, pp. 4 - 21.
Hofstede, G. (1980): “Motivation, leadership and organization: do American theories
apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 42 - 63
Hofstede, G. (1984): “The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept”. Academy of
Management Review, No. 9, pp. 389 - 398
Hopkins, W. G. (2000): "A new view of statistics". Internet Society for Sport Science:
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992): “A practical and theoretical guide to measurement
invariance in aging research”. Experimental Aging Research, Vol.18, pp. 117144.
Hui, C. & Graen, G. (1997): “Guanxi and professional leadership in contemporary SinoAmerican joint ventures in mainland China”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8, No.
4, pp. 451-465.
264
Hui, C., Law, K. & Chen, Z. (1999): “A structural equation model of the effects of
negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on inrole and extra-role performance: A Chinese case”. Organisational Behaviour
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 3 – 21.
Hui, C. & Triandis, H.(1986): "Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of Cross-Cultural
Research". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol.17, pp. 225-48.
Hui, H., Yee, C. and Eastman, K (1995): "The relationship between individualismcollectivism and job satisfaction." Applied Psychology: An International
Review, Vol. 44, p. 281.
Jackson, T. (1993): Organizational behaviour in international management. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.
Jahoda, G. (2002): “The shifting sands of ‘culture’”. In Boski, P., van de Vijver, F. &
Chodynicka, A.M. (Eds.): New directions in cross-cultural psychology: Selected
papers from the Fifteenth International Congress of the IACCP. Warsaw: Polish
Psychological Association.
Jahoda, G. (1995): “In pursuit of the emic-etic distinction: can we ever capture it” ? In
N,R. Goldberger & J.B. Veroff (Eds.): The culture and psychology reader. New
York: New York University Press.
Judge, T, Higgins, C, Thoresen, C & Barrick, M (1999): "The big five personality traits,
general mental ability, and career success across the life span". Personnel
Psychology, Vol 52, No 3, pp. 621 Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C. & Barrick, M. (1999): “The big five personality
traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span”. Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 621 -.
Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (1999): ”Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural
values on performance under different task structure conditions”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 208-218.
Jöreskog, K. G & Sörbom, D. (1993): Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS
Command Language”. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996): LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1997): “Individualism and Collectivism”. In Berry, J., Segall, M. &
Kagitcibasi, C. (Eds). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Vol. 3, Social
Behavior and Applications. Allyn & Bacon
Katila (2002): “New Product Search Over Time: Past Ideas in their Prime?” Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45, No 5.
Kealey, D. (1996): “The Challenge of International Personnel Selection”. In Landis, D.
& Bhakat, R. (Eds.): Handbook of Intercultural Training, 2nd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 81-105.
Keller, T. & Dansereau, F. (1995): “Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange
perspective”. Human Relations, Vol. 48, pp. 127-146.
265
Keller, T. and Dansereau F. (2001): “The effect of adding items to scales: An
illustrative case of LMX”. Organizational Research Methods. Vol. 4, pp. 131143.
Khan, S. R. (2002): “Stereotyping from the perspective of perceivers and targets”. In W.
J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture (Unit 15, Chapter 3), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture),
Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University,
Bellingham, Washington USA.
Kinicki, A & Vecchio, R. (1994): “Influences on the quality of supervisor-subordinate
relations: The role of time-pressure, organisational commitment, and locus of
control”. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 15, pp. 75 - 82.
Klein, H, & Kim, J. (1998): “A field study of the influence of situational constraints,
LMX, and goal commitment on performance”. Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 88 – 95.
Klein, K. J. & House, R.J. (1995). "On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of
analysis." Leadership Quarterly Vol. 6, pp. 183-198.
Koivisto, J. (1998): Cultural Heritages and Cross-Cultural Management: CrossCultural Synergy and Friction in Finno-Japanese Management, Acta
Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis A-144, Doctoral Dissertation Thesis,
Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration.
Korsgaard, A & Schweiger, D (1995) : "Building commitment, attachment, and trust in
strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice". Academy of
Management Journal, Vol 38, No 1, pp 60 – 85.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J.& Jaworski, R. A. (2001): “Sources of support and
expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment”. Personnel
Psychology. Durham: Spring 2001. Vol. 54, No. 1; p. 71 (29 pages)
Lam, S.S.K., Chen, X, P., and Schaubroeck, J. (forthcoming): "Participative Decision
Making and Employee Performance in Different Cultures: The Moderating
Effects of Allocentrism-Idiocentrism and Efficacy". Academy of Management
Journal. (In press).
Lam, S., Hui, C., & Law, K. (1999): “Organizational citizenship behaviour: Comparing
perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples”.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 594 – 601.
Larkey, L. (1996): “Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse
workgroups”. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 21, No. 2. 463 – 491.
Larsen, H. & Gertsen, M. (1993?): “Expatriation as an experiential learning process”.
Paper presented at …? (The authors are from the Copenhagen Business School).
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S., & Mobley, W.H. (1998): “Towards a taxonomy of
multidimensional constructs”. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp. 741-755.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000): “Effect of supervisorsubordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical
266
investigation”. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp. 751-765.
Leana, R. (1986): “Predictors and consequences of delegation”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 754-774.
Lee, J. (2001): “Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and
cooperative communication". Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14,
No. 4, pp. 574 – 587.
Leung, K., Smith, p., Wang, Z. & Sun, H. (1996): “Job satisfaction in joint venture
hotels in China: An organisational justice analysis”. Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 947 - 962.
Liden, R. & Maslyn, J. (1998): “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an
empirical assessment through scale development”. Journal of Management, Vol.
24, No. 1, pp. 43 – 72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993): “A longitudinal study on the early
development of leader-member exchanges”. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78, pp. 662-674 .
Liden, R., & Graen, G. (1980): “Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 451-465.
Liden, R., Sparrowe, R. & Wayne, S. (1997): “Leader-member exchange theory: The
past and potential for the future”. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 47 – 119.
Ling, W., Chia, R. & Fang, L. (2000): “Chinese implicit leadership theory”. The
Journal of Social Psychology Vol. 140, No 6, pp. 729-39.
Littlejohn, S. W. (1982): "An overview of contributions to human communication
theory from other disciplines". In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication
theory: Comparative essays. New York: Harper & Row.
MacDonald, K. (1998): “Evolution, culture, and the five-factor model”. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 119 - 149.
Mansour-Cole, D. & Scott, S. (1998): “Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence
of source, leader-relations, and legitimacy on survivors’ fairness perceptions”.
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 25 - 54.
Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1998): “The cultural psychology of personality”. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 63 – 82.
Marshall, S. & Boush, D. (2001): “Dynamic decision-making: A cross-cultural
comparison of U.S. and Peruvian export managers”. Journal of International
Business Studies. Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 873 – 894.
Maslyn, J. M.& Uhl-Bien, M. (2001): “Leader-member exchange and its dimensions:
Effects of self-effort and other's effort on relationship quality”. Journal of
Applied Psychology. Washington: Aug 2001. Vol. 86, No. 4; p. 697
McCrae, R & Costa, P (1987): “Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No.
52, pp. 81 – 90.
267
McCrae, R & Costa, P (1990): Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992): “An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications”. Journal of Personality, Vol. 60, pp. 175-215.
McCrae, R., Costa, P. & Yik, M. (1996): “Universal aspects of Chinese personality
structure”. In Bond, M. (Ed.): The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 189 –
207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCrae, R., Costa, P., del Pilar, G., Rolland, J-P. & Parker, W. (1998): “Cross-cultural
assessment of the five-factor model: The revised NEO personality inventory”.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 171 – 211.
McFarlin, D. & Sweeney, P. (1992): “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors
of satisfaction with personal and organisational outcomes”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp- 626
McManus, M. & Kelly, M. (1999): “Personality measures and biodata: Evidence
regarding their incremental predictive value in the life insurance industry”.
Personnel Journal, Vol. 52, No.1, pp. 137 Mendenhall, M. & Oddou, G. (1985): “The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A
review”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 39 - 42.
Minsky, B. (2002): LMX Dyad Agreement: Construct definition and the Role of
Supervisor/Subordinate Similarity and Communication in Understanding LMX.
Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Department of Management.
Moberg, D. (1999): “The big five and organisational virtue”. Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 245 – 272.
Moorman, R (1991) : "Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Does fairness perception influence employee
citizenship? ". Journal of Applied Psychology, No 6, pp 845 – 855
Moorman, R. & Niehoff, B. (1993): “Job attitudes and organizational citizenship
behaviour: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and job fairness”. Paper presented at
Moorman, R., & Blakely, G. (1995): “Individualism-collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour”. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 16, pp. 127 –142.
Moorman, R., Blakely, G. & Niehoff, B. (1998): “Does perceived organisational
support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organisational
citizenship behaviour?” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.
351 - 357.
Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1993): “Fostering corporate
entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism
versus collectivism.”.Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarter,
pp. 65-89.
Morrison, E. (1994): “Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The
importance of the employee’s perspective”. Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 1543 – 1567.
268
Moskowitz, D. & Coté, S. (1995): “Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A comparison
of three models”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 5,
pp. 915 – 924.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic
Press.
Mueller, B. & Lee, J. (2002): “Leader-member exchange and organizational
communication satisfaction in multiple contexts”. The Journal of Business
Communication. Vol. 39, No. 2; pp. 220 – 245
Murphy, S., Wayne, S., Liden, R., Erdogan, B. (2003): ”Understanding social loafing:
The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships”. Human Relations,
Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 61-85.
Neuman, G., Wagner, S. & Christiansen, N. (1999): “The relationship between workteam personality composition and the job performance of teams”. Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 28 – 45.
Newman, L. & Rowland, K. (1991): “Expatriate adjustment: Expanding research
perspectives”. Paper presented at the Eastern Academy of Management, 9 13.6.1991, Nice.
Niehoff, Brian P. & Robert H. Moorman. (1996). Exploring the relationships between
top management behaviors and employee perceptions of fairness. International
Journal of Public Administration, 19, 941-961.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D.W. (1988): Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995): ”A Meta-analytic Review of Attitudinal and
Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior”. Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 775-802.
Organ, D. & Konovsky, M. (1989): “Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organisational citizenship behaviour”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74,
No. 1, pp. 157 - 164.
Organ, D. & Paine (1999): “A new kind of performance for industrial and
organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational
citizenship behaviour. In Cooper, C. & Robertson, I .(Eds.): International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14, Chapter 7, pp.
337 – 367.
Organ, D. (1990): “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”.
Research in Organizational Behavior”, Vol. 12, pp. 43 – 72.
Paglis, L. & Green, S. (2002): ”Both Sides Now: Supervisor and Subordinate
Perspectives on Relationship Quality”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 250 - 277.
Pelled, L. & Xin, K. (1997): “Birds of a feather: Leader-follower demographic
similarity and organisational attachment in Mexico”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol.
8, No. 4, pp. 433 - 450.)
269
Phillips, A. & Bedeian, A. (1994): “Leader-member exchange quality: The role of
personal and interpersonal attributes”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
37, No. 4, p. 990 –
Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L. & Dunham, R.B. (1989): “Organizationbased self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy
of Management Journal, 32: 622-648.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. & Williams E. (1999): “Leadership and organizational justice:
similarities and differences across cultures”. Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4, p. 763-79.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990):
“Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors”. Leadership
Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Price-Williams, D. R. (2002): “Cross-, Intra-, Inter-, and just plain cultural”. In W. J.
Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture (Unit 2, Chapter 3), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture),
Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University,
Bellingham, Washington USA.
Ralston, D. A., Nguyen V.T. & Napier, N.K. (1999): “A comparative study of the work
values of North and South Vietnamese managers”. Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 30, pp. 655-672.
Ralston, D., Egri, C., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R & Yu, K.: (1999): ”Doing business in the
21st century with the new generation of Chinese managers: A study of
generational shifts in work values in China. Journal of International Business
Studies Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 415-27.
Ralston, D., Holt, D., Terpstra, R. & Yu, K.C (1997): “The impact of national culture
and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States,
Russia, Japan, and China”. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28,
No. 1, pp. 177 – 207
Ralston, D., Terpstra, R., Cunniff, M. & Gustafson, D. (1995): “Do expatriates change
their behaviour to fit a foreign culture? A study of American expatriates’
strategies of upward influence”. Management International Review, Vol. 35,
No. 1, pp. 109 –
Ralston, D.A. Yu, K.C., Wang, X., Terpstra, R.H. & He, W. (1996): “The cosmopolitan
Chinese manager: Findings of a study on managerial values across the six
regions of China”. Journal of International Management, Vol. 22, pp. 79-109.
Ralston, D.A., Cunniff, M.K. & Gustafson, D.A. (1995): “Cultural Accommodation:
The Effect of Language on the Responses of Bilingual Hong Kong Chinese
Managers”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 26,pp. 714-727.
Rehfuss, J. (1982): “Management development and the selection of overseas
executives”. Personnel Administrator, July 1982.
Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994): “A central question in cross-cultural
research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in
an equivalent manner?”. Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 643-671.
270
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002): “Basic values and the
FiveFactor Model of Personality Traits.” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. Vol . 28, pp. 789-801.
Ronen, S. & Shenkar, O. (1985): “Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A
review and synthesis”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 435-454.
Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, L. A. (1999): “ Employee attitude
surveys in a multinational organization: Considering language and culture in
assessing measurement equivalence”. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 37-58.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000): “A New Look at National Culture: Illustrative
Applications to Role Stress and Managerial Behavior.” In: N. N. Ashkanasy, C.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.): The handbook of organisational culture and
climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sanchez, J. I. & Brock, P. (1996): “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among
Hispanic employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?”
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No.3, pp. 704-719.
Scandura, T. & Graen, G. (1984): “Moderating effects of initial leader-member
exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention”. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 428-436.
Scandura, T. (1999): “Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organisational justice
perspective”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp 25-40.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994): “Leader-member exchange and
supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership
research”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1588-1602.
Scandura, T., Graen, G. & Novak (1986): “When managers decide not to decide
autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision
influence”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 579 - 584.
Schaffer, B.S. & Riordan, C.M. (forthcoming) “A review of cross-cultural
methodologies for organizational research: A best practices approach”.
Fortcoming in Organizational Research Methods.
Schaub, M. & Tokar, D. (1999): “Patterns of expectations about counseling: Relations
to the five-factor model of personality”. Journal of Counselling and
Development, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 177 – 188.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L. & Yammarino F.J. (2000): “Investigating
contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward
controllingness on leader-member exchange using traditional and multivariate
within- and between-entities analysis”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85,
No. 5; p. 659
Schriesheim, C., Castro, S. & Cogliser, C. (1999): “Leader-member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic
practices”. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 63-113.
Schriesheim, C., Neider, L. & Scandura, T. (1998): “Delegation and leader-member
exchange: main effects, moderators, and measurement issues”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 298 - 318.
271
Schwartz, S. (1992): “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries”. In Zanna, M (Ed.): Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.25, New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1997): “Values and culture”. In D. Munro, S. Carr, & J. Schumaker
(Eds.): Motivation and culture (pp. 69-84). New York: Routledge.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999): “Cultural value differences: Some implications for work”.
Applied Psychology: An International Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 23-47.
Selmer, J. (2002) “Practice makes Perfect? International Experience and Expatriate
Adjustment." Management International Review, vol. 42, No. 1
Settoon, R., Bennett, N. & Liden, R. (1996): “Social exchange in organisations.
Perceived organisational support, leader-member exchange, and employee
reciprocity”. Journal of Applied Psychology”, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 219 – 227.
Shaw, J. (1990): “A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural
management”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 626 – 645
Sinha, D. & Sinha, M. (1997): “Orientations to psychology: Asian and Western”. In
Kao, H. & Sinha, D. (Eds.): Asian perspectives on psychology (pp. 25 – 39).
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Skarlicki, D., Folger, P. & Tesluk, P. (1999): “Personality as a moderator in the
relationship between fairness and retaliation”. Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 41, No.1, pp. 100 – 108.
Smith, P. & Wang , Z. (1996): “Chinese leadership and organisational structure”. In
Bond, M. (Ed.): The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 294-321 ). Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Sparrowe, R. & Liden, R. (1997): “Process and structure in leader-member exchange”.
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 522 - 552.
Suutari, V. (1996): Comparative Studies on Leadership Beliefs and Behavior of
European Managers. Acta Wasaensia, No. 50. Business Administration 19,
Management and Organization. Vaasa: University of Vaasa.
Suutari, V., Raharjo, K. & Riikkilä, T. (2002): “The Challenge of Cross-Cultural
Leadership Interaction: Finnish Expatriates in Indonesia”. Career Development
International, 7:7.
Swaidan, Z. Marshall, K. & Smith, J.R. (2001): ”Acculturation Strategies: The Case of
the Muslim Minority in the United States”. Paper presented at the Society for
Marketing Advances meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, 6-10 November 2001.
Tanner, J., Ridnour, R. & Castleberry, S. (1997): “Types of vertical exchange
relationships: an empirical re-examination of the cadre/hire-hand distinction”.
Journal of Marketing Theory an Practice, Vol. 5., No. 3, pp. 109 - 125.
Tett, R., Jackson, D., & Rothstein, M. (1991): “Personality measures as predictors of
job performance: a meta-analytic review”. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp.
703-742.
Thomas, A. (2002): “Intercultural training viewed as an intercultural situation, or: How
culture-specific is intercultural training?” In Boski, P., van de Vijver, F. &
272
Chodynicka, A.M. (Eds.): New directions in cross-cultural psychology: Selected
papers from the Fifteenth International Congress of the IACCP. Warsaw: Polish
Psychological Association.
Thomas, D. & Toyne, B. (1995): “Subordinates’ responses to cultural adaptation by
Japanese expatriate managers”. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32, pp 1 10.
Triandis, H. C. (1978): Some universals of social behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 4, pp.1-6.
Triandis, H. C. (1994) : Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C. (1996): "The psychological measurement cultural syndromes”.
American Psychologist, Vol. 51, pp. 407-415.
Triandis, H. C. (2002): “Odysseus wandered for 10, I wondered for 50 years”. In W. J.
Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture (Unit 2, Chapter 1), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture),
Center for Cross-Cultural Research.
Triandis, H., Chen, X. & Chan, D. (1998): “Scenarios for the measurement of
collectivism and individualism”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 29,
No. 2, pp. 275 - 289.
Triandis, H.C. (1995): Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.j., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988):
“Individualism and collectivism: Crosscultural perspectives on self-ingroup
relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp.323-338.
Trochim, William M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Internet
WWW page, at URL: <http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm>
(version current as of 28.01.2003).
Tsui, A & O’Reilly (1989) ‘Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads’. Academy of Management
Journal, No 32, pp 402 – 423
Tsui, A, Xin, K & Egan, T (1996): “Relational demography: The missing link in
vertical dyad linkage”. In Jackson, S & Ruderman, M. (Eds.): Diversity in Work
Teams.
Tsui, A. & Farh, J-L. (1997): “Where guanxi matters: Relational demography and
guanxi in the Chinese context”. Work and Occupations, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 56 79.
Tung, R. (1981): “Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments”.
Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp 68 -78.
Turban, D & Jones, A (1988): “Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and
mechanisms”. Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 77, pp. 228 – 234.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (2000): "Implications of Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX) for Strategic Human Resource Management Systems:
Relationships as Social Capital for Competitive Advantage." In G. Ferris (Ed.):
273
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 (pp. 137185). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Wakabayashi, M. and G. Graen (1984): “The Japanese Career Progress Study: A Seven
Year Follow-Up. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 603-614.
Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997): Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural
research. California: Sage.
Van Dierendonck, D., Le Blanc, P. & van Breukelen, W. (2002): ”Supervisory
behavior, reciprocity and subordinate absenteeism”. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal. Vol. 23, No. 1/2; p. 84 – 93.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. & Dienesch, R. (1994): “Organisational citizenship
behaviour: Construct redefinition, measurement and validation”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 765Vance, C. & Paderon, E. (1993): “An ethical argument for host country workforce
training and preparation”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 8, pp. 635 –
Vandenberg, R. & Lance, C. (1998): ”A Summary of the Issues Underlying
Measurement Equivalence and Their Implications for Interpreting Group
Differences”. 1998 Research Methods Forum, No. 3.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (1993). Assessing newcomers’ changing commitments
during the first 6 months of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp.
557-568.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Chen, Z. & Wang, D.X. (forthcoming): “A structural equation
model of the effects of multidimensional leader-member exchange on task and
contextual performance”. Forthcoming in Journal of Organizational Behaviors.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Chen, Z., & Wang, D.X. (2001). Relationship between LMX and
performance appraisal: The moderating effects of leadership style. Academy of
Management Meeting. August, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
Wang, L. (2001): Know The Game, Play The Game: Developing A Career In A
Multinational Firm, ... And How To Get There In The First Place. Beijing:
China Translation and Publishing Company.
Varma, A. & Stroh, L. K. (2001): ”Different perspectives on selection for international
assignments: The impact of LMX and gender”. Cross Cultural Management.
Vol. 8, No. 3/4; pp. 85 – 93.
Varma, A. & Stroh, L. (2001): “Impact of same-sex LMX dyads on performance
evaluations”. Human Resource Management, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp 309-320
Warner, M. (2003): “Conclusions: The future of Chinese Management”. In Warner, M.
(Ed): The future of Chinese Management. London: Frank Cass Publishers, p.
205 Wasti, S.A., Bergman, M.E., Glomb, T.M., & Drasgow, F. (2000): “Generalizability of
an integrated sexual harassment model: A cross-cultural comparison.” Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 766-778.
274
Wayne, S. & Liden, R. (1995): “Effects of impression management on performance
ratings: A longitudinal study”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No.
1, pp. 232 Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990): “Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study”.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 487-499.
Wayne, S., Shore, L. & Liden, R. (1997): “Perceived organisational support and leadermember exchange: a social exchange perspective”. Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 82 - 111.
Wayne, S., Shore, L., Bommer, W. & Tetrick, L. (2002): “The role of fair treatment
and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member
exchange”. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 87, No. 3; p. 590
Westwood, R. (1997): “Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for ‘paternalistic
headship’ among overseas Chinese”. Organisation Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 445480.
Williams, L.& Anderson, S. (1991): “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours”. Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 601 – 617.
Xin, K. & Pearce, J. (1996): “Guanxi: connections as substitutes for formal institutional
support”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 1641 - 1658.
Xin, K. (1997): “Asian American managers: An impression gap?” The Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 335 - 355.
Yammarino, F. J., Dansereau, F., Kennedy, C. (2001): “A Multiple-Level
Multidimensional Approach to Leadership: Viewing Leadership Through an
Elephant’s Eye”. Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 29, pp. 149-163.
Yang, K. & Bond, M. (1990): “Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous
or imported constructs: The Chinese case”. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 1087 – 1095.
Yang, K. (1997): “Theories and research in Chinese personality: An indigenous
approach”. In Kao, H. & Sinha, D. (Eds.): Asian perspectives on psychology (pp.
236 – 262). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Yeung, I. & Tung, R. (1996): “Achieving Business Success In Confucian Societies: The
Importance of Guanxi (Connections)”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25, No.
2, to the organization pp. 54-65.
Zakaria, N. (2000): “The effects of cross-cultural training on the acculturation process
of the global workforce”. International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 21, No 6,
pp. 492-510
Zhang, J. (1997): Distinction between general trust and specific trust: Their unique
patterns with personality trait domains, distinct roles in interpersonal
relationships, and different function in path models of trusting behaviour.
Doctoral dissertation, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Department of
Psychology
275
INDEX OF DEFINITIONS AND KEYWORDS
A
D
acculturation ......................................49, 52
definition..............................................49
modes...................................................50
discrimination, perceived.........................78
B
emic..........................................................16
etic............................................................16
derived .................................................17
imposed................................................17
expatriation ..............................................42
adaptation.............................................79
expectations .............................................41
behavioural influences .............................35
bias
construct bias .....................................126
item bias.............................................126
method bias........................................126
nonuniform bias .................................127
E
G
C
guanxi.................................................47, 84
cognitive processing
categorisation.......................................77
specification.........................................77
cognitive schemata...................................76
cognitive structures..................................41
collectivism..............................................72
Confucianism...........................................44
construct validity ...................................122
contextual influences ...............................36
cross-cultural bias ..................................126
cross-cultural equivalence .....................126
cross-cultural studies, definition..............14
cross-cultural training ..............................81
cultural group identity..............................77
cultural knowledge...................................76
culture
concept.................................................14
convergence .........................................51
crossvergence.......................................51
definition..............................................14
differences............................................40
divergence............................................51
individual-level ....................................15
I
impression management ..........................79
individualism ...........................................72
inrole performance...................................88
intercultural competence..........................43
intercultural studies, definition ................14
interpersonal influences ...........................34
interpersonal relatedness..........................69
intracultural studies, definition ................14
J
job satisfaction .......................................108
justice .......................................................89
L
leader- member exchange approach ........21
leader-member exchange
definition, Scandura et al., 1996 ..........23
development.........................................30
276
dimensions Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ..24
dimensions, Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ....25
measures ........................................24, 27
outcomes..............................................37
perspective...........................................27
working definition ...............................28
leadership approach
average leadership style.......................20
dyadic ..................................................20
individual difference............................20
individualised leadership .....................21
vertical dyad linkage ...........................21
level of analysis .......................................53
prosocial organisational behaviour..........98
Pygmalion effect......................................33
R
reciprocation ...........................................45
relational demography .............................83
relational skills.........................................42
role obligations........................................44
role theory................................................25
S
model fit, CFA.......................................125
monocultural studies, definition ..............14
multidimensionality
composite view..................................131
factor view .........................................131
Schwartz ..................................................71
similarity
actual....................................................83
perceived..............................................86
projected ............................................176
similarity-attraction paradigm .................82
social exchange theory.............................25
stereotypifications....................................42
O
U
organisational citizenship behaviour
antecedents ........................................105
definition .......................................12, 97
dimensions...........................................98
OCBI/OCBO .......................................99
organisational commitment .....................98
organisational justice .............................106
organisation-based self-esteem..............107
universal concepts....................................17
M
P
perceived job breadth ............................100
perceived organisational support...........107
personal influences ..................................31
personality
Chinese Personality Assessment
Inventory (CPAI).............................60
definition .............................................57
five-factor model (FFM) .....................57
V
values
collectivist............................................72
definition..............................................41
definition, Schwartz.............................71
Hofstede...............................................40
individualist .........................................72
Schwartz value theory .........................71
self-enhancement .................................74
W
wu lun ................................................44, 48
277
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRES
a) Follower questionnaire
Employee _______
July, 2001
WORK RELATIONS IN WESTERN SUBSIDIARIES IN CHINA
Thank you for taking part in the study on work relations in Western subsidiaries in China that your
company has agreed to participate in. The study is conducted at the Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration in Helsinki, Finland.
This questionnaire is designed to obtain information about how personality, culture and work attitudes
influence the quality of work relationships. Please remember when answering questions that may seem
personal that all information that you provide will be strictly confidential and used for academic
research purposes only. No individual responses will be distributed to company representatives and
they will not be identifiable in the final report.
The questionnaire comprises six sections. In the beginning of each section, guidelines regarding how
to answer the questions will be given. The completion of the questionnaire takes approximately 60
minutes.
Please answer all the questions and seal the completed questionnaire in the envelopes provided to
you. Please send the questionnaires to:
Annika Vatanen
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration
Department of Management and Organization
P.O. Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland
Fax: +358 9 4313 3275,
Phone: +358 9 4313 3311
Mobile: +358 40 8343 572
E-mail: [email protected]
Please contact Annika Vatanen if you have any questions about the survey.
Thank you very much for your help and co-operation!
278
Section A
In this section, we would like you to provide the information by filling in the blanks.
1. Your name:
__________________________________
2. Your company:
__________________________________
3. Your year of birth:
_____________________
4. Your gender:
[ ] Male [ ] Female
5. Your country of birth: _________________________________
6. Your mother tongue: _________________________________
7. Your language skills:
[ ] English
[ ] Chinese (Mandarin)
[ ] company’s official language, which?
________________
8. Your education:
[
[
[
[
[
[
9. Have you received any education abroad? [ ] no
10. Your current assignment in
the organisation (subsidiary):
]
]
]
]
]
]
less than high school
finished high school
finished college
finished Bachelor’s degree
finished Master’s degree
finished Doctoral degree
[ ] yes, where? _________________
[ ] lower management
[ ] technical or other expert
[ ] administrative
[other,
what?
_________________________
11. How long have you worked in your present position?
12. How long have you worked at this company?
______year(s) and _____month(s).
______year(s) and _____month(s).
Have you received any cross-cultural training to prepare you for your present multicultural work
environment?
[ ] no
[ ] yes, of what type:
[ ] cultural orientation (information about culture
and values in company home country)
[ ] training in intercultural encoun
[ ] language training
How many hours of cross-cultural training have you received in total? ______ hours.
Have you ever worked in another country?
[ ] no [ ] yes, for how long in total? __year(s) and _____month(s).
Have you worked with a supervisor from another cultural background before?
[ ] no [ ] yes, for how long in total? ___year(s) and _____month(s).
279
Section B
In this section we are interested in your relationship with your supervisor. Please note that your
supervisor will not receive this information!
Please write down your direct supervisor's name here (in Western characters please!):
Supervisor name :
_____________________________________________
(if name is already provided, please evaluate this supervisor)
Your name:
_____________________________________________
B1
This section contains 23 statements. Read each statement carefully. Please indicate the extent to which
you agree with the statements by circulating the number that best represents your opinion. Please use
the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Fill in only one response for each statement. Please respond to all of the statements!
I like my supervisor very much as a person.
Please circle
Strongly disagree….Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior,
even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor would come to my defence if I were
“attacked” by others.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor would defend me to others in the
organisation if I made a serious mistake.
1
2
3
4
5
I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my
job description.
1
2
3
4
5
I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to
meet my supervisor’s work goals.
1
2
3
4
5
I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor.
1
2
3
4
5
I am impressed with my supervisor’s knowledge of his/her job.
1
2
3
4
5
I respect my supervisor’s knowledge and competence on the job.
1
2
3
4
5
I admire my supervisor’s professional skills.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor and I are similar in terms of outlook, perspective, and
280
values.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor and I see things in much the same way.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor and I are alike in a number of areas.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor recognises my potential very well.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
It is very likely that my supervisor would use his/her power to help me
solve problems in my work.
1
2
3
4
5
It is very likely that my supervisor would "bail me out" at his/her
expense.
1
2
3
4
5
I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and
justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so.
1
2
3
4
5
I would characterise my working relationship with my supervisor as
highly effective.
1
2
3
4
5
All in all, I am satisfied with my relationship with my supervisor.
I know where I stand with my direct supervisor...I know how satisfied
my supervisor is with what I do.
My supervisor understands my job problems and needs very well.
B2
Here we would like you to do two things:
1) Evaluate yourself for the past three to six months on each of the following items that reflects a
different aspect of your performance. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the statements
by circulating the number that best represents your opinion. Please use the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
2) Also, for those items marked with a Y N in the right column please circle:
“Y” for items that describe behaviours that you see as an expected part of your job, and
“N” for items describing behaviours that you see as somewhat above and beyond what is expected for
your job.
Please circle
Strongly disagree… Strongly agree Yes No
I always complete work assigned by the company.
1
2
3
4
5
I performed my required job well.
1
2
3
4
5
I always complete the duties specified in my job description.
1
2
3
4
5
I fulfil all formal job responsibilities
1
2
3
4
5
281
I perform specified job duties.
1
2
3
4
5
I never neglect aspects of the job that I am obligated to perform.
1
2
3
4
5
I meet all the formal job requirements.
1
2
3
4
5
I help orient new subordinates even though it is not required as part of my
job.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I help others with heavy workloads.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Y
Y
N
N
I help fill in for others who are sick or absent
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I am one of my supervisor’s most conscientious subordinates.
1
2
3
4
5
I believe in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
1
2
3
4
5
I never take long lunches or breaks.
1
2
3
4
5
I take fewer breaks at work than my colleagues.
1
2
3
4
5
I am willing to work on a job/project until it is completed, even if it means
coming in earlier or staying later than normal.
Y
N
1
2
3
4
5
I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.
1
2
3
4
5
I always find fault with what the company is doing.
1
2
3
4
5
I am the classic "squeaky wheel" that always needs greasing.
1
2
3
4
5
I tend to make problems bigger than they are.
1
2
3
4
5
I always focus on what's wrong with my situation, rather than the
opposite.
1
2
3
4
5
I “keep up” with developments in the department/company.
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I attend training/information sessions that subordinates are encouraged,
but not required to attend (e.g., first aid, Red Cross, CPR, safety,
informational sessions on new company benefits package, etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I actively participate in department/company meetings.
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I provide constructive suggestions regarding changes that might be made
in my department or the company.
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I am willing to risk disapproval in order to express my beliefs about what’s
best for the department/company.
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I consider the impact of my actions on others.
1
2
3
4
5
I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers.
1
2
3
4
5
I return phone calls and responds to other messages and requests for
information promptly.
1
2
3
4
5
Y
N
I am always ready to help or to lend a helping hand to those around me.
I willingly give of my time to help others who have work-related problems.
282
I discuss with other workers before initiating actions that might affect
them.
1
2
3
4
5
I take steps to try to prevent problems with co-workers.
1
2
3
4
5
I respect other people’s rights to common/ shared resources (including
EDP and duplicating equipment, tools, machinery, materials, clerical help,
etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
Please also answer the following questions by filling in the blanks
How long have you been working with this supervisor? _____year(s) and _____month(s).
How many times each week do you engage in face-to-face or telephone interaction with your supervisor?
____________ times. How many hours? ___________ hours.
Can you speak the mother tongue of your supervisor?
[ ] no
[ ] yes
Can your supervisor speak your mother tongue?
[ ] no
[ ] yes
Section C
This section contains 39 statements. Read each statement carefully. Please indicate the extent to which
you agree with the statements by circulating the number that best represents your opinion. Please use
the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Fill in only response for each statement. Please respond to all of the statements!
Please circle
Strongly disagree…….Strongly agree
This organisation has faith in me.
I count in this organisation.
I am trusted in this organisation.
I am a valuable part of this organisation.
I am an important part of this organisation.
I am co-operative in this organisation.
I am taken seriously in this organisation.
I am helpful in this organisation.
I am efficient around here.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
283
I make a difference around here.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
This organisation’s management shows very little concern for
me.
1
2
3
4
5
This organisation’s management cares about my general
satisfaction at work.
1
2
3
4
5
This organisation’s management really cares about my wellbeing.
1
2
3
4
5
This organisation’s management strongly considers my goals
and values.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
All things considered, I am satisfied with my current job.
This organisation’s management cares about my opinions.
Even if I did the best job possible, this organisation’s
management would fail to notice.
This organisation’s management is willing to extend itself in
order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability.
Help is available from this organisation’s management when I
have a problem.
This organization has developed procedures designed to provide
opportunities to appeal or challenge the decisions.
1
2
3
4
5
This organization has developed procedures designed to generate
1
standards so that decisions could be made with consistency.
2
3
4
5
This organization has developed procedures designed to hear the
concerns of all individuals or groups affected by the decisions.
1
2
3
4
5
This organization has developed procedures designed to provide
1
useful feedback regarding the decision and its implementation.
2
3
4
5
This organization has developed procedures designed to allow for
requests for clarification or additional information needed by those 1
affected by the decision.
2
3
4
5
My supervisor considers my viewpoint.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor shows concern for my rights as an employee.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor takes steps to deal with me in a truthful manner.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor is able to suppress personal bias.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor provides me with timely feedback about the decision 1
and its implications.
2
3
4
5
My supervisor treats me with kindness and consideration.
1
2
3
4
5
My supervisor provides fair interpersonal treatment
1
2
3
4
5
Considering the responsibilities that I have, I feel that I am fairly 1
2
3
4
5
284
rewarded.
In view of the amount of experience that I have, I feel that I am 1
fairly rewarded.
2
3
4
5
For the amount of effort that I put forth, I feel that I am fairly 1
rewarded.
2
3
4
5
For work that I have done well, I feel that I am fairly rewarded.
1
2
3
4
5
For the stresses and strains of my job, I feel that I am fairly 1
rewarded.
2
3
4
5
1
When I disagree with the results of my performance appraisal, I 1
have channels to appeal.
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
The performance appraisal system of this organization is highly 1
transparent.
2
3
4
5
This organization has a fair performance appraisal system.
Section D
2
This section contains 60 statements . Read each statement carefully. Please indicate the extent to which
you agree with the statements by circulating the number that best represents your opinion. These
statements may appear personal, but please answer all of them and remember that they will be used for
academic research only. Please use the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Fill in only response for each statement. Please respond to all of the statements!
Please circle
Strongly disagree ….Strongly agree
I am not a worrier.
I like to have a lot of people around me.
I don't like to waste my time daydreaming.
I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.
I keep my belongings clean and neat.
I often feel inferior to others.
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
"Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources,
Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the NEO Five Factor Inventory,
by Paul Costa, and Robert McCrae, Copyright 1978, 1985, 1989 by PAR, Inc. Further
reproduction is prohibited without permission of PAR, Inc."
285
I laugh easily.
Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it.
I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers.
I'm pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time.
When I’m under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I’m going to
pieces.
I don't consider myself especially “light-hearted.”
I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature.
Some people think I’m selfish and egotistical.
I am not a very methodical person.
I rarely feel lonely or blue.
I really enjoy talking to people.
I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and
mislead them.
I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them.
I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously.
I often feel tense and jittery.
I like to be where the action is.
Poetry has little or no effect on me.
I tend to be cynical and skeptical of others' intentions.
I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion.
Sometimes I feel completely worthless.
I usually prefer to do things alone.
I often try new and foreign foods.
I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them.
I waste a lot of time before settling down to work.
I rarely feel fearful or anxious.
I often feel as if I'm bursting with energy.
I seldom notice the moods or feelings that different environments produce.
Most people I know like me.
I work hard to accomplish my goals.
I often get angry at the way people treat me.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
286
I am a cheerful, high-spirited person.
I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral
issues.
Some people think of me as cold and calculating.
When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through.
Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up.
I am not a cheerful optimist.
Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a
chill or wave of excitement.
I'm hard-headed and tough-minded in my attitudes.
Sometimes I'm not as dependable or reliable as I should be.
I am seldom sad or depressed.
My life is fast-paced.
I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the
human condition.
I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate.
I am a productive person who always gets the job done.
I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems.
I am a very active person.
I have a lot of intellectual curiosity.
If I don't like people, I let them know it.
I never seem to be able to get organized.
At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide.
I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others.
I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas.
If necessary, I am willing to manipulate people to get what I want.
I strive for excellence in everything I do.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
287
Section E
In this section you are to ask yourself: "What values are important to ME as guiding principles in MY life,
and what values are less important to me?" There are two lists of values on the following pages.
These values come from different cultures. In the parentheses following each value is an explanation
that may help you to understand its meaning.
Your task is to rate how important each value is for you as a guiding principle in your life. Use the rating
scale below:
0--means the value is not at all important, it is not relevant as a guiding principle for you.
3--means the value is important.
6--means the value is very important.
The higher the number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), the more important the value is as a guiding principle in YOUR
life.
-1 is for rating any values opposed to the principles that guide you.
7 is for rating a value of supreme importance as a guiding principle in your life;
ordinarily there are no more than two such values.
In the space before each value, write the number (-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that indicates the importance of
that value for you, personally. Try to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the
numbers. You will, of course, need to use numbers more than once.
AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
opposed
to my
values
-1
not
important
0
1
2
important
3
4
5
very
important
6
of
supreme
importance
7
Before you begin, read the values in List I, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its
importance. Next, choose the value that is most opposed to your values and rate it -1. If there is no
such value, choose the value least important to you and rate it 0 or 1, according to its importance. Then
rate the rest of the values in List I.
VALUES LIST I
1
EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)
2
INNER HARMONY (at peace with myself)
3
SOCIAL POWER (control over others, dominance)
4
PLEASURE (gratification of desires)
5
FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought)
6
A SPIRITUAL LIFE (emphasis on spiritual not material matters)
7
SENSE OF BELONGING (feeling that others care about me)
8
SOCIAL ORDER (stability of society)
9
AN EXCITING LIFE (stimulating experiences)
288
10
MEANING IN LIFE (a purpose in life)
11
POLITENESS (courtesy, good manners)
12
WEALTH (material possessions, money)
13
NATIONAL SECURITY (protection of my nation from enemies)
14
SELF RESPECT (belief in one's own worth)
15____RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS (avoidance of indebtedness)
16____CREATIVITY (uniqueness, imagination)
17____A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict)
18____RESPECT FOR TRADITION (preservation of time-honoured customs)
19____MATURE LOVE (deep emotional & spiritual intimacy)
20____SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)
21____PRIVACY (the right to have a private sphere)
22____FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones)
23____SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, approval by others)
24____UNITY WITH NATURE (fitting into nature)
25____A VARIED LIFE (filled with challenge, novelty and change)
26____WISDOM (a mature understanding of life)
27____AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command)
28____TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close, supportive friends)
29____A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts)
30____SOCIAL JUSTICE (correcting injustice, care for the weak)
VALUES LIST II
Now rate how important each of the following values is for you as a guiding principle in YOUR life.
These values are phrased as ways of acting that may be more or less important for you. Once again, try
to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the numbers.
Before you begin, read the values in List II, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its
importance. Next, choose the value that is most opposed to your values, or - if there is no such value choose the value least important to you, and rate it -1, 0, or 1, according to its importance. Then rate the
rest of the values.
289
AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
opposed
to my
values
-1
not
important
0
1
2
important
3
4
5
31
INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient)
32
MODERATE (avoiding extremes of feeling & action)
very
important
6
of
supreme
importance
7
33____LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group)
34____AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring)
35____BROADMINDED (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs)
36____HUMBLE (modest, self-effacing)
37____DARING (seeking adventure, risk)
38____PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (preserving nature)
39____INFLUENTIAL (having an impact on people and events)
40____HONORING OF PARENTS AND ELDERS (showing respect)
41____CHOOSING OWN GOALS (selecting own purposes)
42____HEALTHY (not being sick physically or mentally)
43____CAPABLE (competent, effective, efficient)
44____ACCEPTING MY PORTION IN LIFE (submitting to life's circumstances)
45____HONEST (genuine, sincere)
46____PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE (protecting my "face")
47____OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting obligations)
50____ENJOYING LIFE (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.)
51____DEVOUT (holding to religious faith & belief)
52____RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable)
53____CURIOUS (interested in everything, exploring)
54____FORGIVING (willing to pardon others)
55____SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals)
56____CLEAN (neat, tidy)
57____SELF-INDULGENT (doing pleasant things)
290
Section F
This section contains 90 items, all of which focus on you. Please read every item and try to decide if its
content reflects your personality characteristics. If it does, please circle the “Y” answer. If it does not,
circle the ”N” answer. Please mark all the answers on the questionnaire. There are no correct or wrong
answers to these questions and they will be used for academic research purposes only.
If someone offends me, I will try hard to forgive them.
Please circle
Yes or No
Y
N
A kind attitude of forgiveness, honesty, respect, magnanimity, etc. is an
important precondition for people to be successful in society.
Y
N
I strongly support the principle that if a family lives in harmony, all things will
prosper.
Y
N
My mind is at peace, and I have few desires.
Y
N
I seldom argue with my family.
Y
N
It is a virtue to tolerate everything.
Y
N
I follow the saying that "Those who are contented are always happy"
as a principle in life.
Y
N
Sometimes I pretend I understand a lot, because I do not want others to look
down on me.
Y
N
I always think about other people's opinion of me before I do something.
Y
N
I pay a lot of attention to how others see me.
Y
N
Inviting someone out to dinner has to be done in style in order to
keep up appearances.
Y
N
I am usually very particular about the way I dress because I do not want others
to look down on me.
Y
N
I feel a loss of face when others turn down my favour.
Y
N
I would rather cut down on my regular expenses, but when it comes
to inviting out or giving presents to someone, I feel obliged to be generous.
Y
N
Sometimes when I make a mistake I am not ready to admit it in public, even
though I know I am wrong.
Y
N
Sometimes I will insist on giving a friend a decent gift even if it means borrowing
money to buy it.
Y
N
When I am eating out and others have already finished their meal, I will also stop
eating and pretend I am full, even if I am not.
Y
N
Even if I was poor, I would still try to buy a presentable coat.
Y
N
I always worry I will not say the most appropriate thing when I am interacting with Y
strangers.
N
Eccentric clothes and hairstyles should be strictly banned so as to preserve
N
Y
291
traditional simplicity.
If one of my friends or relatives was taken to a hospital, I would definitely go visit
him/her.
Y
N
When dealing with institutions, things can work out more smoothly through the
connections of friends working inside.
Y
N
Though I may be perfectly aware of my friends' lack of ability,
If they ask me to find them a good job I will do my best to help them.
Y
N
To avoid mistakes in life, the best thing to do is to listen to what the elders say.
Y
N
During holidays, relatives and friends should visit one
another and strengthen their relationships.
Y
N
I find it very hard to say no when others make requests or give me assignments.
Y
N
I would say it is natural for anyone in official positions to give preferential
treatment to their friends and relatives.
Y
N
Returning money is easier than returning emotions, so the best thing to do is not
to become indebted to people emotionally.
Y
N
When people show me respect, I should show them more respect in return.
Y
N
The more people I know and the better my relations with them, the easier it will
be for me to make it in society.
Y
N
Do not do unto others what you do not wish others to do to you. In society one
should be considerate to others and avoid causing harm to others.
Y
N
I always try hard to get along well with others.
Y
N
Blood is thicker than water, and no matter what, one's feelings for one's family
are closer than for people outside the family.
Y
N
I usually care a lot about my appearance.
Y
N
The saying "Harmony is most valuable" is very true.
Y
N
I pay a lot of attention to what kind of attitude people have toward me.
Y
N
When I see something I need I will definitely buy it immediately.
Y
N
I always maintain a peaceful frame of mind.
Y
N
I accept my position in the society, and I also think it is a fair reflection of my
abilities and my disposition.
Y
N
Human beings will definitely be punished for destroying the law of nature.
Y
N
I prefer not to discuss my weaknesses, even with my closest friends.
Y
N
There is no stigma about marrying a divorced person.
Y
N
I feel extremely uneasy in a situation where my friends are having an argument.
Y
N
When a friend borrows something from me and does not return it, I often feel
uneasy about asking him/her to give it back.
Y
N
292
When I accomplish something important, I try hard not to get too exited, because
I know that success does not happen very often.
Y
N
All things can be divided into right and wrong.
Y
N
Even if I was very rich, I would still prefer to buy the cheapest out of several
brands of the same product.
Y
N
Even when I buy new clothes I continue to wear something old and save the
new ones for an important occasion.
Y
N
I often take friends out for meals
Y
N
I seldom buy snacks.
Y
N
I can remember how I have spent my money even if it were only a few cents.
Y
N
I am very thrifty even when I am using public property.
Y
N
Generally I do not like to spend too much money on vacationing.
Y
N
I like to store old things for future use.
Y
N
I think most people are too wasteful.
Y
N
I hate things that are uncertain or unpredicted.
Y
N
Generally speaking, I cannot stand people who spend money like water.
Y
N
Once I have made a decision I will seldom change it.
Y
N
I feel very sorry every time I have to throw away old things.
Y
N
The belief that you can count on your children to be a safety net for your old age
is outdated.
Y
N
It is best not to show off too much so as to avoid offending others.
Y
N
Parents should not interfere with their children's freedom to choose a profession.
Y
N
Generally speaking, there can only be one correct solution.
Y
N
I get irritated when unpredictable events disrupt my daily routine.
Y
N
I believe I have a much stricter sense of right and wrong than most people.
Y
N
I advocate the idea that all laws must be strictly enforced, regardless of the
consequences.
Y
N
I cannot stand people who can never make up their mind.
Y
N
I often wish everyone would talk with me in a straightforward and unambiguous
way.
Y
N
Once I have made my plans I seldom change them.
Y
N
I feel annoyed if my everyday life or work is disrupted by something unexpected.
Y
N
293
A woman's chastity is more important than her life.
Y
N
I am very demanding on myself; it would be great if everyone else was like that.
Y
N
Whenever I start some kind of work, I always make a schedule and plan all the
details.
Y
N
It would be great if everyone had a similar way of thinking or a similar system of
values.
Y
N
I like to save money for future necessities.
Y
N
When I do something I am always very careful not to embarrass anyone.
Y
N
Ancestral sacrifices, weddings, funerals, etc. should be conducted in keeping
with their traditional forms and etiquette, i.e., without any arbitrary changes.
Y
N
Kids that deserve the most praise are those who obey the rules just as adults
do.
Y
N
If teachers or superiors are mistaken, it is acceptable for students or inferiors to
contradict them.
Y
N
If a dispute cannot be resolved, a family elder should be invited to act as an
arbiter to uphold justice.
Y
N
I always insist on making detailed plans and schedules of my work.
Y
N
When I am doing something urgent and a friend or a relative comes to see me, I
will put my work aside and entertain them without making them wait.
Y
N
Usually when I talk with people I take great care not to offend them.
Y
N
I try to save money by taking public transport whenever I go out.
Y
N
Students need to be completely devoted to learning, and should not get
distracted by what is happening in the society.
Y
N
Children do not have to follow their parents' wishes when choosing a partner for
marriage.
Y
N
Education is a sacred profession, and therefore teachers should not mind too
much about their pay.
Y
N
It is impossible even for the most decent people to be entirely without evil
thoughts.
Y
N
If the content of some TV programs or movies does not conform to Chinese
culture, they should be eliminated with no exceptions.
Y
N
Useless old things should be thrown away.
Y
N
Please make sure that you have answered all the questions.
THANK YOU!
294
b) Leader questionnaire
Supervisor ________
July, 2001
WORK RELATIONS IN WESTERN SUBSIDIARIES IN CHINA
Thank you for taking part in the study on work relations in Western subsidiaries in China that your
company has agreed to participate in. The study is conducted at the Swedish School of Economics and
Business Administration in Helsinki, Finland.
This questionnaire is designed to obtain information about how personality, culture and work attitudes
influence the quality of work relationships. Please remember when answering questions that may seem
personal that all information that you provide will be strictly confidential and used for academic
research purposes only. No individual responses will be distributed to company representatives and
they will not be identifiable in the final report.
The questionnaire comprises six sections. In the beginning of each section, guidelines regarding how to
answer the questions will be given. The completion of the questionnaire takes approximately 60 minutes.
Please answer all the questions and seal the completed questionnaire in the envelopes provided to you.
Please send the questionnaires to:
Annika Vatanen
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration
Department of Management and Organization
P.O. Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland
Fax: +358 9 4313 3275,
Phone: +358 9 4313 3311
Mobile: +358 40 8343 572
E-mail: [email protected]
Please contact Annika Vatanen if you have any questions about the survey.
Thank you very much for your help and co-operation!
295
Section A
In this section, we would like you to provide the information by filling in the blanks.
1. Your name:
____________________________________
2. Your company:
____________________________________
3. Number of employees in company (subsidiary): _____________
4. Number of expatriate employees: _______________
5. Your year of birth: ____________
6. Your gender:
[ ] Male [ ] Female
7. Your country of birth: _________________________________
8. Your mother tongue: _________________________________
9. Your language skills:
[ ] English
[ ] Chinese (Mandarin)
[] company’s official language, which?
________________
10. Your education:
[
[
[
[
[
[
] less than high school
] finished high school
] finished college
] finished Bachelor’s degree
] finished Master’s degree
] finished Doctoral degree
11. Have you received any education abroad? [ ] no
[ ] yes, where? _________________
12. Your current assignment in
the organisation (subsidiary):
[ ] senior management (general manager)
[ ] functional head
[ ] middle management
[ ] lower management
[ ] technical or other expert
[ ] administrative
[ ] other, what? ________________________
13. How long have you worked in your present position?
_______ year(s) and _____ month(s).
14. How long have you worked at this company?
_______ year(s) and _____ month(s).
How many subordinates do you currently supervise?
_______ subordinates.
Have you received any cross-cultural training to prepare you for your present multicultural work
environment?
[ ] no
[ ] yes, of what type: [ ] environmental briefing (information
about geography, climate, housing, etc. in work location)
[ ]
cultural orientation (information
about cultureand values in work location)[ ] training in intercultural encounters
[ ] language training
296
17. How many hours of cross-cultural training have you received in total? ________ hours.
How much time have you spent in total on international assignments (including assignments before the
present one)? ____ year(s) and _____month(s).
How much time have you spent in total working in this country? ____year(s) and ___month(s)
20. Have you supervised subordinates from another cultural background before?
[ ] no
[ ] yes, for how long in total? ______year(s) and _____month(s).
Section B
In this section we are interested in your relationship with your subordinates. Please evaluate up to
three (and preferably three) subordinates and make sure that all of the evaluated subordinates receive
the employee version of this questionnaire! (The employee version of the questionnaire has the word
'employee' written on top of the first page).
Please write down the names of the subordinates to be evaluated here (in Western characters please!):
Subordinate names:
(if name is already provided, please evaluate this subordinate)
1) ______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Your name:
_____________________________________________
Section B1
This section contains 23 statements. Read each statement carefully. Please indicate the extent to which
you agree with the statements by writing down the number that best represents your evaluation of
each of your subordinates under each column. Please use the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Please respond to all of the statements for each subordinate!
Example: Write down the names of the persons you are evaluating (e.g John, Mary, James) in the first
row to indicate which person you are evaluating in each column. Then, write down “4” in column 1 if you
agree with the statement concerning John. Then, looking at the same statement, evaluate Mary in
column 2 and write down a number, e.g. “2” if you disagree with the statement. Repeat this procedure for
each subordinate and each statement. This example is illustrated below.
297
Subordinate name
1:
John
2:
Mary
4
2
3:
James
I like this subordinate very much as a person.
etc.
Following the instructions above, please write down the number that best represents your evaluation of
each of your subordinates using this scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Subordinate name
I like this subordinate very much as a person.
This subordinate is the kind of person one would like to have as
a friend.
This subordinate is a lot of fun to work with.
This subordinate would come to my defence if I were criticised by
others.
This subordinate would defend me to others in the organisation if
I made an honest mistake.
This subordinate defends my work actions to others in the
organisation, even without complete knowledge of the issue in
question.
I can depend on this subordinate to help when we are overloaded with work.
This subordinate is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those
normally required, to further the interests of our work group.
This subordinate does things for me that go beyond what is
specified in his/her job description.
I am impressed with this subordinate's knowledge of his/her job.
I seek out this subordinate's opinion on important matters.
I admire this subordinate's professional skills.
My subordinate and I are similar in terms of outlook, perspective,
and values.
1:
2:
3:
298
Subordinate name
1:
2:
3:
My subordinate and I see things in much the same way.
My subordinate and I are alike in a number of areas.
All in all, I am satisfied with my relationship with my subordinate.
My subordinate usually knows where he/she stands with me and
knows how satisfied I am with what he/she does.
I understand my subordinate’s job problems and needs very well.
I recognise my subordinate’s potential very well.
It is very likely that I would use my power to help my subordinate
solve his/her problems at work.
It is very likely that I would "bail my subordinate out"
My subordinate has enough confidence in me that he/she would
defend and justify my decision if I were not present to do so.
I would characterise my working relationship with my subordinate
as highly effective.
Section B2
Here we would like you to do two things:
1) Evaluate your subordinates for the past three to six months on each of the following items that reflects
a different aspect of this subordinate’s performance. Following the same procedure as before, please
write down the number that best represents your evaluation of each of your subordinates under each
column. Please use the same scale as before:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
2) Also, for those items marked with a Y N in the second column please circle:
“Y” for items that describe behaviours that you see as an expected part of the subordinates’ job and
“N” for items describing behaviours that you see as somewhat above and beyond what is expected for
the subordinate’s job.
Subordinate name
Always completes work assigned by the company.
Performed his/her required job well.
Part
of
work
1:
2:
3:
299
Always completes the duties specified in his/her job description.
Fulfills all formal job responsibilities.
Performs specified job duties.
Never neglects aspects of the job that he or she is obligated to
perform.
Meets all the formal job requirements.
Helps orient new subordinates even though it is not required as
part of his/her job.
Is always ready to help or to lend a helping hand to those
around him/her.
Y
N
Willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have workrelated problems.
Y
N
Helps others with heavy workloads.
Y
N
Helps fill in for others who are sick or absent.
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Is one of my most conscientious subordinates.
Believes in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
15. Never takes long lunches or breaks.
16. Takes fewer breaks at work than other subordinates.
Is willing to work on a job/project until it is completed, even if it
means coming in earlier or staying later than normal.
Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.
Always finds fault with what the company is doing.
Is the classic "squeaky wheel" that always needs greasing.
Tends to make problems bigger than they are.
Always focuses on what's wrong with his/her situation, rather
than the opposite.
“Keeps up” with developments in the department/ company.
Attends training/information sessions that subordinates are
encouraged, but not required to attend (e.g., first aid, Red
Cross, CPR, safety, informational sessions on new company
benefits package, etc.)
Actively participates in department/company meetings.
Provides constructive suggestions regarding changes that might
be made in his/her department or the company.
300
Willing to risk disapproval in order to express his/her beliefs
about what’s best for the department/company.
Y
N
Y
N
Considers the impact of his/her actions on others.
Tries to avoid creating problems for co-workers.
Returns phone calls and responds to other messages and
requests for information promptly.
Discusses with other workers before initiating actions that might
affect them.
Takes steps to try to prevent problems with co-workers.
Respects other people’s rights to common/
shared resources (including EDP and
duplicating
equipment, tools, machinery, materials, clerical help, etc.)
Please answer also the following questions:
1:
2:
3:
Subordinate name
For how long have you been working with this subordinate? (in
months)
How many times each week do you engage in face-to-face or
telephone interaction with your subordinate?
Approximately how many hours per week do you interact with
this subordinate?
Can you speak the mother tongue of your subordinate? (yes or
no)
Can your subordinate speak your mother tongue? (yes or no)
Section C
This section contains 20 statements. Read each statement carefully. Please indicate the extent to which
you agree with the statements by circulating the number that best represents your opinion. Please use
the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
301
Fill in only response for each statement. Please respond to all of the statements!
Please circle
Strongly disagree…….Strongly agree
This organisation has faith in me.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Even if I did the best job possible, this organisation’s management
would fail to notice.
1
2
3
4
5
This organisation’s management is willing to extend itself in order to
help me perform my job to the best of my ability.
1
2
3
4
5
Help is available from this organisation’s management when I have a
problem.
1
2
3
4
5
This organisation's management feels proud of my
contribution to the company.
1
2
3
4
5
I count in this organisation.
I am trusted in this organisation.
I am a valuable part of this organisation.
I am an important part of this organisation.
I am co-operative in this organisation.
I am taken seriously in this organisation.
I am helpful in this organisation.
I am efficient around here.
I make a difference around here.
All things considered, I am satisfied with my current job.
This organisation’s management shows very little concern for
me.
This organisation’s management cares about my general satisfaction at
work.
This organisation’s management really cares about my well-being.
This organisation’s management strongly considers my goals and
values.
This organisation’s management cares about my opinions.
302
Section D
3
This section contains 60 statements . Read each statement carefully. Please indicate the extent to
which you agree with the statements by circulating the number that best represents your opinion.
These statements may appear personal, but please answer all of them and remember that they will be
used for academic research only. Please use the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Fill in only response for each statement. Please respond to all of the statements!
Please circle
Strongly disagree …….Strongly agree
I am not a worrier.
I like to have a lot of people around me.
I don't like to waste my time daydreaming.
I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.
I keep my belongings clean and neat.
I often feel inferior to others.
I laugh easily.
Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it.
I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers.
I'm pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time.
When I’m under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I’m going to
pieces.
I don't consider myself especially “light-hearted.”
I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature.
Some people think I’m selfish and egotistical.
I am not a very methodical person.
I rarely feel lonely or blue.
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
"Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources,
Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the NEO Five Factor Inventory,
by Paul Costa, and Robert McCrae, Copyright 1978, 1985, 1989 by PAR, Inc. Further
reproduction is prohibited without permission of PAR, Inc."
303
I really enjoy talking to people.
I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and
mislead them.
I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them.
I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously.
I often feel tense and jittery.
I like to be where the action is.
Poetry has little or no effect on me.
I tend to be cynical and skeptical of others' intentions.
I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion.
Sometimes I feel completely worthless.
I usually prefer to do things alone.
I often try new and foreign foods.
I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them.
I waste a lot of time before settling down to work.
I rarely feel fearful or anxious.
I often feel as if I'm bursting with energy.
I seldom notice the moods or feelings that different environments produce.
Most people I know like me.
I work hard to accomplish my goals.
I often get angry at the way people treat me.
I am a cheerful, high-spirited person.
I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral
issues.
Some people think of me as cold and calculating.
When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through.
Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up.
I am not a cheerful optimist.
Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a
chill or wave of excitement.
I'm hard-headed and tough-minded in my attitudes.
Sometimes I'm not as dependable or reliable as I should be.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
304
I am seldom sad or depressed.
My life is fast-paced.
I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the
human condition.
I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate.
I am a productive person who always gets the job done.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems.
I am a very active person.
I have a lot of intellectual curiosity.
If I don't like people, I let them know it.
I never seem to be able to get organized.
At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide.
I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others.
I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas.
If necessary, I am willing to manipulate people to get what I want.
I strive for excellence in everything I do.
Section E
In this section you are to ask yourself: "What values are important to ME as guiding principles in MY life,
and what values are less important to me?" There are two lists of values on the following pages.
These values come from different cultures. In the parentheses following each value is an explanation
that may help you to understand its meaning.
Your task is to rate how important each value is for you as a guiding principle in your life. Use the rating
scale below:
0--means the value is not at all important, it is not relevant as a guiding principle for you.
3--means the value is important.
6--means the value is very important.
The higher the number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), the more important the value is as a guiding principle in YOUR
life.
-1 is for rating any values opposed to the principles that guide you.
7 is for rating a value of supreme importance as a guiding principle in your life;
ordinarily there are no more than two such values.
In the space before each value, write the number (-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that indicates the importance of
that value for you, personally. Try to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the
numbers. You will, of course, need to use numbers more than once.
305
AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
opposed
to my
values
-1
not
important
0
1
2
important
3
4
5
very
important
6
of
supreme
importance
7
Before you begin, read the values in List I, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its
importance. Next, choose the value that is most opposed to your values and rate it -1. If there is no
such value, choose the value least important to you and rate it 0 or 1, according to its importance. Then
rate the rest of the values in List I.
VALUES LIST I
1
EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)
2
INNER HARMONY (at peace with myself)
3
SOCIAL POWER (control over others, dominance)
4
PLEASURE (gratification of desires)
5
FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought)
6
A SPIRITUAL LIFE (emphasis on spiritual not material matters)
7
SENSE OF BELONGING (feeling that others care about me)
8
SOCIAL ORDER (stability of society)
9
AN EXCITING LIFE (stimulating experiences)
10
MEANING IN LIFE (a purpose in life)
11
POLITENESS (courtesy, good manners)
12
WEALTH (material possessions, money)
13
NATIONAL SECURITY (protection of my nation from enemies)
14
SELF RESPECT (belief in one's own worth)
15____RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS (avoidance of indebtedness)
16____CREATIVITY (uniqueness, imagination)
17____A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict)
18____RESPECT FOR TRADITION (preservation of time-honoured customs)
19____MATURE LOVE (deep emotional & spiritual intimacy)
20____SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)
21____PRIVACY (the right to have a private sphere)
306
22____FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones)
23____SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, approval by others)
24____UNITY WITH NATURE (fitting into nature)
25____A VARIED LIFE (filled with challenge, novelty and change)
26____WISDOM (a mature understanding of life)
27____AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command)
28____TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close, supportive friends)
29____A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts)
30____SOCIAL JUSTICE (correcting injustice, care for the weak)
VALUES LIST II
Now rate how important each of the following values is for you as a guiding principle in YOUR life.
These values are phrased as ways of acting that may be more or less important for you. Once again, try
to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the numbers.
Before you begin, read the values in List II, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its
importance. Next, choose the value that is most opposed to your values, or - if there is no such value choose the value least important to you, and rate it -1, 0, or 1, according to its importance. Then rate the
rest of the values.
AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
opposed
to my
values
-1
not
important
0
1
2
important
3
4
5
31
INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient)
32
MODERATE (avoiding extremes of feeling & action)
very
important
6
33____LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group)
34____AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring)
35____BROADMINDED (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs)
36____HUMBLE (modest, self-effacing)
37____DARING (seeking adventure, risk)
38____PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (preserving nature)
39____INFLUENTIAL (having an impact on people and events)
40____HONORING OF PARENTS AND ELDERS (showing respect)
of
supreme
importance
7
307
41____CHOOSING OWN GOALS (selecting own purposes)
42____HEALTHY (not being sick physically or mentally)
43____CAPABLE (competent, effective, efficient)
44____ACCEPTING MY PORTION IN LIFE (submitting to life's circumstances)
45____HONEST (genuine, sincere)
46____PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE (protecting my "face")
47____OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting obligations)
48____INTELLIGENT (logical, thinking)
49____HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others)
50____ENJOYING LIFE (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.)
51____DEVOUT (holding to religious faith & belief)
52____RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable)
53____CURIOUS (interested in everything, exploring)
54____FORGIVING (willing to pardon others)
55____SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals)
56____CLEAN (neat, tidy)
57____SELF-INDULGENT (doing pleasant things)
Section F
This section contains 90 items, all of which focus on you. Please read every item and try to decide if its
content reflects your personality characteristics. If it does, please circle the “Y” answer. If it does not,
circle the ”N” answer. Please mark all the answers on the questionnaire. There are no correct or wrong
answers to these questions and they will be used for academic research purposes only.
If someone offends me, I will try hard to forgive them.
Please circle
Yes or No
Y
N
A kind attitude of forgiveness, honesty, respect, magnanimity, etc. is an
important precondition for people to be successful in society.
Y
N
I strongly support the principle that if a family lives in harmony, all things will
prosper.
Y
N
My mind is at peace, and I have few desires.
Y
N
I seldom argue with my family.
Y
N
It is a virtue to tolerate everything.
Y
N
I follow the saying that "Those who are contented are always happy"
as a principle in life.
Y
N
308
Sometimes I pretend I understand a lot, because I do not want others to look
down on me.
Y
N
I always think about other people's opinion of me before I do something.
Y
N
I pay a lot of attention to how others see me.
Y
N
Inviting someone out to dinner has to be done in style in order to
keep up appearances.
Y
N
I am usually very particular about the way I dress because I do not want others
to look down on me.
Y
N
I feel a loss of face when others turn down my favour.
Y
N
I would rather cut down on my regular expenses, but when it comes
to inviting out or giving presents to someone, I feel obliged to be generous.
Y
N
Sometimes when I make a mistake I am not ready to admit it in public, even
though I know I am wrong.
Y
N
Sometimes I will insist on giving a friend a decent gift even if it means borrowing
money to buy it.
Y
N
When I am eating out and others have already finished their meal, I will also stop
eating and pretend I am full, even if I am not.
Y
N
Even if I was poor, I would still try to buy a presentable coat.
Y
N
I always worry I will not say the most appropriate thing when I am interacting with Y
strangers.
N
Eccentric clothes and hairstyles should be strictly banned so as to preserve
traditional simplicity.
Y
N
If one of my friends or relatives was taken to a hospital, I would definitely go visit
him/her.
Y
N
When dealing with institutions, things can work out more smoothly through the
connections of friends working inside.
Y
N
Though I may be perfectly aware of my friends' lack of ability,
If they ask me to find them a good job I will do my best to help them.
Y
N
To avoid mistakes in life, the best thing to do is to listen to what the elders say.
Y
N
During holidays, relatives and friends should visit one
another and strengthen their relationships.
Y
N
I find it very hard to say no when others make requests or give me assignments.
Y
N
I would say it is natural for anyone in official positions to give preferential
treatment to their friends and relatives.
Y
N
Returning money is easier than returning emotions, so the best thing to do is not
to become indebted to people emotionally.
Y
N
When people show me respect, I should show them more respect in return.
Y
N
309
The more people I know and the better my relations with them, the easier it will
be for me to make it in society.
Y
N
Do not do unto others what you do not wish others to do to you. In society one
should be considerate to others and avoid causing harm to others.
Y
N
I always try hard to get along well with others.
Y
N
Blood is thicker than water, and no matter what, one's feelings for one's family
are closer than for people outside the family.
Y
N
I usually care a lot about my appearance.
Y
N
The saying "Harmony is most valuable" is very true.
Y
N
I pay a lot of attention to what kind of attitude people have toward me.
Y
N
When I see something I need I will definitely buy it immediately.
Y
N
I always maintain a peaceful frame of mind.
Y
N
I accept my position in the society, and I also think it is a fair reflection of my
abilities and my disposition.
Y
N
Human beings will definitely be punished for destroying the law of nature.
Y
N
I prefer not to discuss my weaknesses, even with my closest friends.
Y
N
There is no stigma about marrying a divorced person.
Y
N
I feel extremely uneasy in a situation where my friends are having an argument.
Y
N
When a friend borrows something from me and does not return it, I often feel
uneasy about asking him/her to give it back.
Y
N
When I accomplish something important, I try hard not to get too exited, because
I know that success does not happen very often.
Y
N
All things can be divided into right and wrong.
Y
N
Even if I was very rich, I would still prefer to buy the cheapest out of several
brands of the same product.
Y
N
Even when I buy new clothes I continue to wear something old and save the
new ones for an important occasion.
Y
N
I often take friends out for meals
Y
N
I seldom buy snacks.
Y
N
I can remember how I have spent my money even if it were only a few cents.
Y
N
I am very thrifty even when I am using public property.
Y
N
Generally I do not like to spend too much money on vacationing.
Y
N
I like to store old things for future use.
Y
N
I think most people are too wasteful.
Y
N
310
I hate things that are uncertain or unpredicted.
Y
N
Generally speaking, I cannot stand people who spend money like water.
Y
N
Once I have made a decision I will seldom change it.
Y
N
I feel very sorry every time I have to throw away old things.
Y
N
The belief that you can count on your children to be a safety net for your old age
is outdated.
Y
N
It is best not to show off too much so as to avoid offending others.
Y
N
Parents should not interfere with their children's freedom to choose a profession.
Y
N
Generally speaking, there can only be one correct solution.
Y
N
I get irritated when unpredictable events disrupt my daily routine.
Y
N
I believe I have a much stricter sense of right and wrong than most people.
Y
N
I advocate the idea that all laws must be strictly enforced, regardless of the
consequences.
Y
N
I cannot stand people who can never make up their mind.
Y
N
I often wish everyone would talk with me in a straightforward and unambiguous
way.
Y
N
Once I have made my plans I seldom change them.
Y
N
I feel annoyed if my everyday life or work is disrupted by something unexpected.
Y
N
A woman's chastity is more important than her life.
Y
N
I am very demanding on myself; it would be great if everyone else was like that.
Y
N
Whenever I start some kind of work, I always make a schedule and plan all the
details.
Y
N
It would be great if everyone had a similar way of thinking or a similar system of
values.
Y
N
I like to save money for future necessities.
Y
N
When I do something I am always very careful not to embarrass anyone.
Y
N
Ancestral sacrifices, weddings, funerals, etc. should be conducted in keeping
with their traditional forms and etiquette, i.e., without any arbitrary changes.
Y
N
Kids that deserve the most praise are those who obey the rules just as adults
do.
Y
N
If a dispute cannot be resolved, a family elder should be invited to act as an
arbiter to uphold justice.
Y
N
I always insist on making detailed plans and schedules of my work.
Y
N
When I am doing something urgent and a friend or a relative comes to see me, I
Y
N
311
will put my work aside and entertain them without making them wait.
Usually when I talk with people I take great care not to offend them.
Y
N
I try to save money by taking public transport whenever I go out.
Y
N
Students need to be completely devoted to learning, and should not get
distracted by what is happening in the society.
Y
N
Children do not have to follow their parents' wishes when choosing a partner for
marriage.
Y
N
Education is a sacred profession, and therefore teachers should not mind too
much about their pay.
Y
N
It is impossible even for the most decent people to be entirely without evil
thoughts.
Y
N
If the content of some TV programs or movies does not conform to Chinese
culture, they should be eliminated with no exceptions.
Y
N
Useless old things should be thrown away.
Y
N
Please make sure that you have answered all the questions.THANK YOU!
312
APPENDIX 2: SPECIFICATION OF MEASUREMENT ISSUES
a) CFA model fit indices
An indication of construct validity can be obtained by assessing and comparing the
coefficients in measurement models that show acceptable fit. Few researchers seem to
agree on which index provides the best estimation of model fit (cf. e.g. Gierl, Rogers &
Klinger, 1999). As a result, there is an increasing trend to utilise multiple fit indices that
reflect different aspects of the model fit. Some commonly fit indices that will be used in
the presented study are presented below (the presentation of fit indices is largely
adopted from Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993):
Chi-square(χ2) is a measure of overall fit of the model to the data. It measures the
distance (difference) between the sample covariance matrix and the fitted covariance
matrix. In this view, chi-square is a badness-of-fit measure in the sense that a small chisquare corresponds to good fit and a large chi-square to bad fit. Chi-square is calculated
as N-1 times the minimum value of the fit function, where N is the sample size. Since
chi-square is N - 1 times the minimum value of the fit function, chi-square tends to be
larger in large samples if the model does not hold (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). It is
suggested that the result of dividing chi-square by the degrees of freedom should not
exceed the threshold of five suggested by Wheaton et al. (1977, as cited in Van Dyne,
Graham & Dienesch, 1994) and the threshold of two or three suggested by Carmines
and McIver (1981, as cited by Van Dyne et al. 1994). However, a well-known problem
of the chi-square test is that relatively minor deviations from the specified model will
result in significant outcomes, which reinforces the need to use a variety of different fit
indices in any covariance structure analysis (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994).
The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the goodness-of-fit index adjusted for degrees of
freedom (AGFI) of Jöreskog et al. (1989) do not depend on sample size explicitly and
measure how much better the model fits as compared to no model at all. This measures
should be between zero and one, although it is theoretically possible for them to become
negative (this means that the model fits worse than no model at all (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993). A preferred criterion for close fit is GFI >.90 while values >.80 are still
considered acceptable (e.g. Chow, Snowden & McConnell, 2001).
The comparative fit index (CFI) developed by Bentler (1990, as cited in Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 1993) belongs to the group of indices that measure how much better the model
fits as compared to a baseline model, usually the independence model (i.e., the model
in which all observed variables are uncorrelated). CFI values range from 0 (lack of fit)
to 1 (perfect fit), but values outside this interval can occur (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993).
According to Liden and Maslyn (1998) CFI is the index that best accounts for
parsimony without over-penalising models that hypothesise more paths. A preferred
criterion for close fit is CFI >.90 while values >.80 are still considered acceptable (e.g.
Chow, Snowden & McConnell, 2001).
313
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is intended to provide a measure of
parsimony by assessing the discrepancy per degree of freedom (lack of fit given a
particular number of parameters in the model tested) (Gierl et al., 1999). According to
Brown and Cudek (1993) a RMSEA of 0.05 indicates a close fit of the model in relation
to degrees of freedom (and a value of around .08 as still acceptable).
Taking into consideration the points made above, the following criteria for assessing
model fit will be used in the present study: χ2/df <3, RMSEA <.08, GFI >.80, CFI >.80.
Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) suggest the following additional criteria for judging
confirmatory factor model satisfaction that will be used in the present study: p-value for
the chi-square statistic>.05, CN >N as well as item R2>.20, and item estimate t-value
>2.0. (at a significance level of 5%, at 10% t=1.64 is the threshold value). A model that
shows very good fit to the data is expected to meet every criterion, but a model that
meets most, but not all, of the criteria will not automatically be rejected. Although the
final model may not demonstrate perfect fit, at least it will enable improvement of the
measure as well as clarify its possible deficiencies.
Regarding the problem of choosing from among two or more competing models, the
choice of which procedure to use depends on whether or not the competing models are
"nested" within one another (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Model A is nested within
model B if Model A is a special case of Model B. A commonly used method is to test
the null hypothesis of no significant difference in fit by evaluating whether the chisquare difference is significant, for the given degrees of freedom and a chosen
significance level. If the difference is significant, then the null hypothesis is rejected.
This approach is limited to comparisons of nested models. In establishing the level of
equivalence of models in multisample analysis, the fit of hierarchically nested models
can be tested by incremental fit indices, i.e. the test statistic is the difference in goodness
of fit between the more or less restricted models (Van den Vijver & Leung, 1997).
One disadvantage with chi-square in comparative model fitting is that it always
decreases when parameters are added to the model value (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). A
number of measures try to deal with this problem by first decreasing as parameters are
added and then have a turning point such that they takes its smallest value for the "best''
model and then increases when further parameters are added. The AIC and CAIC
measures belong to this category. In the general case of selection of one model among
several (more than two) models, one can use the model selection criteria AIC, CAIC, or
ECVI and choose the model with the smallest value (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). AIC
and CAIC will be used to facilitate model selection in the present study.
b) Reliability
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) are indicators of internal consistency reliability
(i.e. the reliability of items as reflectors of their respective constructs). Cronbach’s
alphas are widely used and will also be reported for the measures employed in the
present study. The threshold of .70 is recommended by Nunnally (1978). It should be
noted Cronbach’s alpha is sensitive to the number of items.
314
In addition, reliability will be estimated through the confirmatory factor analyses
described above. Bollen’s (1989) structural equation measure of reliability is a measure
of “the proportion of variance in a measure that is explained by the variables that
directly affect xi (observed variable)”. Bollen suggests the use of the squared multiple
correlation coefficient for xi, R2xi as a measure of reliability. As a result, the R2 for the
xis will be reported. As noted by Ehrnrooth (2002), Bollen’s measure of reliability
seems to be parallel to his measure of construct validity in the case that the
measurement model only contains one latent variable. (Bollen makes a distinction
between his validity and reliability measure by stating that reliability measures all
influences, both valid and invalid, on xi whereas validity measures the strength of the
direct effect of a particular latent variable on xi. This further points to the interlinkage
between validity and reliability (cf. Ehrnrooth 2002).
c) Measurement equivalence
As mentioned earlier in Chapter 5 (see p. 126), cross-cultural equivalence and bias are
major concerns in cross-cultural studies (cf. e.g. van de Vijver and Leung, 1997;
Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994). Equivalence is closely linked with the concept of bias:
scores are equivalent when they are unbiased (van de Vijver and Leung, 1997).
However, equivalence refers to the measurement level at which scores can be compared
across cultures whereas bias indicates the presence of factors that make the validity of
cross-cultural comparisons questionable. Bias can occur at multiple stages of a study
including 1) the formulation of hypotheses and conceptualisation of theoretical
constructs, 2) the design of the study and c) data analysis. Personal bias partly
stemming from the researcher’s cultural background affecting hypotheses formulation
and study design has been indirectly dealt with in the previous chapters. Personal bias is
difficult to avoid but it is hoped that through an open discussion and description of the
research process in the previous and following chapters, these biases will at least
become clear and obvious. This is considered to be a better option than to claim
“objectivity”. This section will focus on issues related cross-cultural bias and
equivalence at the data analysis stage, and procedures that could be categorised as a
posteriori validation techniques by van de Vijver and Leung (1997).
According to van de Vijver and Leung (1997), equivalence can occur at three levels,
which are hierarchically related to each other: the construct level, the measurement unit
level and the score level. Structural equivalence occurs when an instrument measures
the same latent construct in two or more cultures. In order to establish construct
equivalence, the nomological networks of the instruments in the two cultures should be
examined. Measurement unit equivalence occurs when the measurement unit is identical
for each of the cultural groups (but the offset of the scale can be different, e.g. when
temperatures measured in Kelvin and Celsius are compared, the unit is the same while
the Kelvin scale starts from the lowest achievable temperature and Celsius from
freezing point). Scalar equivalence or full score comparability, which is the highest
level of equivalence, can be achieved when the measurement instrument is on the same
ratio scale in each cultural group (e.g. measuring weight in kg) or when scores on an
315
instrument have the same interval scale across cultural groups. Equivalence is the
function of the characteristics of an instrument and of the cultural groups involved.
Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) define bias as a generic term for all nuisance factors
that threaten the validity of cross-cultural comparisons. Regarding the linkage between
bias and equivalence, van de Vijver and Leung (1997) note that uniform and
nonuniform bias is harmless for construct equivalence as numeric score comparisons
across cultures are not permitted anyway. Uniform bias does not threaten measurement
unit equivalence (adding a constant to all scores in one group does not influence the
measurement unit and does not influence scalar equivalence as comparisons across this
level cannot be conducted anyway, e.g. one cannot compare degrees measured in
Celsius and Kelvin and it does hence not make any difference if e.g. the Kelvin scale
consistently would show two degrees less than the real temperature) but leads to a loss
of scalar equivalence (the differences in scores no longer have a natural origin).
Nonuniform bias destroys equivalence to a considerable extent as the measurement unit
in the two groups becomes different. This is likely to lead to the incorrect conclusions
through cross-cultural comparisons.
Measurement equivalence testing
For assessing measurement equivalence, Schaffer and Riordan (2001) recommend
covariance structure analysis as a best practice statistical approach for cross-cultural
organisational research. The first phase involves testing the equality of the variancecovariance matrices across the cultural groups. Riordan and Vandenberg (1994) used
the multisample feature of LISREL to test the null hypothesis that the Korean and
American samples’ matrices were equal for each variable. A rejection of the null
hypothesis in this test, demonstrated by a significant chi-square, would indicate that
there were some sources of inequivalence in measurement. This suggests that
increasingly restrictive tests should be conducted to identify the source of inequivalence
(Byrne et al., 1989).
The second phase assesses conceptual equivalence, and includes a test of the hypothesis
that the forms of the factor models are consistent across the samples (Riordan &
Vandenberg, 1994). Differences in factor structure between the cross-cultural samples
would be an indication of conceptual inequivalence. To test this hypothesis, a latent
means approach using the multisample feature of LISREL VIII (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993) can be utilised (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994; 653). Importantly, findings for a
lack of conceptual equivalence, indicated by unacceptable fit indices, would suggest
that any other comparisons between groups among the variables would be
uninterpretable, since obtained values would represent non-equivalent constructs.
The third phase assesses scaling equivalence, and uses models that extend the factormodels in Phase 2 by placing equality constraints on the factor loadings across the
samples (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994). Equivalence is determined by comparing the
samples on the ‘true-score’ units associated with each observed item of a scale. This
new model is nested within the first model, and is a more restrictive model. Thus, a
poorer fit from the first model to this second model would indicate scaling, or true
score, inequivalence. (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994).
316
These steps described by Schaffer and Riordan (2001) are similar to the ones
recommended by Byrne, Shavelson, and Muthén (1989). The authors describe a fivestep approach, which in addition to the tests described above, examines the equality of
intercept and the equality of unique variances. The five steps are the following: an
omnibus test of measurement equivalence (test 1) which, if rejected, can be followed
with tests of equal factor structures (test 2, also referred to as a test of "configural
invariance," Horn & McArdle, 1992), equal intercepts (test 3) and factor loadings (test
4, or "metric invariance," Horn & McArdle, 1992), and equal unique variances (test 5).
Byrne et al (1989) refer to test 1 through test 5 as evaluating cross-group measurement
invariance. Additional tests evaluate what Byrne et al. (1989) refer to as cross-group
structural invariance, including a test of the hypothesis that factor variances are equal
across groups (test 6) and a test of the hypothesis of equal covariances across groups
(test 7). Byrne et al. (1989) consider tests 1 through 5 as tests of measurement
invariance in the sense that they evaluate cross-equivalence in various aspects of
invariance with respect to relationships between observed measures and unobserved
factors. Tests 6 and 7, on the other hand, are considered test of structural invariance in
the sense that they evaluate cross-group equivalencies in relationships among
unobserved variables. It should, however be noted that others have considered tests as
comprising additional aspects of measurement equivalence (e.g., Schmitt, 1982).
However, it should be noted that before testing nested models with different equality
constraints, researchers have begun their assessment of equivalence across cultural
groups by conducting confirmatory factor analyses for each groups separately (e.g.
Singh, Ghoparade & Lackritz, 2001). This gives a general overview of the factorial
structure in both groups. It seems that if remarkable differences are found already at this
stage, testing nested models with presumed strict equality constraints seems
superfluous. As a result, the assessment of cross-cultural equivalence started with
confirmatory factor analyses conducted separately for Western and Chinese
respondents. The fact that the constructs employed in the present study have already
been employed in a Chinese context and there are empirical and theoretical
justifications to presume that the factor structure would be similar in both cultural
groups resulted in the decision to use confirmatory rather than exploratory techniques.
The need to establish measurement properties (such as reliability and validity) for each
cultural group separately and to compare these properties across groups is also stressed
in the guidelines formulated by a committee representing various international
psychological organisations for translating and adapting psychological and educational
instruments (Hambleton, 1994, as cited in van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). The
validation of the measures employed in the present study was described in Chapter 5
(see p. 133) whereas the focus in this section is on describing general procedures.
An important issue to consider if there is a specific point in these analyses at which
observed levels of inequivalence would give reason to halt the research efforts. In case
of continuation, any strategies for increasing equivalence by relaxing constraints, or by
removing items from the research instrument, have to be supported by sound theoretical
justifications (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). In the present study, covariance structure
analysis will be used mainly to determine the level of equivalence and it will not be
used as a tool for identifying the sources of inequivalence. The focus is on the first step,
i.e. testing the equality of the covariance matrices and comparing it to a less restrictive
317
model in which the factor loadings are not presumed to be equal. Testing only these
models does not enable a specific identification of inequivalence, but is considered to be
sufficient given that item-level sources of inequivalence will be identified using itembias detection techniques (to be discussed in the following sub-section). The decision
not to resort to all possible techniques aimed at identifying sources of inequivalence is
also in line with the primary aim of this study, which is not to compare Chinese and
Western individuals, but to understand leader-follower relations. Hence, if a significant
level of equivalence of constructs cannot be demonstrated, both groups will be analysed
separately. The standpoint taken in the present study is that our understanding of leaderfollower relations in the present context is increased most efficiently by adopting
measures to fit the specific group or dyad-type (intracultural or intercultural) under
examination than developing measures that may be equivalent but non adequate for the
group under examination.
The examination of equivalence was undertaken separately for each construct. A
simultaneous inclusion of a larger number of constructs would most certainly have lead
to specification problems due to the interrelationships between constructs (cf. Schaffer
and Riordan, 2001). However, in case the individual measures demonstrate a high level
of equivalence, it would be possible to examine their convergent-discriminant validity
by simultaneously comparing measurement properties. An examination of the
equivalence causal relationships between the constructs is also only possible if
equivalence of constructs can be demonstrated.
d) Item bias detection
According to van de Vijver and Leung (1997), the most important a posteriori
technique in validity enhancement is item bias analysis that can be used to detect
anomalous items. In Cleary’s and Hilton’s analysis of variance approach described by
van de Vijver & Leung (1997), and which was used in the present study, bias is
examined for each item separately. The item score is the dependent variable (in this
case, the 5-point Likert scores are treated as interval variables) while cultural group
(two levels) and score groups (to be explained later) are the independent variables.
Score groups are composed on the basis of the total score of the instrument (sum of the
item scores). Using the LMX-MDM measure used in the present study as an example,
the measure consists of 12 items measured on a 5-point scale. The minimum total score
is hence 1x 12 = 12 and the maximum score 5 x 12 = 60 and there are hence 60 – 12 =
48 score groups. The minimum and maximum score groups are not considered in the
item analysis, as the responses would necessarily be identical across all cultural groups
(i.e. the score is either 1 or 5 on all items). With small sample sizes, it is not possible to
include all score groups (in this case 46) in the analysis. This is due to the fact that it is
likely that some of these groups only have very few or even no subjects, which
threatens the stability of the analysis. van de Vijver and Leung recommend using score
groups with at least 50 persons each. As a result, score levels have to be concatenated,
using a score distribution for the combined samples to identify cut-off points for
forming appropriately equal-sized groups. In the examination of item bias in the leader
version of LMX that involved approximately 230 leader responses, only 5 score groups
318
could be formed due to the small sample size. (A larger number of groups would have
allowed for a more fine-grained analysis).
After the score groups have been defined, the analysis of variance with the item score as
the dependent variable and cultural group and score groups as the independent variables
can be carried out. The significance of three effects is tested in the analysis: the effect of
the score group (usually significant as it shows that individuals in the lower score
groups have lower scores), the significance of the cultural group, and the significance of
the interaction of score group and culture. If the effects of both the cultural group and
the interaction between culture and score group are insignificant, the item is taken to be
unbiased. A significant effect of cultural group points to uniform bias, indicating that
individuals from one cultural groups may have higher scores on an item than individuals
from another group even when they have the same total test score (e.g. an IQ test where
one item for some reason is easier for one cultural group). A significant effect of the
interaction term suggests non-uniform bias meaning that the difference between cultural
groups is not invariant across score groups: the item discriminates better in one group
than in another.
Item-bias analysis was conducted for all the perceptual measures measured from a
leader perspective in order to establish whether the responses given by Chinese and
Western leaders are equivalent and hence comparable. This was not considered
necessary for the follower measures, as all the followers were Chinese. One exception
was the item-bias analysis conducted on follower LMX, mainly for curiosity, in order to
examine whether the Chinese followers systematically rated the western and Chinese
leaders differently.
In conclusion, it should be stated that although validity enhancing procedures, some of
which were described above, can reduce many problems of cross-cultural assessment,
their implementation never guaranteed bias-free measurement. Hence, cross-cultural
differences in scores on social behavioural measures tend to be open to multiple
interpretations (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
319
.73
.04
-.25 -.29
-.01 -.01
16. Le education
17. Le cult know
-.11 -.06
.00
20. Le conscien
21. |Le agre
22. Le harmony
.24
-.12 -.27
19. Le extrover
.22
.10
-.07 -.28
18. Le neuroti
.06
.17
.24
.20
.18
15. Le age
.14
.15
.12
.23
Fo cult know
9.
.58
-.14 -.04
14. LLMX leader
Fo tenuren com
8.
.60
.28
Interactio justic
7.
.56
.69
.26
13. Fo harmony
Fo perc similar
6.
.74
.55
12. Fo conscienti
LMX respect
5.
.30
.09
LMX contribu
4.
.63
1.0
.69
-.16 -.23
LMX loyalty
3.
.69
1.0
2.
11. Fo extroversion
LMX affect
2.
1.
10. Fo neuroticism
LMX follower
1.
Chinese dyads
.23
.27
.33
.17
1.0
.30
.63
4.
5.
.63
.55
1.0
.25
.33
.69
.74
.06
.05
.17
.13
.09
.02
.19
.24
.30
.20
-.10
-.18
-.12
-.05
.17
.03
.16
.02
.00 -.13
.07 -.16
.08 -.24
.07 -.03
.03 -.04
-.18 -.09 -.34
-.15
-.03
.16
.04
-.07
-.07 -.02 -.18
.04
.04 -.07
.24
.33
.25
1.0
.17
.26
.55
.11 -.11
-.24
3.
.60
1.0
.55
.33
.27
.60
.56
7.
1.0
.60
.63
.24
.23
.73
.58
.08
.12
.21
.19
.39
.26
.00
.07
.18
.07 -.08
-.20 -.20
-.28 -.11
.31
-.14 -.03
-.16 -.34
.05
.03
.20
.16
.10
-.19 -.29
.13
-.04 -.08
6.
9.
.11 -.07
.14 -.23
.12 -.16
10.
1.0
.01 -.42
.16 -.50
.09
.17
.06
.02
.06
.04
.19
.09 -.03 -.17
.09 -.08 -.05
.10 -.10
-.26 -.07 -.12
-.04
.03 -.08 -.10
-.09 -.17
.32
.13 -.07
-.02 -.19 -.12
-.19
-.04
.29
1.0 -.19
.25
.08 -.29
.13 -.19
.04 -.18
.29 -.19
.25
1.0
-.08
-.04
-.07
.04 -.11 -.02
-.24
-.04
-.14
8.
.39
.16
.30
.13
.04
.20
.28
12.
.19
.20
.24
.17
.16
.24
.23
13.
.01 -.19
.07
.02
.08
.08
.16
.18
.32
.00
.09
.09 -.15 -.03
.00
.28 -.23
-.10 -.16
.12
-.10 -.24
-.02
-.10 -.22 -.14
.02 -.08
.13
1.0
1.0 -.01
.41 -.10
-.10 -.01
.41
1.0
-.50 -.42 -.12
.16
-.04 -.19 -.02
.26
.10
.20
.09
-.07
.18
.09
11.
.06
.04
15.
.02
.06
.09
.32
.12
.05
.02
.06
1.0
.02
.02
.07
.07
.23
.02
-.05
.20
.11
.39
.02
-.26 -.12
.09
-.11 -.12
.02
1.0
.08
.07 -.08
.13
.02
-.07
.13
.21
.03
.19
.05
-.03 -.15
.17
.15
14.
Table 22: Correlations between follower LMX and antecedents, intracultural
APPENDIX 3: CORRELATION TABLES
17.
.03
.07
.22
.10
18.
.03
.00
.31
.17
.04
.03 -.33
.12
.03
.01
.08 -.02 -.22
-.21
-.11 -.06 -.59
1.0
1.0 -.34
.14
.07 -.12
.14 -.34
-.05
.16
.09 -.26
.18
.08 -.24
1.0 -.05
-.12
-.11
-.14
-.22
-.10 -.02 -.10
.17 -.10
.06
.03 -.04
-.17 -.08
-.09
-.34 -.03
-.16 -.14
-.34
-.09 -.04 -.03
-.18
-.29 -.01
-.25 -.01
16.
320
20.
.07
.10
.19
.39
.02
.00
.03
.31
1.0
.43
-.09 -.12
.07
.43
1.0
-.59 -.33
-.06
-.11 -.21
.02
-.05
-.23
.28 -.16
.12 -.10
-.12
-.07 -.10
-.26
-.11 -.20
-.28 -.20
-.24 -.16
.08
-.05 -.12
-.28 -.27
-.07 -.12
19.
.24
.00
22.
.09
.18
.07
.02
.02
.06
.04
.31
1.0
1.0 -.25
.31 -.18
.31 -.12 -.26
.07
.01 -.03
.03 -.10
.12
.20 -.30
.07
.09 -.14
.00
.07 -.09
-.22
-.02
.08
.11
.23
-.03
-.15
.25
.02
.00
.13
.09
.11
.32 -.14
-.05 -.17
.09
.16
.19
.16
23.
.16 -.04
-.08 -.03
.09
-.08
.07
-.13
.00
-.18 -.10
-.06
-.11
21.
26.
.01 -.12
.14
.16
.19
.21
.39
.16
.17
.00
.06
.15
.07
.00
.13
.04
.05 -.07
.13 -.10
.09
.12 -.06
.35 -.10
.09
.07
.03
.10
.11 -.13
.13
.02 -.02
.08 -.04 -.04
.00 -.18 -.09
-.32
.13
.30 -.18 -.20
-.14 -.25 -.10
.63
.24
.09
.13
.06 -.23
.02 -.07
.19
.11 -.08 -.04
.14
.06
.02 -.34
.01
.04
.09
.05
.03
.17 -.02 -.24
.56
.02 -.09
.26 -.10 -.29
.35
.12 -.10 -.10
.12
.12 -.06 -.11 -.03
.19
.15
-.05
28.
.15 -.01 -.13 -.03
-.03 -.01
.31
.38
.12
.14
.17
27.
.24 -.11 -.03 -.01
25.
-.15 -.02 -.34
.26
.11
24.
30.
.04
.25
.17
31.
.30
.22
.01
.07
.07
.06
.09 -.16
.16 -.05
.00
.03 -.05
.12 -.14
.23 -.14
.08
.03
.58
.46
.12
.02 -.03
.01 -.01 -.16
.25
.06
-.02
.16
-.10
.64
-.07 -.29
-.02
-.23 -.05
.05
.11 -.09 -.33
-.02 -.19
.28 -.13 -.03
-.04 -.07
-.06 -.18
.31
.02 -.01
.07
-.04 -.03
.13
-.07
-.04 -.12
.00 -.02
29.
33.
.22
.17
.18
.20
.07
.02
.12 -.05
.02 -.07
-.01 -.09
.01
.05
.11 -.01
.12
-.14 -.07
-.03 -.06
-.24 -.13
-.20 -.18
-.16 -.06
.14
-.02
.00
-.21 -.17
-.07 -.10
-.11 -.23
.01 -.09
.04 -.18
-.07 -.20
-.07 -.23
32.
-.10
.11
.06
-.23
.17
-.05
.12
-.10
-.01
.09
-.21
-.21
.27
-.14
.10
-.11
.05
-.04
.15
-.08
-.17
-.08
34.
.24
-.11 -.01
-.03 -.13
-.01 -.03
25. Interact intensit
26. Months of inter
27. Age difference
28. Gender diff
-.23 -.20
-.08 -.17
32. Diff. interpers. re
33. Dif in individuali
34. Diff in collectivis
.12
.01
.35
.14
.11
.01 -.11
.31
.02 -.03
3.
-.08
4.
5.
.15 -.04
-.18 -.09 -.23
.04
.09
.13 -.04
.05
.04 -.01
.07
-.07
.03
.12 -.10 -.12
-.34 -.10
-.02
.17
.16 -.04
-.15
.02
.16
.38
.13
.01
.30
6.
7.
.05 -.11
-.10 -.17
-.07 -.21
.22
-.18 -.07
-.06 -.04
.04
-.29 -.09
-.10
.26
.12
.09
.02
.25
.17
.06
.19
.06
.11
8.
.17
9.
.10 -.14
.18
10.
.27
.22
.14
.01 -.33
.00 -.02
-.03
-.13 -.19 -.09
.28 -.02
-.34 -.24 -.23
.02 -.02
.56
.14 -.01
.31 -.03 -.05
.00
.12
.11 -.06
.19
.02 -.14
.09
.13
.58
.03
.07
11.
12.
-.21 -.21
13.
.09
-.06 -.18 -.13
-.16 -.20 -.24
.46
.07 -.05
.05 -.23 -.02
.13
-.07 -.04 -.03
.02 -.08 -.11
.14
.15
-.14
.02
.39
.19
.63
.23
.64
14.
15.
-.01 -.10
-.06 -.07
-.03 -.14
.08 -.14
-.29
-.07
-.20 -.02
-.18
.30
.21
.24
.06 -.30
.08
.03
.11
17.
.12 -.05
.20 -.01
.12
18.
.17
.02
.05
.06
.00
.16 -.02
-.14 -.05
.12
-.10
.04
.11 -.04
.10 -.13
.13
-.10 -.09 -.04
-.25 -.18
.00 -.32
.04 -.10 -.03
-.14
16.
Correlations >.29 are significant at at the .01 level, correlations >. 22 are significant at the .05 level
2.
-.07 -.07
31. Personality diff
1.
.17
30. Demograp diff
.25
.00 -.04
-.02 -.12
29. Education diff
.15
.26
.11
24. No. of sup follo
.19
.16
23. Le self enhanc
321
.09
.25
.00
.00
.09
.17
.07
19.
-.23
20.
.06
.07 -.09
.01 -.01
-.05 -.16
.16
.06
.13
.06
-.06
.12
.03
.07 -.26
1.0
.35 -.01
.05
.15
.00
.05
.02
.12
.06
.15
21.
22.
23.
.11 -.10 -.17
-.07 -.05
.01
.02 -.14
.12 -.14
-.16 -.03
-.01
.01
.07 -.07 -.13
-.10
.13
.16 -.10 -.02
.09
-.18 -.25
.40
1.0
.10
.25
.05
.01
24.
25.
26.
-.20 -.05 -.18
-.24
.56
.07
.03
.66
.05
27.
.04
.16
28.
.11
.00
.11 -.09
.02 -.04 -.06
.03 -.07
1.0
1.0 -.15
.07 -.17 -.15
.17
.07
1.0 -.05 -.17
.40 -.14
-.23 -.02 -.07
.04
-.02
.36
-.06
.00 -.13
.35 -.16 -.06
.05
-.16 -.14 -.05
.35
.10
1.0
-.01 -.02
.03
.02
.04
.01
29.
-.07
.05
.12
.03
30.
31.
.08 -.05
.12 -.14
.04 -.24
1.0
1.0 -.10
.44 -.20
.66
.56 -.06
-.20 -.10
.44
1.0
.05
.07
.25 -.07 -.04
.17
.36 -.02
-.14 -.14
.15
.06
.12
.05
.00
.16
.01
.05
32.
.13
.13
1.0
33.
.29
1.0
.13
-.24 -.14
.04
.12
-.09
.11
-.07
-.02
-.23 -.24
34.
1.0
.29
.13
-.05
.08
-.07
.11
.04
-.18
-.05
-.20
-.17
.21
-.13 -.01
24. No. of sup follo
25. Interact intensit
-.11 -.14
27. Age difference
28. Gender diff
.08
.15
-.21 -.31
26. Months of inter
.18
.03
.08 -.04
-.03
.12
23. Le self enhanc
.06
21. |Le agre
.00
.02
.16
.14
22. Le harmony
.24
-.33 -.31
18. Le neuroti
-.02
.26
20. Le conscien
.08
17. Le cult know
19. Le extrover
.10 -.01
16. Le education
.12
.16
.44
15. Le age
.03
.24
-.13
.27
.21 -.01
Fo cult know
9.
.07
.57
.54
14. LLMX leader
Fo tenuren com
8.
.63
.64
13. Fo harmony
Interactio justic
7.
.59
.24
Fo perc similar
6.
.65
.26
.35
.30
LMX respect
5.
.54
.64
1.0
.67
12. Fo conscienti
LMX contribu
4.
2.
11. Fo extroversion
LMX loyalty
3.
.67
1.0
-.17 -.13
LMX affect
2.
1.
10. Fo neuroticism
LMX follower
1.
Intercultural dyds
.03
.32
.47
.31
.17
1.0
.35
.64
-.05
-.21
.07
-.16
.13
-.04
.23
.23
.02
.22
-.21
.26
.10
.12
.25
.20
.06
.02
-.21
-.18
3.
5.
.02
.58
.44
1.0
.29
.31
.59
.65
6.
.09
.56
1.0
.44
.52
.47
.54
.64
.17 -.09 -.01
.12
.50
.52
.29
1.0
.17
.26
.54
.18
.40
.37
.17
.06
.06
.12
.05
.08
.07
.07
.15
.09
.17
.13 -.03
.03
.05 -.16 -.12
.32
-.08
.27 -.01
-.06
.09
.05 -.01
.14
-.09 -.05
-.20
.26
-.35 -.19 -.39
.33
.29
.18
.09
.22
.07 -.02
.08
.09
.30
.37
.12 -.07
.24
.25
.16
.40
.29
-.12 -.18 -.14
4.
.11
1.0
.56
.58
.50
.32
.57
.63
8.
.28
1.0
.11
.09
.02
.12
.03
.27
.07
.09
.16
.22
.23
.29
.12
.04
.08
.18
.36
.44
.08 -.23
-.19 -.32
.37
.07 -.04
.18
.01 -.38
.08
.06
-.05 -.12
.06
-.35 -.19
.35
.21
.19
.24
.05 -.14
.21
.37
-.05 -.11
-.02
7.
10.
1.0
.05
.08
.03
.05
.25
.19
.01
.00
.31
.00
.28 -.05
-.02
.26 -.17
-.07
-.29 -.17
.06 -.09
-.43 -.01
-.18 -.07
-.15 -.27
.03
.03 -.04
-.16 -.19
-.24 -.23
.11 -.48
-.04 -.47
.05
1.0
.28 -.11
-.02 -.05
-.01 -.14
-.09 -.18
.17 -.12
-.18 -.21
.03 -.13
-.13 -.17
9.
.11
.09
.21
.09
.30
.40
.06
.16
.24
12.
1.0
.30
.15
.04
.30
.07
.00
.03
.22
.02
-.17
.04
-.07
.13
.17
.08
.01
.06
.26
-.01 -.13
.03
.26
-.07
.17
-.19 -.09
.14
.12 -.02
-.11
.16
.05 -.03
.30
1.0
-.47 -.48
-.04
.16
.37
.22
.37
.29
.02
.44
.30
11.
-.18
-.16
.02
.02
-.12
.00
.12
.09
-.01
-.05
.00
.12
-.08
.08
.10
1.0
-.03
.05
-.23
-.24
-.14
.05
.18
.09
.16
.20
-.01
.21
13.
.10
15.
.07
.24
.12
.03
.29
.19
.08
.15
1.0
.55
.04
.22
.24
.54
.14
.29
-.25 -.05
-.25 -.16
.32
-.06
.12
-.05 -.28
-.05
.19 -.04
.11
.18
-.26 -.21
.30
.19 -.27
-.06
1.0 -.06
.10
.04
.16 -.11
-.19 -.04
-.16
.12
.24
.29 -.02
.08
.25
.25
.12 -.01
.24
14.
Table 23: Correlations between follower LMX and antecedents, intercultural
.22
.35
.40
.18
.33
.26
.16
.26
17.
1.0
.15
.55
.30
.12
.30
.14
.31
.34
.14
.41
.45
.09
.27
.15 -.10
-.02 -.28
.02
-.27
.06
-.15 -.14
.10
.25
-.26
.04
-.13 -.32
.15
1.0
-.27
.19
-.08
-.02
.12
.08 -.27
.03 -.15
.23
.21
.37
-.07
.12
.10
.14
.08
16.
322
.04
.06
.09
.14
.26
.22
.02
.24
19.
.22
.17
.41
.04
.22
.18
1.0
.31
.10
.37
.28
-.05 -.09
.05 -.06
-.34
-.16 -.43
-.28
.12 -.44
-.20
-.11
-.26 -.13
-.13
1.0 -.13
-.32
-.13
-.21
-.26
.00 -.05
-.09
-.19
-.07 -.01
-.18 -.43
-.19
-.35
-.39
-.19
-.35
-.21
-.31
-.33
18.
-.18
-.08
.01
.20
.01
.08
.12
.13
1.0
-.13
-.26
.14
-.26
.04
.11
-.01
.03
-.07
-.09
.06
-.12
-.05
-.01
.05
-.20
.02
.00
-.02
20.
.08
22.
.08
.08
.09
.06
.17
.23
.12
.07
.03
.03
.31
.10
.24
1.0
.28
.12
.31
.05
.17
-.24 -.09
-.27 -.01
-.14
-.12 -.37
-.06
-.28 -.38
.28
1.0
.13
.10
-.11 -.20
.34
.25
-.04
.19 -.05
.09
.00
.26
-.17
-.29 -.07
.18
.06
.17
-.05
-.09
.23
.12 -.04
.06
21.
.27
.13
.18
.21
24.
.36
.18
.07
.26
.13
.05
.27
.06
.29
.12
.01
.37
.05
1.0
.29
.27 -.15
.18 -.08
-.22
.34 -.08
-.67
1.0 -.67
-.38
-.28 -.06
.08
-.44
.12 -.28
-.14
-.15
-.28
-.05
.00 -.12
-.13
-.01
-.17
.26 -.02
-.38
.01
.15
.06 -.01
-.06
-.04
.03
-.03
23.
.45
.02
.54
.32
.02
.01
.04
.00
.01
.44
.37
.08
.12
.32
.07
.08
.15
26.
.01
.28
.17
1.0
.07
.29
.14 -.20
.08 -.19
.07
1.0
-.08
.34 -.22
-.37
-.12 -.14
.20
-.43
-.16 -.34
.09
-.27
.14
-.06
.02
.06
-.07
-.05
.28
-.04
.07
.07
.05
-.08
-.16
-.01
-.13
25.
.32
1.0
-.19
.08
-.08
.18
-.01
-.27
-.08
-.06
.05
-.28
-.02
-.16
-.25
-.16
.08
-.17
.31
.19
-.32
-.19
-.12
-.16
.05
-.21
-.31
-.21
27.
.05
29.
.03
.20
.13
.18
.17
.06
.07
.08
.95
.49
.04
.23
.24
.49
.09
.17
1.0 -.01
.32 -.05
-.20
.14
-.15
.27 -.22
-.09
-.24 -.01
-.18
-.09
-.05 -.20
-.10
.15 -.24
-.05
-.25 -.12
-.18
.17
.02 -.18
.00
.25 -.03
-.23
.08
.03 -.02
-.03
.13
-.05
-.14 -.10
-.11
28.
32.
.12
.10
.11 -.10
31.
.09
.00
.32 -.06
.08
.22
.39 -.18
.03 -.03
.01 -.08
.11 -.10
.06 -.13
.60
.64
.12
.16
.00
.08
.35
.39
.44
.25
.12
.06
.06 -.17
.24
.09 -.32
.14
.11 -.19 -.36
-.26 -.24 -.01
-.09 -.39 -.19
.08
-.13 -.06 -.13
.12
-.10
.50
-.32 -.18 -.05
.25
.52 -.15
.41 -.07
-.12 -.10
.17
-.20
.04
.26 -.15
.20 -.20
.20
-.16 -.05 -.17
.04
-.06
-.08
.21
-.05 -.06 -.10
-.29
-.13
30.
.18
.17
.13
.06
.19
-.16
.06
-.07
.07
-.08
-.18
-.15
-.05
.22
-.07
.09
-.13
.03
.16
.13
.12
.10
-.09
.01
.14
.11
-.04
-.03
33.
.07
.18
.07
.22
-.05
.30
.02
-.26
.15
-.09
-.08
-.04
-.47
.21
-.11
.06
.04
.18
-.02
.15
-.27
.13
-.05
.10
.22
.06
.10
.10
34.
-.03 -.04
.10
32. Diff. interpers. re
33. Dif in individuali
34. Diff in collectivis
.10
.10
.13
3.
.06
.11
-.10
-.06
-.05
.39
.22
.14
-.18
4.
.03 -.02
5.
.09
.08
6.
.10 -.05
.01 -.09
.00
.22
.21 -.08 -.06
.20
.18
7.
.12
8.
.13 -.27
.10
-.06 -.17
.32 -.05
.04 -.16
.17
.16
.04
10.
.15 -.02
.13
-.15
9.
.20
.06
.26 -.20
.20
-.03
.52
.17
.08
11.
.18
12.
.04
.03 -.13
-.07 -.15
.41
-.20
-.18
.07
13.
.06
.09
.25
-.10
-.12
.11
.50
.95
14.
-.11
-.07
15.
.21
.22
-.05 -.10
-.18
-.32
-.12
.03
.12
.49
17.
-.47 -.04
-.05 -.15
-.08 -.03
.01
-.10
-.24
16.
Correlations >.29 are significant at at the .01 level, correlations >. 22 are significant at the .05 level
2.
-.10
31. Personality diff
1.
.11
30. Demograp diff
.12
.05 -.10
-.13 -.29
29. Education diff
323
.06
.08
.23
18.
19.
-.08 -.09
-.18 -.08
-.13 -.13
-.06
-.13
-.20
.04
20.
.15
.07
-.19
-.39
-.09
.11
.24
21.
-.26
-.07
22.
.02
.06
-.01 -.36
-.24 -.19
-.26
-.01
.09
.00
.17
.19
23.
24.
.30 -.05
-.16
.35 -.32
.14
.08
-.22
.06
.12
.49
25.
.22
.06
26.
.07
.13
.39 -.17
.24
.16
.09
27.
.18
.17
.06
.25
.64
-.05
.10
.61
1.0
28.
.07
.18
29.
.16
.25
.12 -.03
.44
.60
-.01
30.
.23
.33
.07
.39
1.0
.61
1.0
.08
.07
31.
32.
.30 -.01
.04 -.08
.08
1.0
.39
.10 -.03
33.
.36
1.0
-.08
.04
.33
.25
34.
1.0
.36
-.01
.30
.23
.16
LLMX respect
Leader perceived
similarity
Inrole performanc
leader
Leader cult knowle
Le tenure in com
5.
6.
9.
.11
.53
.47
.35
.21
.29
1.0
.48
23.
.08
.48
.24
.12
.59
1.0
.29
.57
34.
.52
.27
1.0
.28
.12
.35
.59
56.
.46
1.0
.27
.28
.24
.47
.31
67.
.03
.11
15. LMX follower
.15 -.08 -.01 -.12
.12
-.01 -.17 -.14 -.06
.16
.10
.15
.04 -.03
-.12 -.25 -.30 -.19 -.03 -.12 -.21 -.23
.19
20. Follower neuroticis
21. Foll rextroversion
22. Followe conscienti
23. Follo agreeable
24. Follower harmony
25. Fol. self-enhancem
26. Interaction intensit
.23
.33
.21
.17
.10
.07
.31
.22
.19
.21
.02
.11
.13
.13
.41
1.0
.31
.24
.12 -.04
.05
.15 -.08 -.06
.03 -.03
.15
.17
.31
.34
.19
.33
.41
.11
.11
.21
.29
.11
.34
.02
.14
.06
.33
.14
.09
.20
.15
.18
.34
.27
.05
.02
.09
.13
.08
.15
.04
.14
.15
.25
.51
.10
.33
.13
.13
.51
.27
.20
.13 -.55
.02 -.45
.13 -.47
.13
.02
.24
.39
1.0
.48
1.0
.39
.20
.08
.10
.11
.10
.24
.38
.07
.03
.12
.10
.08
.20
.12 -.03
1.0
.03
.13 -.15
.06
.11
.02
.03
.12
.11
.02
.16
.19
.11
.03
.02
.06 -.01 -.02 -.13
.22
.04 -.29 -.09
.47 -.31
.52 -.18 -.12
.40 -.08 -.03
.09
.01 -.03
.13
.05 -.15 -.18
.14 -.03 -.06
.08 -.05 -.23
.05 -.26
.15
.04 -.06
.05 -.08
.07
.13
.09
.17
.07 -.26 -.26
.00
.02 -.15 -.07 -.30
.22 -.16
.21
.04
.06
.09
.02
.04
.05 -.20 -.12
.10
.04
.03
.19
.10 -.18 -.01 -.17
.03 -.02
.05
.05
.08
.10
.03
.05 -.05
.13 -.03 -.01
.07
.08 -.12
.08
.04 -.05
.03
.02 -.01
.00
.12 -.63 -.38 -.08
.11 -.04
.08
.01
.06
.19 -.16
.17
.05
.15 -.04 -.11
.14
.07
.14
.39 -.15 -.04
.19
.11 -.21
.08
.10 -.09
.02
.07 -.12
.10 -.12
.20 -.03
.01
.00
.13 -.07 -.15
.18 -.27 -.14
.04 -.01 -.05
.07 -.05 -.16
.09 -.09 -.13
.00 -.02 -.01 -.02
.24
.12
.10 -.03 -.23
1.0 -.03 -.04
1.0 -.26
.14 -.33
.48 -.03 -.27
.24 -.12 -.03
.14
.28
.24
.16
.13 -.08
.09
.02
.33
.16 -.11 -.02
.13 -.21 -.01
1.0
.08
.14 -.07
.01
.29
.22 -.24 -.02
.13
.15 -.17
.18 -.14
.14 -.04
.02
.16 -.03 -.27 -.33 -.26
.07 -.11
.22 -.01
.24 -.24
.13
.12
.25
.34
.09
1.0 -.47 -.45 -.55 -.03
1.0 -.26
.06
.02 -.05
.29 -.25 -.34 -.15 -.20
.14 -.04 -.04
.04 -.31
.05
.15
.15
.34 -.04
.08 -.22 -.05
.34 -.01 -.19
.11 -.20 -.21 -.03 -.12 -.03
.12 -.15
.13 -.34
.13 -.04 -.25
.19
.06 -.10 -.19
.03 -.11 -.20 -.18 -.30
.21 -.09 -.09 -.05 -.13
.17 -.08 -.15 -.19
.13
.01
.11 -.11 -.12 -.16 -.23
.17 -.23 -.04 -.12
.11 -.06 -.21
.28
.10
.10
.11
.12 -.13 -.22 -.15 -.29
.23 -.12 -.04 -.09
.19
.01 -.03 -.01
.18 -.19
.07 -.30
.21 -.02 -.12
.02
.17
.31
.15 -.06 -.11 -.03
.06 -.16
.07
.08
.13
.04 -.12
.33 -.03 -.25
.15
.10 -.15 -.24 -.06
.06 -.03
.29 -.26
.07
1.0
1.0 -.12
1.0 -.03 -.24
.01
.10
.02
.01
.08
.22
.21
.10
.26 -.11 -.24 -.20 -.08
.52 -.06 -.05 -.05
.26
.19 -.06 -.08
.35 -.07 -.19
.10 -.04 -.14 -.17
.02
.08 -.03 -.19
.06 -.05 -.05
.01
.06 -.05
.33 -.11 -.01
.15 -.22
.35
1.0
.52 -.07 -.03
.11
.09
.11
.41 -.04 -.04
.09
.11
.31 -.02
.02 -.06 -.14
.13 -.08 -.23 -.03 -.18
.05 -.04 -.18
1.0
.25
.06
.15 -.06 -.19 -.24 -.12
.26
.00
.09 -.05 -.11
.05
.10 -.06
.21 -.12 -.21 -.10 -.09
.03 -.23 -.23
.04
.10
.05
.19
.17
.16
.12 -.01 -.10 -.05 -.04 -.06
.08
.15 -.08 -.26 -.06
.12 -.07 -.17 -.14
.08 -.08
.03
.19
.02 -.17
.02 -.14 -.01
.28 -.07 -.33
.21 -.02
.15 -.03 -.05 -.16 -.31 -.04
.19 -.06
.10 -.18
.28 -.20 -.06
.41
.13 -.18 -.04
.08 -.03 -.08
.08 -.24 -.24
.17 -.08
.05
1.0
1.0 -.11
.41 -.06
.11 -.23 -.06
.01 -.11 -.15
.26
.15
.05 -.04 -.04
.04
.25 -.11 -.08
.17 -.04 -.04
.01 -.02 -.06
.02
.01
.10 -.01
.18
.17
.08
.10
.10 -.04 -.09 -.14
.05 -.06 -.06
.09
.03 -.32
.10 -.05 -.10 -.06 -.02
.02
.06
-.14
.02 -.17 -.26
.20
.20 -.02
.15 -.04 -.06 -.11
.00 -.23 -.05
19. Followe cult know
.08 -.10 -.21
.21
.02 -.33 -.07 -.08
.12
18. Follow educat lev
.08
.22
1.0 -.62 -.34 -.04 -.32
.14 -.18
.17 -.34
.33 -.05 -.23
.03
.41
.19
.11
16. Inrole perfomance, .21 .28
follower
17. Follower age
-.02 -.07
.11
.21
.05 -.01
.03 -.08 -.04 -.05
.31 -.03 -.06
.15
.12 -.01
.29
.24
.14
1.0
.22 -.05 -.18 -.62
.22 -.04
.15
.02
.07 -.20 -.02
.20 -.11
.03
14. No of supervis fol.
.20
.01
13. Leader harmony
.10
.08
.09
.03 -.10 -.05 -.13
12. Leader conscientio
.25
.22
.02
.07
.10 -.20 -.04
.09
.03 -.11
.01
.08
.25
.08
1.0 -.13 -.32 -.05 -.01 -.05 -.01 -.05
1.0 -.02 -.05 -.33
.46 -.11 -.10 -.02
.03 -.09
.14 -.38
.08 -.02 -.31
.07
.14
.07 -.32
-.17
-.13
.08
-.16
-.22
-.23
.36
-.15
-.02
-.15
-.12
-.11
-.21
-.10
.04
-.24
.17
.06
-.11
-.01
.12
.00
.05
-.07
-.03
-.10
910. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
.11 -.29 -.31
.00
89.
.52 -.08
.55
.48
.53
.65
78.
.03 -.08 -.11 -.02
.55
.28
.28
1.0
.59
.21
.68
45.
-.32 -.31 -.31 -.38 -.09 -.02 -.33 -.32
.07 -.29 -.02
.00
.65
.31
.59
.68
.57
.48
1.0
12.
11. Leader extroversio
1.
10. Leader neuroticism
8.
7.
LLMX loyalty
LLMX contributio
4.
LLMX affect
2.
3.
LLMX leader
1.
Chinese dyads
Table 24: Correlations between leader LMX and antecedents, intracultural
324
-.16 -.05 -.14 -.15
-.10 -.03 -.07
34. Dif in individualis
35. Diff in collectivis
.04
3.
.18
4.
.05
.13
5.
.04
.00
6.
.03
7.
8.
.12 -.01 -.11
9.
.06
.19
.10
.13
.14
.10
10.
11.
.17 -.24
.07
.02
.08
.09
.05
.05
.01
.14
.02 -.26 -.23 -.06 -.18
.11
.19
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
.15
.40
.09
.10
.04
.52
.47
.03 -.06
.13
.02 -.11
20.
21.
22.
23.
.12
1.0
.07
.06 -.01
.22 -.02 -.12
.02 -.13
24.
25.
26.
.52
.09 -.16
.44
.09
.68
1.0
1.0 -.16
.01
27.
28.
29.
.05
.14
.13
30.
.13
.00
.01
32.
.09 -.04
.08 -.04
.12 -.23
31.
.12
.01
.13
.08
.00
.14
33.
.10
.07
1.0
34.
.28
1.0
.07
1.0 -.23 -.04
1.0 -.09
.68 -.02
.52 -.03
.06
.07 -.01
.06 -.12
.44 -.15
.06 -.15 -.03 -.02 -.09
.06 -.09
.11 -.14
.01
1.0
.12 -.04 -.14 -.09
.08 -.13 -.17 -.08 -.10
.03 -.09
.36 -.23 -.22 -.16
.16 -.03 -.12
.05
.04 -.26 -.01
.15
.22
.11
.05 -.16 -.04
.21
.12 -.08
.07
.04
.14 -.04
.09 -.08 -.18 -.31 -.29
.01 -.30
.13 -.03
.05 -.08
.11
.11 -.21 -.04
.08
.02 -.04
.08
.03 -.02
.03 -.63 -.20 -.15
.12
.06
.06 -.02 -.38 -.12 -.07
.05
.17 -.16
.19
.38 -.02
.17 -.26 -.05 -.03 -.15
.00
.04
.05
.06 -.23
.04 -.10 -.21 -.11 -.12 -.15 -.02 -.15
.04 -.17
.08 -.01 -.01
.03
.39
.28 -.08 -.03
.13 -.15
.19
.24
.07 -.15 -.04
.07 -.03 -.18
.08 -.02
.02 -.12
.05 -.01
.00
.08 -.05 -.05
.03
.00 -.13
.02
.20
.16
.03 -.03
.01
Correlations >.29 are significant at at the .01 level, correlations >. 22 are significant at the .05 level
2.
-.05 -.01 -.27 -.07
33. Diff. interpers. rel
1.
.07
32. Personality diff
.00
.08 -.07
.10 -.02
.24
.29
.07 -.12 -.09 -.01
.01 -.23 -.13 -.30 -.09 -.12
.09
-.29
31. Demographic diff
.11 -.16 -.05 -.18
-.15
30. Education diff
.10
.12
.06 -.08 -.12
-.22 -.09 -.12 -.09 -.20 -.19 -.19
.03
29. Gender diff
.21
28. Age difference
.11
.12 -.12
-.13 -.04 -.11 -.09 -.11 -.10 -.15
27. Months of interacti
325
35.
1.0
.28
.10
-.04
.09
.13
.05
-.10
-.08
LLMX affect
LLMX loyalty
LLMX contributio
LLMX respect
Leader perceived
similarity
Inrole performanc
leader
Leader cult know
Le tenure in comp
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
9.
.37
.48
.61
.18
.52
1.0
.71
23.
.30 -.01
.40
.53
.65
.42
.69
.71
1.0
12.
.45
.48
.32
.43
.28
1.0
.52
.69
34.
-.05 -.19 -.11 -.06
-.18 -.15 -.20 -.03
-.23
.17 -.09
.03 -.13
.12
.06
.05 -.22 -.07
.09
19. Followe cult know
20. Follower neuroticis
.35
.12
1.0
.46
.21
.32
.48
.53
67.
.27
1.0
.12
.38
.00
.48
.01 -.26
21. Fol extroversi
22. Followe conscienti
23. Foll agreeablen
24. Follower harmony
25. Fol. self-enhancem
26. Interaction intensit
.28
.01
.03
.10
.14
.04
.18
.33
.00
.13
.23 -.28
.09
.09
.10
.02
.07
.28
.01
.00
.06
.06
.03 -.14
.15 -.23
.15 -.11
.28
.11
.19
.30
.08 -.02
.12
.03
.16
.07
.08
1.0
.16
.29
.17 -.24 -.06
.29 -.09
.35
.29
1.0
1.0 -.11
.11
.18
.16
.05
.12
.23
.25
.33
.23 -.05
.31
.00
.19
.08
.18
.28 -.08 -.06
.17
.16
.26
.13
.26
.01
.10
.10
.08 -.06 -.05 -.02
.01 -.09 -.11
.03
.38
.07
.16
1.0
.08
.17 -.09
.20
.17
.31
1.0
.16
.20
.16
.11
1.0
.31
.07
.28
.05
1.0
.11
.17
.38
.07 -.06 -.07
.20
.49
.33
.26
.11
.02
.06
.06
.21
.02
.03 -.43
.13 -.49
.05
.01 -.07
.27 -.03 -.04 -.02
.15
.28
.25
.10
.08
.01 -.06
.19 -.19
.06 -.10 -.10 -.11
.00
.32
.13
.36
1.0
.30
.09 -.08
.01
.09
.05
.24
.07
1.0
1.0 -.14
.06 -.07
.07
.05
.15
.07
1.0
.07
.01 -.05
.01 -.11
.06
.20
.02
.11
.05
.13
.10
.13
.05 -.21 -.22 -.19 -.26
.04
.28 -.15
.10 -.04
.29
.57 -.16 -.01
.50 -.18 -.17
.38 -.18
.14
.26 -.25
.04 -.13 -.26 -.17 -.13
.03
.19
.05 -.23
.23
.05
.46 -.17 -.27
.11
.14 -.29
.17 -.18
.13
.13 -.01 -.04 -.08 -.07
.07 -.09
.07
.11 -.04
.09
.22
.36 -.10
.13
.24 -.17 -.22
.24 -.16
.18 -.36 -.08
.01 -.36 -.14
.18
1.0
.00
.01 -.02 -.04 -.01
.00 -.07
.36 -.07
.43
.04
.06 -.19 -.48
.08 -.12 -.13 -.08
.20 -.06 -.14
.23 -.12 -.07
.02
.06 -.17 -.07
.03 -.12 -.21 -.15 -.43 -.26
.29 -.02 -.28 -.07 -.21
.19
.08
.28
.09
.10
.06
.04 -.05
.20 -.25
.06 -.03 -.05 -.01 -.10 -.13 -.13 -.01 -.23
.27
.11
.26
.03 -.31 -.25 -.04
.06 -.03
.08 -.15
.15
.14
.19 -.01
.19
.18
.20 -.14
.06
.09 -.06
.30 -.14 -.25 -.17
.09
.49
.22
.27
.10 -.06
.09
.03 -.01 -.07 -.23
.00 -.02 -.01 -.09
.02 -.02 -.03
.19
.25 -.08 -.06
.15
.08
.46 -.33 -.18
.13 -.07 -.10
.11 -.12 -.27 -.13 -.28 -.23 -.30
.05 -.07
.30
.31
.30
.03
.01 -.01
.13 -.05
.08 -.04
.38 -.05 -.08 -.12 -.14 -.14 -.09
.01 -.04 -.06 -.03 -.21 -.06
.00
.09
.08 -.26 -.23 -.19
.21 -.27 -.14 -.08
.16 -.16 -.17 -.19 -.30 -.07
.46
.20 -.23
.12 -.11 -.02 -.19 -.16
.26 -.01 -.05
.00 -.07
.43
.30
1.0
.15
.09
.12 -.23
.01 -.10 -.04
.02 -.06
.12 -.07
.09 -.22
.24 -.08 -.27 -.09 -.05
.28
.01
.06
.00
.07
.25
.10
1.0 -.51 -.49 -.43 -.22
.02 -.51
.06 -.25
.11
.33
.28
.14
.10
.01 -.03
1.0 -.07
.00
.28 -.20
.01 -.07
.00
1.0
.05
.20 -.27
.20 -.17 -.17
.03 -.03
.16
.04
.11
.11
.06 -.14 -.05
.13 -.03 -.05
.08 -.03 -.31 -.22
.15
.19
.03
.28
.14
.11 -.28 -.10 -.02
.12 -.38 -.03
.11 -.15
.54 -.02
.16 -.20 -.28
.14 -.08 -.12
.11 -.03
.14 -.15
.19 -.14
.18
.22
.28
.09 -.25 -.01
.09 -.14
.30
.27
.14
.02 -.17 -.27 -.20
.00 -.21 -.06 -.17
.00 -.03
.12 -.05 -.06
-.08 -.02 -.01 -.04 -.06
.24 -.10
.21 -.05
.11 -.03 -.14 -.05
.04 -.28
.29
.09 -.01
.03 -.29 -.03 -.14
.09
.18 -.17
.18
.04
.10
.33
.02 -.06 -.03 -.20
.22
.09 -.09 -.13
.22 -.11 -.20 -.22
.18 -.19 -.15
.03 -.09 -.24 -.04 -.07
.35
.06 -.03 -.03 -.17
.12 -.07
.54 -.15 -.38
.10 -.27
.25 .278
.01
.11
.12 -.04 -.10 -.19
.12 -.06 -.10 -.10
.25
.14
.22
.38
.13
.01
.18 -.04 -.09 -.04 -.07
.19 -.14
.16 -.17
.18
.08
.25 -.05 -.26
.31
.29
.05 -.01
.44
.08 -.25 -.11
.30 -.02 -.28
.12
.20 -.13
.05 -.01 -.08
.22
.20
.04 -.04 -.15
1.0 -.22 -.25 -.28 -.28 -.26 -.14 -.04
.38 -.20 -.22
.09 -.29 -.08 -.20
.09
.33
.05 -.06
.18 -.08
.17
.05
.29 -.01
.44
.03 -.24
.19 -.14 -.11
1.0 -.05 -.20
1.0 -.17 -.25
.27 -.30 -.25
.35 -.31 -.02
.13 -.05 -.31
.29
.45 -.38 -.26
.08 -.08
.12
-.27
.05
.09
-.01
.14
.05
.14
-.07
.18
-.05
.18
.01
-.02
.12
-.10
-.04
.15
-.13
.01
-.19
-.02
-.01
-.04
.12
10. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 3
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
.30 -.33 -.24 .21 .10 -.02 .10 .18 .04 .15 -.05 -.18 -.23 .17 .03 .12 .06 .05 .09 .32 -.10 -.22 -.26 -.32 -.19 -.03 -.09 -.09
89.
.37 -.01 -.24
.40
78.
.09 -.22 -.20 -.01 -.03 -.12 -.28 -.02
.02
.22
.18
.15
18. Follow educat lev
.12
.23
.04 -.15
.16
16. Inrole perfomance,
follower
17. Follower age
.26
.16
.18 -.04
.20
15. LMX follower
.04
.10
.20 -.01
14. No of supervis fol.
.03 -.14
.10
.05
-.02 -.24 -.11 -.13 -.08
.22
13. Leader harmony
.19
12. Leader conscientio
.21 -.08
11. Leader extroversio
.13
.38
.46
1.0
.29
.43
.61
.65
56.
.01 -.05 -.31 -.30 -.17
.29
.00
.21
.29
1.0
.28
.18
.42
45.
.08 -.26 -.26 -.31 -.02 -.25 -.25 -.05
-.24
-.33 -.24 -.38
1.
10. Leader neuroticism
8.
7.
LLMX leader
1.
Intercultural dyads
Table 25: Correlations betwee leader LMX and antecedents, intercultural
326
-.32 -.23 -.08 -.30 -.14 -.13
-.19 -.19
-.03
-.09 -.04 -.05 -.01
-.09
32. Personality diff
33. Diff. interpers. rel
34. Dif in individualis
35. Diff in collectivis
.13
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
.01 -.13
.03 -.30 -.09 -.23
.23
.09
.20
.28
.08
.08
.06
.14
45.
46.
.15 -.04 -.10
.06 -.05 -.07
.05
47.
48.
.12 -.02
.02
.46
49.
.01 -.01
.07 -.21 -.13
.05 -.07 -.13
.07 -.28 -.10
50.
51.
.18 -.05
.23 -.05 -.27
.01
.29 -.05
.06 -.04
.24
.13
52.
53.
.18 -.07
.10
54.
.14
.05
.11
55.
.05
.11
.50
.20
.19
.13
.05 -.01
.43
1.0
57.
.14 -.01
58.
.09
.10
59.
60.
.05 -.27
.14
.09
.06
.55
61.
.12
62.
.08
.15
63.
.08
.16
.28 -.27 -.15
.13
.04 -.04 -.15
.29
.57 -.13 -.26
.06 -.17 -.19 -.07
.43
.53
1.0
.22
.38
1.0
.53
.60
.55
.09
.05
64.
65.
.12 -.05
.11
.08
.02
1.0
66.
.11
68.
69.
.31
1.0
1.0 -.17
.22 -.09
67.
.20
.05
.11
.16
.15
.02 -.02
.38 -.08
.43 -.04
.22
.06 -.15
.14 -.27
.20 -.02 -.17
.08 -.04 -.08
.22
.60
.22
1.0
1.0 -.16 -.11
.43 -.21 -.19
.03 -.26 -.22 -.08 -.19 -.11
.02 -.17 -.01
56.
.04
.15 -.16 -.09
.07 -.04 -.13 -.21 -.04 -.21 -.16
.09
.07
.14 -.18 -.18 -.16
.38
.17 -.23
.26 -.18
.13
.05
.36 -.22
.22 -.10
.13
.00 -.02 -.01 -.07 -.01 -.17
.19
.01 -.17 -.11 -.23 -.25
.11
.04 -.08
.04 -.17 -.26 -.48 -.29
.06 -.43 -.19
.10 -.15
.02 -.06 -.21 -.07 -.14 -.13
.20 -.03
44.
.03
.15 -.08 -.12 -.12 -.06 -.12
.09 -.02
.19
.01 -.09 -.23 -.01 -.07 -.25
.12 -.04 -.01 -.02 -.19
.08
.03
.09 -.07 -.14 -.28 -.02 -.01
.00
.08
.25
.32 -.06
Correlations >.29 are significant at at the .01 level, correlations >. 22 are significant at the .05 level
36.
-.26 -.26 -.14 -.19 -.12 -.27 -.10 -.18
31. Demographic diff
.05 -.19
.46 -.07 -.16
.30
30. Education diff
.13
.31
.08 -.27 -.17 -.08 -.12 -.07 -.33
.11
.30
-.22
.38
29. Gender diff
.16
.21 -.16 -.05
.46
28. Age difference
.20
.32
-.10 -.23
27. Months of interacti
327
70.
1.0
.31
-.09
.22
.11
-.05
.12
.08
.08
22. Def. of job breadth
.05
.09
23. Follower ren qin
.10 -.03
24. LMX X OCB
.66
.51
25. LMX X Renqin
.75
.43
Correlations > .23 significant at the .05 level
-.01
.12
.43
.57
-.01
.10
.37
.49
.02
.10
.48
.55
.34
.01
.38
.15
.04
-.09
.12
.04
.37
-.05
.54
.24
.38
-.02
.59
.31
.13
.07
.21
.16
.17
.04
.36
.25
-.12
.15
-.06
.11
.08
.06
.05
-.00
-.02
.04
-.13
-.10
-.07
-.19
-.11
-.16
-.04
.03
-.15
-.13
-.16
.12
-.25
-.05
.06
-.07
.25
.17
.13
-.03
.25
.17
.10
.23
.07
.17
-.12
-.25
-.18
-.27
1.0
-.10
.77
-.03
-.10
1.0
-.01
.72
.77
-.01
1.0
.46
-.03
.72
.46
1.0
Chinese dyads
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
1. LMX, follower persp.
1.0
.68
.70
.62
.73
.22
.13
.38
.46
.15
.34
.05 -.08 -.15 -.08 -.19 -.17
.30
.25
.03 -.14
.05
.10
.66
.75
2. LMX affect
.68
1.0
.38
.27
.70
.14 -.01
.45
.47
.20
.33
.09
.06
.01 -.19 -.04 -.26
.31
.22 -.09 -.00
.09 -.03
.51
.43
3. LMX loyalty
.70
.38
1.0
.34
.35
.05
.12
.28
.35
.04
.15
.14 -.13 -.28 -.03 -.21 -.10
.13
.01
.09 -.13 -.01
.12
.43
.57
4. LMX contribution
.62
.27
.34
1.0
.35
.23
.21
.11
.27 -.00
.27 -.04 -.04
.08 -.11 -.20
.03
.16
.16
.01 -.14 -.01
.10
.37
.49
5. LMX respect
.73
.70
.35
.35
1.0
.18
.10
.43
.45
.27
.27
.08 -.00 -.06 -.02 -.09 -.20
.28
.27 -.13 -.11
.02
.10
.48
.55
6. OCB, follower persp.
.22
.14
.05
.23
.18
1.0
.15
.24
.39 -.06
.51 -.32
.05
.27 -.02
.13 -.31
.28
.48
.21 -.32
.34
.01
.38
.15
7. LOCB leader persp.
.13 -.01
.12
.21
.10
.15
1.0
.22
.25
.02
.16 -.27
.01
.32 -.02 -.09
.06
.10 -.05
.07 -.21
.04 -.09
.12
.04
8. Organisational justice
.38
.45
.28
.11
.43
.24
.22
1.0
.86
.21
.49 -.12
.07 -.03 -.02 -.17 -.34
.26
.24
.04 -.12
.37 -.05
.54
.24
9. Perceived org. support
.46
.47
.35
.27
.45
.39
.25
.86
1.0
.09
.62 -.14
.06
.04 -.01 -.13 -.38
.30
.38
.05 -.18
.38 -.02
.59
.31
10. Job satisfaction
.15
.20
.04 -.00
.27 -.06
.02
.21
.09
1.0 -.04
.04 -.01 -.18 -.02 -.04
.01
.07 -.03 -.03 -.00
.13
.07
.21
.16
11. Org-based self-esteem
.34
.33
.15
.27
.27
.51
.16
.49
.62 -.04
1.0 -.14
.20
.26 -.19
.05 -.46
.26
.60
.15 -.19
.17
.04
.36
.25
12. Leader neuroticism
.05
.09
.14 -.04
.08 -.32 -.27 -.12 -.14
.04 -.14
1.0 -.15 -.18 -.11 -.13
.12 -.14 -.23 -.04
.12 -.12
.15 -.06
.11
13. Leader agreeableness
-.08
.06 -.13 -.04 -.00
.05
.01
.07
.06 -.01
.20 -.15
1.0 -.00 -.16 -.00 -.13 -.12 -.04 -.12
.02
.08
.06
.05 -.00
14. Follower age
-.15
.01 -.28
.08 -.06
.27
.32 -.03
.04 -.18
.26 -.18 -.00
1.0 -.30
.34
.02 -.01
.05
.12 -.06 -.02
.04 -.13 -.10
15. Follower gender
-.08 -.19 -.03 -.11 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.01 -.02 -.19 -.11 -.16 -.30
1.0
.02
.14
.06
.02 -.22
.07 -.07 -.19 -.11 -.16
16. Follower time in posit
-.19 -.04 -.21 -.20 -.09
.13 -.09 -.17 -.13 -.04
.05 -.13 -.00
.34
.02
1.0
.02 -.05 -.02
.04 -.10 -.04
.03 -.15 -.13
17. Follower neuroticism
-.17 -.26 -.10
.03 -.20 -.31
.06 -.34 -.38
.01 -.46
.12 -.13
.02
.14
.02
1.0 -.50 -.51
.02
.11 -.16
.12 -.25 -.05
18. Follower agreeableness
.30
.31
.13
.16
.28
.28
.10
.26
.30
.07
.26 -.14 -.12 -.01
.06 -.05 -.50
1.0
.37
.10 -.31
.06 -.07
.25
.17
19. Follower conscientious
.25
.22
.01
.16
.27
.48 -.05
.24
.38 -.03
.60 -.23 -.04
.05
.02 -.02 -.51
.37
1.0 -.06 -.13
.13 -.03
.25
.17
20. Follower collectivism
.03 -.09
.09
.01 -.13
.21
.07
.04
.05 -.03
.15 -.04 -.12
.12 -.22
.04
.02
.10 -.06
1.0 -.67
.10
.23
.07
.17
21. Follower individualism
-.14 -.00 -.13 -.14 -.11 -.32 -.21 -.12 -.18 -.00 -.19
.12
.02 -.06
.07 -.10
.11 -.31 -.13 -.67
1.0 -.12 -.25 -.18 -.27
Table 26: Correlations between OCB and antecedents, intracultural
328
329
LMX, follower persp.
LMX affect
LMX loyalty
LMX contribution
LMX respect
OCB, follower persp.
LOCB leader persp.
Organisational justice
Perceived org. support
Job satisfaction
Org-based self-esteem
Leader neuroticism
Leader agreeableness
Follower age
Follower gender
Follower time in posit
Follower neuroticism
Follower agreeableness
Follower conscientious
Follower collectivism
Follower individualism
Def. of job breadth
Follower ren qin
LMX X OCB
LMX X Renqin
1.
1.0
.43
.59
.50
.51
.33
.04
.34
.28
.09
.23
-.25
-.00
-.02
-.04
.04
.00
.07
.04
.04
-.06
.09
-.04
.45
.62
2.
.43
1.0
.09
.11
.42
.32
.11
.39
.35
-.09
.42
-.18
-.11
.09
-.18
-.15
-.09
.23
.21
-.05
-.01
-.18
-.11
.01
.18
Correlations > .30 significant at the .05 level
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Intercultural dyads
3.
.59
.09
1.0
.25
.11
.02
.04
.09
.03
.21
.06
-.28
.24
-.03
-.01
.16
.02
-.05
-.11
-.09
.13
.07
.30
.28
.62
4.
.50
.11
.25
1.0
.32
.31
.02
.27
.31
.18
.20
-.35
-.08
.35
-.03
.05
-.15
.31
.15
.23
-.23
.10
-.00
.25
.33
5.
.51
.42
.11
.32
1.0
.37
.11
.56
.54
.12
.32
-.14
-.17
.11
-.03
-.14
-.11
.33
.28
.13
-.33
.03
-.02
.23
.32
6.
.33
.32
.02
.31
.37
1.0
.13
.41
.55
.15
.64
-.34
-.18
.18
-.08
-.32
-.17
.01
.36
.10
-.10
.23
-.02
.34
.19
7.
.04
.11
.04
.02
.11
.13
1.0
.35
.39
-.21
.03
-.32
-.26
-.13
-.02
-.12
.09
.01
-.27
.26
-.33
-.11
.23
-.09
.21
8.
.34
.39
.09
.27
.56
.41
.35
1.0
.78
.10
.47
-.41
-.06
-.02
.17
-.28
-.07
.21
.32
.13
-.35
.11
.12
.21
.33
9.
.28
.35
.03
.31
.54
.55
.39
.78
1.0
.10
.62
-.39
-.26
.06
.12
-.24
-.11
.26
.35
.09
-.36
.12
.02
.19
.21
.09
-.09
.21
.18
.12
.15
-.21
.10
.10
1.0
.22
.08
.18
.06
.19
-.35
-.16
.17
.26
.11
-.06
.20
.25
.21
.24
10.
.23
.42
.06
.20
.32
.64
.03
.47
.62
.22
1.0
-.28
-.12
.26
-.10
-.26
-.36
.27
.57
-.03
-.07
.04
.17
.11
.28
11.
Table 27: Correlations between OCB and antecedents, intercultural
-.25
-.18
-.28
-.35
-.14
-.34
-.32
-.41
-.39
.08
-.28
1.0
-.03
.03
.03
-.02
-.38
-.04
.04
-.05
-.02
.01
-.18
-.05
-.30
12.
-.00
-.11
.24
-.08
-.17
-.18
-.26
-.06
-.26
.18
-.12
-.03
1.0
-.34
-.12
-.06
-.19
.21
.02
-.32
.41
.01
.08
.05
.03
13.
-.02
.09
-.03
.35
.11
.18
-.13
-.02
.06
.06
.26
.03
-.34
1.0
-.25
.31
-.33
.12
.14
.14
-.24
-.24
-.03
-.24
-.03
14.
330
-.04
-.18
-.01
-.03
-.03
-.08
-.02
.17
.12
.19
-.10
.03
-.12
-.25
1.0
-.11
.52
-.04
-.13
.10
-.03
.14
.25
.12
.18
15.
.04
-.15
.16
.05
-.14
-.32
-.12
-.28
-.24
-.35
-.26
-.02
-.06
.31
-.11
1.0
.02
-.09
-.41
.10
.05
-.36
-.06
-.34
-.02
16.
.00
-.09
-.02
-.15
-.11
-.17
.09
-.07
-.11
-.16
-.36
-.03
-.19
-.33
.52
.22
1.0
-.49
-.62
.13
.10
.14
.01
.13
.03
17.
.07
.23
-.05
.31
.33
.01
.01
.21
.26
.17
.27
-.04
.21
.12
-.04
-.09
-.49
1.0
.30
.05
-.28
-.22
.07
-.16
.08
18.
.04
.21
-.11
.15
.28
.36
-.27
.32
.35
.26
.57
.04
.02
.14
-.13
-.41
-.62
.30
1.0
-.26
.02
.13
-.07
.14
-.04
19.
.04
-.05
-.09
.23
.13
.10
.26
.13
.09
.11
-.03
-.05
-.32
.14
.10
.10
.13
.05
-.26
1.0
-.72
-.02
.44
-.00
.38
20.
-.06
-.01
.13
-.23
-.33
-.10
-.33
-.35
-.36
-.06
-.07
-.02
.41
-.24
-.03
.05
.10
-.28
.02
-.72
1.0
.02
-.26
.00
-.26
21.
.09
-.18
.07
.10
.03
.23
-.11
.11
.12
.20
.04
.01
.01
-.24
.14
-.36
.14
-.22
.13
-.02
.02
1.0
-.00
.92
.07
22.
-.04
-.11
.30
-.00
-.02
-.02
.23
.12
.02
.25
.17
-.18
.08
-.03
.25
-.06
.01
.07
-.07
.44
-.26
-.00
1.0
.00
.76
23.
.45
.01
.28
.25
.23
.34
-.09
.21
.19
.21
.11
-.05
.05
-.24
.12
-.34
.13
-.16
.14
-.00
.00
.92
.00
1.0
.31
24.
.62
.18
.62
.33
.32
.19
.21
.33
.21
.24
.28
-.30
.03
-.03
.18
-.02
.03
.08
-.04
.38
-.26
.07
.76
.31
1.0
25.
331
332
APPENDIX 4: DIFFERENCES IN INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
BETWEEN WESTERN AND CHINESE LEADERS
Previous research indicates that Chinese respondents should score higher on
collectivism and lower on individualism than the Western respondents (see the
discussion in section 2.3). As the measures of values were mean-centred in the present
study to control for personal and cultural response style following the suggestions of
Schwartz (1992), these values are comparable. However, in order to control for
demographic factors and the possible influences caused by position, only leader
responses are compared (as all the followers are Chinese). Furthermore, as there were
significant differences between Western and Chinese leaders in age and gender and as
these factors have been linked to values in previous research these factors were included
as covariates in the analyses of covariance. In addition to examining differences in
individualism and collectivism between Western and Chinese leaders, differences in the
subscales of individualism, namely self-enhancement and openness, will be examined.
A t-test did not reveal significant differences in individualism between Chinese leaders
(mean = -.298) and Western leaders (mean = -.219). However, an analysis of covariance
including leader age and gender as covariates indicated that the cultural background of
the leader had a significant effect (F = 6.459, p = .012) as well as the leader age
covariate. Chinese leaders scored lower on individualism (adjusted mean = -.326) than
Western leaders (adjusted mean = -.151). These means were estimated at leader age =
37.1 and gender 1.13, which are the means of the sample. The remaining values will be
estimated at the same leader age and gender means and will not be re-reported. The
analysis of the interaction term between leader cultural background and covariates
indicated the slopes were relatively equal regarding gender, but the age covariate
produced a significant interaction effect. The differences in individualism are hence
likely to vary at different ages and this difference is mainly related to the mean age, i.e.
37. However, these results provide general support for the assumption that Chinese
leaders score lower on individualism.
In order to explore differences in individualism further, the subscales of individualism
were compared. The t-test revealed significant differences in self-enhancement between
Chinese and Western leaders. The mean for Chinese leaders was -.234 and Western
leaders -.522. However, when the analysis of covariance was conducted with leader age
and gender as covariates, the effect of cultural background became non-significant (F =
.298, p = .586), whereas gender and age were significant covariates. Chinese leaders
obtained an adjusted mean for self-enhancement of -.311 and Western leaders an
adjusted mean of -.362. The analysis of the interaction terms between leader cultural
background and covariates indicated that the slopes were relatively equal.
The t-test also revealed significant differences in openness between Chinese and
Western leaders. The mean for Chinese leaders was -.408 and Western leaders .215. In
the analysis of covariance including leader age and gender as covariates, the effect of
cultural background remained significant (F = 22.168, p = .000), as well as the gender
covariate. Chinese leaders obtained an adjusted mean of openness of -.359 and Western
333
leaders an adjusted mean of .139. The analysis of the interaction terms between leader
cultural background and covariates indicated that the slopes were relatively equal.
Concerning collectivism, the t-test revealed significant differences in collectivism
between Chinese and Western leaders. The mean for Chinese leaders was -.168 and
Western leaders -.06. However, in the analysis of covariance including leader age and
gender as covariates, the effect of cultural background became non-significant (F =
1.182, p = .278) whereas age was positive significant. Chinese leaders obtained an
adjusted mean of collectivism of -.101 and Western leaders an adjusted mean of -.170.
The analysis of the interaction term between leader cultural background and covariates
indicated that the slopes were relatively equal.
In sum, it can be concluded that Chinese leaders score significantly lower on
individualism than Western leaders (especially with regard to the openness subfacet)
whereas large differences in collectivism could not be detected.
334
APPENDIX 5: REGRESSION TABLES; ANTECEDENTS OF LMX
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses pertaining to the antecedents of LMX
will be presented in tables with the following format: the first column lists the
independent variables entered at each step, the second column presents the results (beta
weights) of regressing the first mediator (perceived similarity) on relevant LMX
antecedents, the second column the results of regressing interactional justice on various
antecedents, and the following 6 columns the results obtained at each step after adding
different groups of antecedents. The mediating role of similarity can be examined by
comparing the results obtained at Step 4 and Step 5 (in addition to examining the direct
effect of various antecedents on similarity) and the mediating role of justice by
comparing the results obtained in the last two columns, i.e. the results obtained at steps
5 and 6. As a further aid to determine the relative importance of various antecedents of
LMX, the backward deletion method was used at the last step. The variables that were
retained at the final step of the backward deletion procedure are marked in the last
column. All variables that correlate significantly with the dependent variable are also
marked in the last column. Furthermore, the significant variables that obtain
inconsistent beta signs at different steps or signs that differ from the ones obtained in
the correlation matrix are marked. Very significant beta weights obtained despite very
low correlations (r <.1 , p > .6) are also marked as these could be indicators of potential
multicollinearity problems.
It should be noted that the order of the variables in the tables does not reflect the order
of the hypotheses. This is due to the fact that the hypotheses developed in Chapter 3 are
ordered according to the presentation of the general personal characteristics, during
which hypotheses for both leader and follower LMX involving both leader and follower
personal characteristics were developed. However, in the regression models, leader and
follower personal characteristics were treated as separate groups. As an example, leader
extroversion and follower extroversion are separate factors that belong to different
blocks of antecedents, but extroversion as a construct is the same for both leaders and
followers. The hypotheses were developed based on the common extroversion construct
while specifying its impact on leaders and followers instead of discussing extroversion
separately for leaders and followers. Separate discussions for leaders and followers
would have lead to a largely repEtitive presentation of the extroversion factor and other
personal characteristics. However, as it of interest to determine the extent to which
leader versus follower personal characteristics determine the quality of follower LMX
quality, they were entered into the regression models as separate blocks.
a) Follower LMX in intercultural dyads
On the following pages, six tables are inserted. The first table reports the result obtained
for overall follower LMX quality in intercultural dyads, and the following four tables
the results obtained for the affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect
dimensions. The sixth table summarises the results obtained for overall LMX and its
335
dimensions, including the mediating variables. After the tables presenting the results
obtained for overall LMX and each dimension, the results are summarised in one table.
336
Table 28: Results of regression analyses for follower LMX in intercultural dyads a
Independent variables
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Leader characteristics
Age
Education
No. of supervised followers
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Gender difference
Education difference
Age difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Mediators b
Follower LMX; intercultural dyads
Similar
Justice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.232
-.223
.042
-.021
.003
.252†☻
.083
.782
-.201m
-.143☻
.402*☻m
.306*☻r+
.284†☻
-.096
.201
2.181†
.089
-.121
-136
.267*
.239†
.217
.182
1.98†
.136
-.251†
.091
.108
.233†
.242†
.099
-.318†
.244
.038
.351†
.306*
.100
-.318†
.245
.038
.350†
.306*
-.068
-.171
.209
.049
.361*
.144†
.032
-.100
.009
-.103
.220†☻
.192†
-.349m
.330†☻
.315
.171☻r++
-.401*☻
.106
-.173
.005
.124
.675*
.396
3.18**
-.092
-.084
.125
.053 r++
.097 r--.418*m
.006
.047
.075
.098
.229
1.68
.106
.087
.381
-.193
-.263†
.143
-.064
.100
.103
.572*
.152
0.96
.580
.084
.266
-.224
-.497**
.578
.084
.267
-.225
-.495**
.162
-.219
.123
-.044
.772*
.824
-.127
.051
-.320
-.255†
.101
-.116
.133
-.155
.331
.870☻m
-.085
-.011
-.347†☻m r+
-.303* r.309*☻ r+
-.119
.110
-.192
.282
.211
-.279†m
-.075
-.050
.319
-.081
.050
-.001
-.258
.048
.375
-.163 m
.445*r++
-.268*
.067
.115
.132
-.057
.212r+
.037
.129
1.07
-.078
-.133
-.171
-.120
-.388
-.021
.013
-.026
-.370*
-.233
.084
-.122
-0.97
-.642
.041
-.019
-.049
-.211
-.141
-.137
.011
-.130
-.699†☻m
-.025
.010
-.154
-.230† m
.007
.000
0.00
-.074
-.100
.052
.007
.553
.524**☻
.128
12.9***
.527
.168
1.45
.694
.427
2.603**
.163
-.220
.124
-.047
.772*
-.078
-.130
-.171
-.120
-.392*
-.020
.013
-.029
-.371*
.143
1.01
. 655***
.199
19.1***
.394**☻ r++
.497**☻ r++
.076
9.16**
.752
.521
3.26***
337
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
338
Table 29: Results of regression analyses for follower affect in intercultural dyads
a
Independent variables
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Leader characteristics
Cultural knowledge
No. of supervised followers
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Mediators b
Follower affect; intercultural dyads
Similar
Justice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.232
-.223
.042
-.021
.252†☻
.083
.782
-.201m
-.143☻
.402*☻m
.306*☻r+
-.096
.201
2.181†
.221*
-.022
.115
.459***
.022
.247
3.48**
.319*
-.224
.154
.392**
.021
.360*
-.202
.193
.262†
-.028
.343†
-.198
.183
.263†
-.025
.197
-.067
.072
.267†
-.148
.263†☻ r+
.008
-.021
.163 r++
-.103
.171☻r++
.315
-.401*☻
.106
.005
.253†
.675*
.396
3.18**
.053 r++
.125
.097 r--.418*m
.047
.075
.098
.229
1.68
-.012
.286
-.181
-.104
.046
.035
.432†
.107
1.08
.191
.214
-.244†
-.176
-.071
.048
.313
.204
.212
-.264†
-.167
-.058
.023
.319
.063
.072
-.085
-.165
-.067
-.070
-.053
-.040
.070
-.086 r.005
-.048
-.081
-.026
.211
-.279†m
-.087
-.081
.050
-.001
-.258
.048
.375
-.163 m
.445*r++
-.252†
.197†
-.057
.212 r+
.037
.129
1.07
-.172
-.160
-.318*
-0.38
.141
.166
.115
.099
1.005
-.181
-.131
-.343*
-.032
.135
.156
.107
-.187
.028
-.293*
-.039
-234†
.023
.199
-.130
-.123
-.241†☻ r-.097
.243*☻
-.128
.211
-.084
.004
.297
-.163
-.174☻ m
.052
.007
.553
.524**☻
.128
12.9***
.527
.168
1.45
.508***
.137
12.5***
.435**☻ r++
.069
7.35**
.663
.456
3.21***
.694
.427
2.603**
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.301*☻ r++
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
339
Table 30: Results of regression analyses for follower loyalty in intercultural
dyads a
Independent variables
Mediators b
Similar
Follower loyalty; intercultural dyads
Justice
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
.232
-.201m
Cultural knowledge
-.223
-.143☻
Neuroticism
.042
.402*☻m
Extroversion
-.021
.306*☻r+
†☻
Harmony
.252
-.096
R2
.083
.201
F
.782
2.181†
Step 2: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
.315
.125
Cultural knowledge
.171☻r++ .053 r++
Neuroticism
-.401*☻
.097 r-Extroversion
.106
-.418*m
Agreeableness
.005
.047
Conscientiousness
-.173
.006
Harmony
.253†
.075
Self-enhancement values
.675*
.098
∆R2
.396
.229
∆F
3.18**
1.68
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
.211
-.163 m
†m
Months of interaction
-.279
.445*r++
Demographic difference
-.087
-.252†
Difference in individualism
-.081
.197†
Difference in collectivism
.050
-.057
Personality (FFM4) difference
-.001
.212 r+
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
-.258
.037
∆R2
.048
.129
∆F
.375
1.07
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
.052
∆R2
.007
∆F
.553
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
.524**☻
2
∆R
.128
∆F
12.9***
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
.527
.694
Final adjusted R2
.168
.427
Final F
1.45
2.603**
a
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
b
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.092
-.167
-.206†
-.104
.126
.098
1.14
.090
-.158
-.280*
-.393**
.167
.160
-.279†
-.253†
-.548**
.198
.185
-.284†
-.237†
-.548**
.195
.094
-.192
-.303*
-.545**
.107
.132
-.142
-.368*☻
-.612***☻m
.135
.616**
-.290†
-.223†
.253†
.440**
-.158
.324*
.751**
.263
2.31*
.450*
-.157*
-.363*
.253
.427*
-.214
.192
.775**
.452*
-.173
-.331*
.241
.409*
-.200
.227
.767**
.347†
-.279
-.171
.238
.395*
-.126
.64
.485†
.347†
-.345†☻m r+
-.182
.350*☻
.409*☻
-.151
.156
.507*m
-.048
-.104
-.138
.166
.089
.149
-.296†m
.079
.769
-.040
-.142
-.106
.159
.094
.172
-.289†m
-.071
-.021
-.071
.154
.156
.118
-.182
-.025
-.121
-.037
.116
.166
.006
-.185
.111
.007
.769
.059
.380
.050
.380*
.074
5.57*
.241†☻ r++
.282†☻ r+
.029
2.37
.550
.254
1.86*
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
340
Table 31: Results of regression analyses for follower contribution in intercultural
dyads a
Independent variables
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Mediators b
Follower contribution; intercultural dyads
Similar
Justice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.232
-.223
-.021
.003
.252†☻
.083
.782
-.201m
-.143☻
.306*☻mr
.034
.183†
.182†
329**
.206†
.251
3.58**
-.067
.218†
.100*
.238*
.207*
-.117
.174
.023
.334*
.253*
-.082
.169
.016
.298*
.247*
-.181
.270*
.045
.351**
.154†
-.169
.276*
.037 r+
.347**☻ r++
.162†
.315
.171☻r++
-.401*☻
.106
.005
-.173
.253†
.675*
.396
3.18**
.125
.053 r++
.097 r--.418*m
.047
.006
.075
.098
.229
1.68
.217
.126
-.243*
.150
-.069
-.308**
.132
.203
.236
2.60*
.132
.104
-.357*
.118
.060
-.450**
-.068
.272
.134
.088
-.318*
.106
.032
-.425**
-.021
.249
.006
-.033
-.112
.095
.018
-.335*
-.099
-.060
.007
-.039 r+
-.112☻ r.114 r+
.019
-.335*☻
-.099
-.053
.211
-.279†m
-.087
-.081
.050
-.001
-.258
.048
.375
-.163 m
.445*r++
-.252†
.197†
-.057
.212 r+
.037
.129
1.07
-.087
.144
.026
.075
.133
-.097
-.303*
.104
1.38
-.078
.086
.070
.061
.140
-.048
-.283†
-.116
.237†
.103
.060
.210†
-.126
-.169
-.108
.216☻ r+
.108
.053
.210†☻
-.139 m r++
-.172☻
.145
.012
1.15
.082
.083
.284†☻
-.096
.201
2.181†
++
.052
.007
.553
.524**☻
.128
12.9***
.527
.168
1.45
.460***
.110
13.9***
.049 r++
.001
.113
.715
.539
3.82***
.694
.427
2.603**
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.434**☻ r+
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
341
Table 32: Results of regression analyses for follower professional respect in
intercultural dyads
Independent variables
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Leader characteristics
Age
Education
No. of supervised followers
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Age difference
Education difference
Gender difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. In interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Mediators b
Follower professional respect; intercultural dyads
Similar
Justice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.232
-.223
.042
-.021
.252†☻
.083
.782
-.201m
-.143☻
.402*☻m
.306*☻r+
-.096
.201
2.181†
-.011
-.059
.005
.364**
.062
.143
1.77
.049
-.089
.056
.357**
.044
.044
-.278
.241
.187
.051
.038
-.278
.234
.186
.052
-.118
-.140
.195
.197
-.103
-.033
-.055
.027
.047 r+
-0.47
-.349m
.330†☻
.315
.171☻r++
-.401*☻
.106
-.173
.124
.675*
.396
3.18**
-.092
-.084
.125
.053 r++
.097 r--.418*m
.006
.075
.098
.229
1.68
.013
-.128
-.088
.096
-.134
.065
.009
.008
.100
.060
.369
.951
-.205
-.229
.112
-.227
.085
.136
.083
.344
.954
-.203
-.238
.127
-.240
.087
.132
.068
.338
1.18*
-.405*
-.450*
.046
-.012
.027
.233
-.038
-.093
1.22*m
-.343*☻
-.503*m
-.040
-.060
.261
.186
-.082
-.088
.211
-.279†m
.319
-.050
-.075
-.081
.050
-.001
-.258
.048
.375
-.163 m
.445*r++
.115
.067
-.268*
.132
-.057
.212 r+
.037
.129
1.07
-.059
.077
-.982†
-.171
-.105
.237
-.346
.516*
-.135
.105
.587
-.062
-.064
-1.00†
-.177
-.104
.241
.345†
.507*
-.141
-.200
.137
-1.23*
-.155
-.055
.299† m
-.375†
.491*
.010
-.096
-.072
1.27*m
-.195
.067
.238
-.335†m
.262
-.004
-.040
.001
.045
-.116
-.160
.052
.007
.553
.524**☻
.128
12.9***
.527
.168
1.45
.625***
.182
11.7**
.527**☻ r++
.109
8.69**
.599
.274
1.84*
.694
.427
2.603**
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.327*☻ r++
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
342
The table below summarises the results presented in the five tables above by indicating
which determinants demonstrated a significant effect on LMX and its dimensions as
well as perceived similarity and interactional justice in the regression analyses. ‘Sim’
stands for similarity, Jus = interactional justice, Aff = affect, Loy = loyalty, Con =
contribution, Res = professional respect). The ‘+’ symbol indicates a positive beta
weight with p < .10, ‘++’ = p < .05, ‘+++’ = p<. 01, ‘++++’ = p < .001. In a similar vein
the ‘□’ symbol signifies a negative effect. The remaining symbols are explained in the
last rows of the table.
Table 33: Summary of results obtained for follower LMX in intercultural dyads
DETERMINANTS
Follower characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
FOLLOWER PERCEPTIONS IN INTERCULTURAL DYADS
Dyad type
Sim
Jus
Lmx
Aff
Loy
Con
Res
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
ms□
++
□□•
na
mjr+
(□•m)
r+
Intercult
(□m)
Intercult
▪+
Intercult
(+▪m)
Intercult
++▪r
Intercult
+▪
+•
na
na
+++•r
na
na
na
na
na
Intercult
na
Intercult
+▪
Intercult
na
Intercult
Leader characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
No. of supervised follow.
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
Sim
Intercult
Months of interaction
ms□
+
r+
na
+
na
na
na
na
na
na
†
†
Jus
Lmx
**
Aff
Loy
**
Con
Res
e+▪
e□□•
(+m)
Intercult
Intercult
▪r+
r+
(□m)
Intercult
□□▪r
r-
□□r
(▪□m)
++•r
Intercult
msr□
(□•m)
r+
ms□
•rms□
++•
r+
□□•
Intercult
Intercult
++•
Intercult
Intercult
+++
ms+
(+m)
Intercult
Intercult
Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
+•r
(□m)
+
**
Sim
Jus
(□m)
++▪r
Lmx
Aff
*
Loy
*
Con
Intercult
Intercult
•rmj+
Res
343
Demographic differences
Personality differences
Differences in interpers
rel.
Differences in
individualism
Differences in
collectivism
∆F at Step 3
Perceptions & behaviour
Other’s perceptions of
LMX
Similarity
Intercult
g□□
Intercult
r+
(a□m)
□•r
(a□m)
r+
(□m)
Intercult
mj+
•ms□
Intercult
Intercult
+•
(□m)
Loy
Con
Res
++•
†
Intercult
Sim
Jus
Lmx
Aff
(□•m)
Intercult
Intercult
+++
++++•
++•r
+•r
+++
++•r
∆F at Step 5
Intercult
***
***
***
*
***
**
Follower interactional
justice
Intercult
++++•
+++•r
+•r
r+
+++•r
Leader inrole performance
Follower inrole
performance
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
∆F at Step 6
Intercult
**
**
+ = positive effect (magnitude of beta weight or sign of correlation)
□ = negative effect
r = significant correlation (p < .05)
▪ = variable selected using backward deletion
ms = fully mediated by similarity,
mj = fully mediated by interactional justice
mp = fully mediated by performance,
na = non-applicable,
**
(*m) = multicollinearity likely
Entries beginning with ‘r’ indicate that there is a relationship only a correlational level;
these variables are not considered to be significant determinants although they are
included in the table.
In the row for demographic factors, ‘a’ stands for age, ‘e’ for education and ‘g’ for
gender
b) Follower LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads
On the following pages, following the procedure adopted in the previous section for
intercultural dyads, six tables are inserted. The first table reports the result obtained for
overall follower LMX quality in Chinese dyads, and the following four tables the results
obtained for the affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect dimensions. The
sixth table summarises the results obtained for overall LMX and its dimensions,
including the mediating variables. After the tables presenting the results obtained for
overall LMX and each dimension, the results are summarised in one table.
.
344
Table 34: Results of regression analyses
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
for follower LMX in Chinese dyads a
Follower LMX; Chinese dyads
Justice
Step1: Follower characteristics
Cultural knowledge
-136
-.025
Time in company
-.033
-.163†
Neuroticism
-.159
-.115r-Extroversion
-.161
.039
Conscientiousness
.103
.145☻r++
☻
Harmony
.112
-.030
R2
.099
.220
F
1.467
3.75**
Step 2: Leader characteristics
Age
.290†☻
-.015
Education
-.057
-.216*r-No. of supervised followers
-.002
.208r++
Cultural knowledge
-.038
-.021
☻
r++
Neuroticism
.134
-.115
Extroversion
-.201☻r-- -.180
Conscientiousness
-.107☻
.055
Agreeableness
.133
-.183*☻
Harmony
.134
.177†☻
Self-enhancement values
.266*☻
.172†☻
2
∆R
.237
.253
∆F
2.49*
3.35***
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
.359**
.002
Months of interaction
-.341**
.044
Gender difference
-.226*☻r- .152* m
Education difference
-.052
.028
Age difference
-0.47
-.012
Difference in individualism
.004
.041
Difference in collectivism
.078
.049
☻
r+
Personality (FFM4) difference
-.156
-.050r++
Diff. In interpers. relatedness
-.011
-.128†☻
2
∆R
.152
.044
∆F
2.02†
.616
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
.132†
2
∆R
.006
∆F
.741
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
.519***
2
∆R
.137
∆F
23.7***
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
.488
.659
Final adjusted R2
.278
.503
Final F
2.36**
4.23***
a
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
b
(β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Entries
Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.233*
-.168†
.095
.015
.281**
.291**
.186
3.04**
.156†
-.239*
.023
.007
.292*
.242*
.238*
-.123
-.046
-.114
.233†
.238*
.258*
-.069
-.045
-.156
.245†
.199†
.200*
-.047
.026
-.090
.200†
.143
.207*☻
-.001
.059
-.101
.159☻r+
.151† r+
.219
-.174†
-.060
-.049
.054
-.158
.005
.018
.062
.279*
.109
1.09
.234
-.047
-.186
-.061
-.144
-.178
-.069
-.103
.214†
.334**
.258†
-.047
-.216
-.047
-.053
-.115
-.067
-.131
.238†
.330**
.131
-.021
-.219
-.028
-.101
-.017
-.019
-.194† m
-181† m
.210*
135
.039r--.277†m
-.022
-.069
.034
-.034
-.142
.132
.162†☻
.427***
-.298*
.019
-.059
.107
-.246*
.106
.021
-.050
.144
1.73†
.397***
-.367**
.044
-.001
.116
-.259*
.088
.015
-.073
.233*
-.224†
.148† m
.030
.138
-.262**
.050
-.055
-.071
.
.202†
.024
2.72†
.230*
.193*
.447***
.102
13.8***
.300* r++
.232*☻r+
-.236*☻
.106
.022
.141
-.274**☻r.036
-.041
-.035
.282*☻r++
.027
3.84*
.592
.395
3.00***
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
345
Table 35: Results of regression analyses
for follower affect in Chinese dyads
a
Independent variables
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Leader characteristics
Cultural knowledge
No. of supervised followers
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Mediators b
Follower affect; Chinese dyads
Similar
Justice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.033
-136
-.159
-.161
.112☻
.099
1.467
-.163†
-.025
-.115r-.039
-.030
.220
3.75**
-.038
.159†
-.095
.132
.268**
.133
2.48*
-.173†
.147†
-.168†
.077
.158†
-.120
.199*
-.149
-.108
.132
-.091
.212**
-.150
-.135
.107
-.051
.150†
-.077
-.086
.066
.016
.131†
-.002 r--.008r+
.061r+
-.038
-.002
.134☻r++
-.201☻r-.133
.134
.266*☻
.237
2.49*
-.021
.208r++
-.115
-.180
-.183*☻
.177†☻
.172†☻
.253
3.35***
.054
.298**
.190
-.207†
-.080
.148†
.322***
.257
4.46***
.073
.227*
.077
-.259*
-.061
.310**
.330***
.081
.219*
.136
-.218†
-.076
.321**
.323***
.079
.114
.067
-.134
-.131
.297**
.245**
.082
.030r+
.176†☻
-.073☻ r-.005
.195*☻ r+
.158*☻
.359**
-.341**
-.194*
.004
.078
-.156☻r+
-.011
.152
2.02†
.002
.044
.110
.041
.049
-.050r++
-.128†☻
.044
.616
.341**
-.204†
-.034
-.077
-.037
.176†
-.026
.101
1.89†
.324**
-.245*
.004
-.085
-.048
.173†
-.042
.165†
-.139
.070
-.093
-.078
.105
-.039
.120
-.149†
.028
-.077
-.110
.080 r+
.033
.128
.010
1.31
.162†
.092
.132†
.006
.741
.519***
.137
23.7***
.488
.278
2.36**
.385***
.082
12.7***
.514***☻r++
.105
21.36***
.687
.579
6.38***
.659
.503
4.23***
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.118☻r++
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
346
Table 36: Results of regression analyses
dyads a
Independent variables
Mediators b
Similar
for follower loyalty in Chinese
Follower loyalty; Chinese dyads
Justice
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
-.033
-.163†
Cultural knowledge
-136
-.025
Neuroticism
-.159
-.115r-Extroversion
-.161
.039
Harmony
.112☻
-.030
2
R
.099
.220
F
1.467
3.75**
Step 2: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
-.002
.208r++
Cultural knowledge
-.038
-.021
☻
r++
Neuroticism
.134
-.115
Extroversion
-.201☻r-- -.180
Agreeableness
.133
-.183*☻
☻
Conscientiousness
-.107
.055
Harmony
.134☻r++ -.115
Self-enhancement values
-.201☻r-- -.180
2
∆R
.237
.253
∆F
2.49*
3.35***
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
.359**
.002
Months of interaction
-.341**
.044
Demographic difference
-.194*
.110
Difference in individualism
.004
.041
Difference in collectivism
.078
.049
Personality (FFM4) difference
-.156☻r+
-.050r++
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
-.011
-.128†☻
∆R2
.152
.044
∆F
2.02†
.616
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
.132†
2
∆R
.006
∆F
.741
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
.519***
∆R2
.137
∆F
23.7***
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
.488
.659
Final adjusted R2
.278
.503
Final F
2.36**
4.23***
a
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
b
(β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Entries
Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.304**
.238*
.025
-.103
.188*
.133
2.47*
-.277*
.199†
-.049
-.080
.190†
-.045
.297**
.040
-.222†
.142
-.016
.310**
.037
-.250*
.115
.010
.269*
.083
-.218†
.087
.021 r.266*☻
.098
-.218†☻m
.087
-.113
-.003
-.130
-.153
-.144
.044
.044
.176†
.052
.587
-.176
.018
-.194
-.128
-.156
-.046
.168
.180†
-.185
.027
-.133
-.087
-.174
-.043
.180
.174†
-.254*
.025
-.178
-.035
-.211†
-.038
.166
.125
-.268*
.026
-.160
-.022
-.188†
-.043
.148
.108 r+
.277*
-.405**
.159†
-.253*
-.071
.081
-.029
-145
2.03†
.259*
-.448**
.198*
-.261*
-.082
.078
-.047
.154
-.378**
.242*
-.265*
-.102
.033
-.045
.147
-.380**☻
.134
.011
1.08
.157
.254*
.035
3.63†
-.235* ☻
-.263* ☻
-.107
.029
-.033
r--
.145 ☻m
.209†☻ r++
.085 r+
.003
.290
.379
.152
1.67†
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed
tests
347
Table 37: Results of regression analyses
dyads a
Independent variables
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Mediators b
for follower contribution in Chinese
Follower contribution; Chinese dyads
Similar
Justice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.033
-136
-.161
.103
.112☻
.099
1.467
-.163†
-.025
.039
.145☻r++
-.030
.220
3.75**
.082
-.099
-.121
.095
.171†
.068
1.18
.068
-.082
.059
.119
.184†
.206†
-.024
.101
.163
.151
.220†
-.017
.088
.168
.139
.264*
-.092
.119
.131
.087
.253†m
-.088
.122
.146
.089
-.002
-.038
.208r++
-.021
.032
-.124
.055
-.082
.050
-.079
-.055
-.088
-.044
-.088
-.115
.009
-.005
.025
-.058
-.071
.133
-.107☻
.134
.266*☻
.237
2.49*
-.180
-.183*☻
.055
.177†☻
.172†☻
.253
3.35***
.052
-.072
.125
.178
.052
.054
.564
.118
-.159
.063
.252†
.106
.137
-.167
.065
.258†
.103
.202
-.239*
.086
.246†
.049
.190☻m
-.255*m
.090
.261*☻
.061
.359**
-.341**
-.194*
.004
.078
-.156☻r+
-.011
.152
2.02†
.002
.044
.110
.041
.049
-.050r++
-.128†☻
.044
.616
.219†
-.281*
-.015
-.177†
.259*
-.185
.011
.138
1.76
.209†
-.301*
.004
-.181†
.254*
-.188
.003
.068
-.196
.063
-.182†
.236*
-.248†
.000
.070
-.195
.070
-.184†
.238*☻
-.249†m
-.010
.064
.003
.221
.097
.108
.373**
.078
7.55**
.413**m r++
.134☻r++
-.201☻r--
.132†
.006
.741
.519***
.137
23.7***
.488
.278
2.36**
-.076 r++
.002
.215
.343
.103
1.43
.659
.503
4.23***
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
348
Table 38:Results of regression analyses
Chinese dyads a
Independent variables m
Step1: Follower characteristics
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Leader characteristics
Age
Education
No. of supervised followers
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Age difference
Education difference
Gender difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Leader LMX
Leader overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator I
Follower perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Mediator II
Follower interactional justice
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Mediators b
for follower professional respect in
Follower professional respect; Chinese dyads
Similar
Justice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.033
-136
-.159
-.161
.112☻
.099
1.467
-.163†
-.025
-.115r-.039
-.030
.220
3.75**
-.074
.084
.002
.212*
.279**
.117
2.13†
-.198†
-.003
-.008
.232*
.134
-.146
.129
.026
.035
.130
-.119
.142
.032
.016
.111
-.104
.095
.084
.053
.072
-.032
.098
.107 r.024 r+
.076 r+
.290†☻
-.057
-.002
-.038
.134☻r++
-.201☻r--.107☻
.134
.266*
.237
2.49*
-.015
-.216*r-.208r++
-.021
-.115
-.180
.055
.177†☻
.172†
.253
3.35***
.013
-.344***
.168
.056
.140
-.261*
-.007
.049
.196†
.227
2.73**
.082
-.238*
.085
.120
.006
-.281*
-.064
.109
.240*
.093
-.240*
.076
.129
.059
-.242†
-.070
.115
.236*
.011
-.230*
.081
.151
.054
-.168
-.050
.055
.150
.012
-.127 r--.040
.142
.068
-.140☻r-.027
.024
.095
.359**
-.341**
-0.47
-.052
-.226*☻r.004
.078
-.156☻r+
-.011
.152
2.02†
.002
.044
-.012
.028
.152* m
.041
.049
-.050r++
-.128†☻
.044
.616
.452***
-.167
-.067
.110
.042
-.145
.060
.195*
-.002
.164
2.31*
.435***
-.205†
-.063
.141
.058
-.152†
.048
.195*
-.011
.307**
-.101
-.048
.154†
.125
-.141†
.014
.142
-.010
.311**☻ r++
-.110 ☻m
-.025
.144†m
.056
-.158†☻r.007
.126r++
.025
.105
.007
.851
.116
.075
.295**
.044
6.05*
.100 r++
.132†
.006
.741
.519***
.137
23.7***
.488
.278
2.36**
.392**☻ r++
.057
8.69**
.616
.447
3.65***
.659
.503
4.23***
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
349
The table below summarises the results presented in the five tables above by indicating
which determinants demonstrated a significant effect on LMX and its dimensions as
well as perceived similarity and interactional justice in the regression analyses. ‘Sim’
stands for similarity, Jus = interactional justice, Aff = affect, Loy = loyalty, Con =
contribution, Res = professional respect). The ‘+’ symbol indicates a positive beta
weight with p < .10, ‘++’ = p < .05, ‘+++’ = p<. 01, ‘++++’ = p < .001. In a similar vein
the ‘□’ symbol signifies a negative effect. The remaining symbols are explained in the
last rows of the table.
Table 39: Summary of results obtained for follower LMX and its dimensions in
Chinese dyads
DETERMINANTS
Follower characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
FOLLOWER PERCEPTIONS IN CHINESE DYADS
Dyad type
Chinese
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
No. of supervised follow.
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
Interpersonal variables
Jus
na
Lmx
na
Aff
na
Chinese
Chinese
++•
r□
Chinese
Chinese
Chinese
na
Chinese
▪+
Chinese
na
Chinese
Chinese
Sim
a▪+
+
Loy
na
Con
na
r□
(+m)
Res
na
++•
r□
Chinese
Leader characteristics
Demographics
Sim
na
na
r+
(□•m)
▪r+
•rmj+
na
na
na
na
na
na
+r
r+
na
na
na
na
**
**
*
*
Jus
e□□r
Lmx
re□ams
Aff
Loy
r□
r+
na
na
r+
na
na
†
Con
Res
ermj□
(•+m)
•rms□
Chinese
Chinese
Chinese
▪r+
+•r
Chinese
▪r□
•rms□
Chinese
▪□
Chinese
▪+
+
Chinese
Chinese
(□•m)
+▪
Chinese
Chinese
□□▪
++•r
++•
+▪
+•
++•
rms+
r+
(□m)
rms+
□□
*
**
Sim
Jus
(□m)
ms+
***
Lmx
Aff
**
Loy
Con
Res
350
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic differences
Personality differences
Chinese
+++
++•r
msj+
Chinese
□□□
□□•r
□ms
Chinese
g□□▪r
(g+)
Chinese
▪r+
r+
Differences in interpers
rel.
Differences in
individualism
Differences in
collectivism
Chinese
∆F at Step 3
Chinese
Perceptions& behaviour
Other’s perceptions of
LMX
Chinese
ms+
□□□•r
□□•
rms+
+++•r
(•□m)
ms□
(e+m)
(□m)
rms+
□
□•r
□▪
□□□•r
Chinese
□□•
Chinese
++•
†
†
†
Jus
+
Lmx
++
Aff
mj+
Loy
(•□m)
Con
Res
Chinese
++++
++r
•rmj+
+•r
+++•r
rmj+
∆F at Step 5
Chinese
***
***
***
†
**
*
Follower interactional
justice
Leader inrole
performance
Follower inrole
performance
Chinese
++•r
++++•
r+
r+
+++•r
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
∆F at Step 6
Chinese
*
***
Similarity
†
Sim
Chinese
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
*
**
+ = positive effect (magnitude of beta weight or sign of correlation)
□ = negative effect
r = significant correlation (p < .05)
▪ = variable selected using backward deletion
ms = fully mediated by similarity,
mj = fully mediated by interactional justice
mp = fully mediated by performance,
na = non-applicable,
(*m) = multicollinearity likely
Entries beginning with ‘r’ indicate that there is a relationship only a correlational level;
these variables are not considered to be significant determinants although they are
included in the table.
In the row for demographic factors, ‘a’ stands for age, ‘e’ for education and ‘g’ for
gender
c) Summary of results obtained for follower LMX
The results obtained in the regression analyses for followers in both intercultural
Western-Chinese and intracultural Chinese dyads are summarised in the table below.
The table enables a comparison of the results obtained in intercultural and Chinese
dyads, and hence increases our understanding of the antecedents of follower LMX
quality. However, it should be noted that the results obtained for intercultural and
Chinese dyads are not directly comparable with respect to leader perceptions as the
perceptual measures used for Chinese and Western leaders did not demonstrate crosscultural equivalence. In this case, leader LMX is the only perceptual variable measured
from the leader perspective.
The signs in the table are explained in the last rows of the table.
351
Table 40: Summary of results obtained for follower LMX
DETERMINANTS
Follower characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
FOLLOWER PERCEPTIONS
Dyad type
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Leader characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
No. of supervised follow.
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic differences
Personality differences
Differences in interpers rel.
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Sim
na
na
Jus
na
na
Lmx
na
na
(□m)
▪+
r□
(+▪m)
na
na
▪+
+▪
na
na
++▪r
▪r+
+▪
na
na
++•
ms□
na
na
**
•rmj+
+•
na
na
+r
+
na
na
**
†
†
Sim
a▪+
e+▪
Jus
e□□r
Lmx
re□ams
(+m)
▪r+
▪r+
□□▪r
▪r□
r+
(□m)
▪□
▪+
r-
□□r
(▪□m)
++•r
+▪
r+
*
**
Sim
+++
□□□
(□m)
g□□▪r
▪r+
+•r
+
r□
r+
mjr+
na
na
na
na
r+
na
na
*
**
Aff
+•r
msr□
•rms□
++▪r
(g+)
g□□
r+
r+
□▪
++•
ms□
++•
rms+
++
na
na
r+
na
na
na
na
+++•r
na
na
na
na
*
+
na
na
Loy
**
Con
(□•m)
r+
ms□
•rms□
(•+m)
r+
++•r
+•
ms+
(□m)
Con
na
na
(+m)
□□•
(□•m)
(□•m)
(□•m)
++•
**
Jus
Loy
na
na
r□
++•
□□▪
+▪
+
+++
Aff
na
na
Aff
msj+
□□•r
□ms
(a□m)
□•r
rms+
(□m)
r□
r+
r+
na
na
r+
na
na
†
Res
ermj□
e□□•
•rms□
□□•
(□m)
++•
rms+
(+m)
ms+
+
(□m)
**
□□
***
Lmx
++•r
Res
na
na
*
Loy
*
Con
ms+
□□□•r
□□•
Res
+++•r
(•□m)
•rmj+
ms□
(□m)
r+
•ms□
(e+m)
(a□m)
rms+
mj+
352
Differences in
individualism
Differences in collectivism
∆F at Step 3
□□□•r
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
□□•
++•
†
†
†
Perceptions & behaviour
Other’s perceptions of
LMX
□
□•r
++•
+•
(□m)
†
Sim
Jus
Lmx
Aff
Loy
Chinese
+
++
mj+
(•□m)
Intercult
(□•m)
Chinese
++++
++r
•rmj+
+•r
Similarity
Intercult
+++
++++•
++•r
+•r
Chinese
***
***
***
†
∆F at Step 5
Intercult
***
***
***
*
Follower interactional
Chinese
++•r
++++•
r+
justice
Intercult
++++•
+++•r
+•r
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
Leader inrole performance
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
Follower inrole
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
performance
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
Chinese
*
***
∆F at Step 6
Intercult
**
**
+ = positive effect (magnitude of beta weight or sign of correlation);
□ = negative effect;
*
Con
Res
+++•r
+++
**
***
r+
r+
na
na
na
na
rmj+
++•r
*
**
+++•r
+++•r
na
na
na
na
**
**
▪ = variable selected using backward deletion ; ( m) = multicollinearity likely
ms = fully mediated by similarity; mj = fully mediated by interactional justice; mp = fully mediated by performance
r
= significant correlation (p < .05) ;
na = non-applicable
The table indicates that intercultural and Chinese dyads have many common features
with regard to antecedents of LMX quality, but also specific characteristics that
distinguish them from each other.
353
d) Leader LMX in intercultural dyads
On the following pages, following the procedure adopted in the previous sections for
follower LMX, six tables are inserted. The first table reports the result obtained for
overall leader LMX quality in intercultural dyads (i.e. Western leader LMX), and the
following four tables the results obtained for the affect, loyalty, contribution, and
professional respect dimensions. The sixth table summarises the results obtained for
overall LMX and its dimensions, including the mediating variables. After the tables
presenting the results obtained for overall LMX and each dimension, the results are
summarised in one table.
354
Table 41: Results of regression analyses
dyads a
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Step1: Leader characteristics
Time in company
No. of supervised followers
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Age
Education
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Age difference
Gender difference
Education difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
-.319**
.142☻
-.013 r++
-.019
.324*☻r
.232†☻ r+
-.217☻ m
.481
6.61***
Leader LMX; intercultural dyads
Perform
-.277†☻r
r--
.001
.010 r++
-.319†
-.333☻ m
-.243
.079
.215
1.95†
130
-.055
-.154 r-.149
-.365**
.043
-.007
-.096
-.100
.096
1.03
-.297†
.158
-.030
.076
-.143
.439*
.262
.057
-.317†☻
.115
.780
-.052
.282*☻
-.146
.064
-.081
-.333**
-.045
-.045 r-.095☻
.187
2.81*
.007
.572**
-.097
-.026
.265
-.134
.174
-.836* m
.142
.193
1.43
.162☻
.034
2.41
-.101
-
.764
.619
4.14***
for leader LMX in intercultural
.314
.041
1.47
.597
.208
1.53
†
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.315*
.039
.202†
-.206†
.070
.079
-.178†
.242
.2.28*
-.355*
.029
.148
-.146
.137
.078
-.142
-.373*
.018
.347*
-.270†
.048
-.212
-.280†
-.387*
.031
.344*
-.245
.037
-.195
-.268† m
-.198
-.036
.346*
-.165
-.217
-.315*
-.084
-.130
-.030☻ r+
.354* r--.069
-.145
-.251†m r++
-.077
.173
-.114
.016
-.188
.029
-.010
-.104
-.055
.049
.067
.441
-.207
-.203†
.114
-.131
-.216
.212
.196
.005
.036
-.215
-.218†
.130
-.136
-.228
.199
.185
.001
.043
-.327†
-.218†
.281†
-.046
-.001
.135
.161
.057
.130
-.276†
-.273*☻
.290†
-.046
.030
.053
.086
.031
.184☻m
.152
.395*
-.558**
-.071
-.042
.091
.107
-.472†
-.241
.263
2.18*
.142
.405*
-.565**
-.074
-.038
.096
.095
-.452†
-.234
.154
.236
-.482**
-.126
.028
.341*
.097
-.334†
-.015
.169☻m
.077 r+
-.460**☻m
-.148
-.017
.416*☻m
.067
-.181
-.011
.061
.002
.156
.218†
.164
.700**
.101
9.38**
.746**☻ r++
.242†☻ r++
.031
.028
1.31
.703
.396
2.29*
355
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
356
Table 42: Results of regression analyses
dyads a
for leader affect in intercultural
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Perform
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.142
-.319**
-.013
-.019
.324*
-.217†
.481
6.61***
.001
-.277†
.010
-.319†
-.333†
.079
.215
1.95†
.180
-.311*
.008
.035
-.144
-.211†
.145
1.438
.076
-.234†
.028
-.066
-.180
-.196†
.020
-.179
-.117
-.075
-.111
-.213
.018
-.172
-.103
-.092
-.091
-.227
-.118
.018
-.095
-.005
-.354*
-.001
-.073
.144
-.084
.104
-.271†☻m
-.035
-.154
-.149
-.365**
.043
-.096
-.100
.096
1.03
-.030
.076
-.143
.439*
.057
-.317†
.115
.780
-.169
.040
-.043
-.010
-.027
-.264†
.056
.528
-.144
.047
-.160
.266
-.078
-.246†
-.150
.052
-.149
.277
-.066
-.242†
-.051
.160
.083
.146
.004
-.148
-.013
.179
.141
.068
-.002
-.034
-.052
.282*
-.085
-.333**
-.045
-.045
-.095
.187
2.81*
.007
.572**
.034
-.134
.174
-.836**
.142
.193
1.43
.075
.302*
-.178
-.124
.158
-.338†
-.016
.205
1.87
.095
.288*
-.180
-.124
.170
-.342†
-.027
.066
.132
-.129
.158
.114
-.084
.213
.092
-.045
-.147
.233†
.136☻
-.007☻
.225
-.076
.004
.245
.098
-.019m r++
.744***
.135
10.66**
.816** r++
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. In interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Leader affect; intercultural dyads
.162
.034
2.41
-.101
-
.764
.619
4.14***
.406*☻ r++
-.008 r+
.086
3.94*
.630
.380
2.52**
.314†
.041
1.47
.597
.208
1.53
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
357
Table 43: Results of regression analyses
dyads a
for leader loyalty in intercultural
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Perform
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.142
-.319**
-.013
-.019
.324*
-.217†
.481
6.61***
.001
-.277†
.010
-.319†
-.333†
.079
.215
1.95†
.131
-.369**
.397***
-.243*
-.048
-.299**
.431
6.45***
.140
-.429**
.394**
-.219†
-.126
-.304**
.098
-.450**
.288*
-.245*
-.273*
-.247†
.104
-.458**
.271*
-.222†
-.297*
-.228†
.090
-.428**
.273*
-.205†
-.333*
-.193
.097
-.363*☻ r.297*☻ r--.159☻ r--.315* m
-.147☻m
-.154
-.149
-.365**
.043
-.007
-.096
-.100
.096
1.03
-.030
.076
-.143
.439*
.262
.057
-.317†
.115
.780
-.004
-.013
.174
-.127
.130
.042
-.098
.043
.515
-.125
-.064
.031
-.213
.198
.062
-.149
-.116
-.076
.017
-.227
.187
.047
-.151
-.098
-.069
.050
-.247
.167
.057
-.133
-.122
-.072
.054
-.236
.100
.019
-.151
-.052
.282*
-.085
-.333**
-.045
-.045
-.095
.187
2.81*
.007
.572**
.034
-.134
.174
-.836**
.142
.193
1.43
.021
.432***
-.104
.011
-.045
.124
-.007
.145
2.01†
-.003
.448***
-.101
.010
-.061
-134
.007
-.006
.422**
-.090
.049
-.969
.181
.043
.025
.322*☻ r++
-.097
.145
-.046
.137
.116
.099
.007
.630
.127
.042
.112
.003
.274
.167 r+
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Leader loyalty; intercultural dyads
.162
.034
2.41
-.101
-
.764
.619
4.14***
.314
.041
1.47
.597
.208
1.53
.132 r++
.208☻ r+
.035
1.70
.663
.419
2.71**
†
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
358
Table 44: Results of regression analyses
intercultural dyads a
for
leader
contribution
in
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Perform
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.142
-.319**
-.013
-.019
.324*
.232†
-.217†
.481
6.61***
.001
-.277†
.010
-.319†
-.333†
-.243
.079
.215
1.95†
-.057
.074
.259*
-.205†
.242†
.203†
-.365
.263
2.54*
.112
-.002
.317*
-.016
.261†
.265*
-.409**
-.029
-.003
.349*
-.102
.256†
.202
-.399*
-.017
-.013
.333*
-.073
.241
.227
-.380*
-.057
.056
.340*
-.053
.162
.196
-.312†
-.063
.052
.342*☻
-.061 r-.155
.193 r++
-.306†☻
-.154
-.365**
-.149
-.007
.043
-.096
-.100
.096
1.03
-.030
-.143
.076
.262
.439*
.057
-.317†
.115
.780
.214
.341*
-.034
-.165
-.165
.099
.219†
.121
1.20
.161
.209
.012
-.022
-.249
.129
.142
.172
.199
.001
-.040
-.269
.121
.146
.203
.268
.017
-.070
-.300
.138
.178
.195
.263☻ r++
.018
-.069
-.289☻m
.133
.162
-.052
.282*
-.085
-.333**
-.045
-.045
-.095
.187
2.81*
.007
.572**
.034
-.134
.174
-.836**
.142
.193
1.43
-.292*
.046
-.302*
.102
.022
.165
.001
.099
.984
-.310*
.060
-.299*
.100
.004
.195
.017
-.316*
.003
-.277†
.184
-.006
.266
.086
-.316*☻
.009
-.278†☻
.189
-.004
.246
.092
.079
.004
.264
.130
130
.236
.013
.851
.234 r++
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Cultural knowledge
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Leader contribution; intercultural dyads
.162
.034
2.41
-.101
-
.764
.619
4.14***
.314
.041
1.47
.597
.208
1.53
-.023 r++
.026
.000
.013
.499
.108
1.28
†
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed
tests
359
Table 45: Results of regression analyses
intercultural dyads a
for leader professional respect in
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Perform
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.142
-.319**
-.013
-.019
.324*
-.217†
.481
6.61***
.001
-.277†
.010
-.319†
-.333†
.079
.215
1.95†
.115
-.089
.076
-.330*
-.048
-.185
.148
1.24
-.108
-.082
.005
-.416**
.024
-.153
.006
-.141
.071
-.431*
-.131
-.286†
.021
-.159
.066
-.395*
-.151
-.268† m
-.028
.073
.031
-.230†
-.404*
-.009
-.052
.180
.022
-.160☻ r--.293†☻m
-.031
130
-.055
-.154
-.149
-.365**
-.007
-.096
-.100
.096
1.03
-.297†
.158
-.030
.076
-.143
.262
.057
-.317†
.115
.780
.391*
.121
-.100
.016
-.082
-.032
-.149
-.107
.126
1.07
.114
.143
-.030
.039
-.139
.137
.034
-.056
.091
.114
.001
.035
-.162
.132
.020
-.049
-.030
.129
.227
.164
.112
.038
.105
.131
.026
.082
.251
.177
.145
.000
.069
.219
-.052
.282*
-.146
-.081
.064
-.333**
-.045
-.045
-.095
.187
2.81*
.007
.572**
-.097
.265
-.026
-.134
.174
-.836**
.142
.193
1.43
.112
.503**
-.290†
.099
.085
-.035
-.011
-.308†
-.178
.200
1.44
.096
.521**
-.304†
.107
.077
-.025
-.024
-.308†
-.169
.120
.342*
-.206
-.239†
.025
.255†
-.033
-.130
.168
.137
.172☻ r++
-.178
.192☻m r.013
.308†☻m
-.048
-.039
.151
.110
.007
.471
.321*
.255*☻
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Age
Education
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Age difference
Education difference
Gender difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Leader professional respect; intercultural dyads
.162
.034
2.41
-.101
-
.764
.619
4.14***
.314
.041
1.47
.597
.208
1.53
.852***
.162
14.6***
r++
.284* r++
-.058
.037
1.72
.681
.393
2.37*
†
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.892***☻
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
360
As for follower LMX, the table below summarises the results presented in the five
tables above by indicating which determinants demonstrated a significant effect on
LMX and its dimensions as well as perceived similarity and inrole performance in the
regression analyses. ‘Sim’ stands for similarity, Per = inrole perfromance, Aff = affect,
Loy = loyalty, Con = contribution, Res = professional respect). The ‘+’ symbol
indicates a positive beta weight with p < .10, ‘++’ = p < .05, ‘+++’ = p<. 01, ‘++++’ = p
< .001. In a similar vein the ‘□’ symbol signifies a negative effect. The remaining
symbols are explained in the last rows of the table.
Table 46: Summary of results obtained for Western leader LMX and dimensions
DETERMINANTS
Follower characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
WESTERN LEADER PERCEPTIONS
Dyad type
Intercult
Intercult
na
Intercult
r□
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
No. of supervised follow.
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
Intercult
Months of interaction
Lmx
Aff
Loy
Con
a□
a□e□•
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Res
na
+
□□□▪
•r+
Intercult
Intercult
(•□m)
++
Intercult
□▪
(•+m)
ms□
Sim
Per
Lmx
Aff
Loy
Con
Res
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Intercult
□□□▪
□▪r
ms□
□□•r
Intercult
r+
r+
++•r
++•r
++•
□▪
r□
•rmp□
r□
Intercult
Intercult
Intercult
Intercult
++▪r
Intercult
+▪r
Intercult
na
Intercult
(□▪m)
Intercult
na
na
na
(□▪m)
***
Sim
†
Per
*
Lmx
na
•r□msp
(•m□)
(□m)
(□r+m
na
na
r+
na
na
na
na
(•□m)
□•
na
na
na
na
Aff
***
Loy
*
Con
Res
(□m)
(□•m)
na
Intercult
Intercult
Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Per
Intercult
Leader characteristics
Demographics
Sim
Intercult
(•+m)
□□•
361
Intercult
Demographic differences
Personality differences
Differences in interpers
rel.
Differences in
individualism
Differences in
collectivism
∆F at Step 3
Perceptions& behaviour
Other’s perceptions of
LMX
Similarity
∆F at Step 5
Follower interactional
justice
Leader inrole
performance
Follower inrole
performance
++▪r
+++▪
rms+
++•r
(a□•m)
Intercult
Intercult
r□
Intercult
□▪
Intercult
□□□▪
(□m)
•rmsp+
□•
ams□
mp□
•□ms
ms□
(+•m)
+
(+•m)
Intercult
Intercult
ms+
•+
*
Sim
Per
*
Lmx
Aff
▪+
mp+
r+
Intercult
+++•r
+++•r
Intercult
**
***
na
na
na
na
na
+•r
++•r
•r+
r+
++r
r+
•r+
Intercult
Intercult
na
na
Intercult
Intercult
+
†
Loy
Con
Res
++•
r+
rmp+
++++•
***
∆F at Step 6
Intercult
†
*
+ = positive effect (magnitude of beta weight or sign of correlation)
□ = negative effect
r = significant correlation (p < .05)
▪ = variable selected using backward deletion
ms = fully mediated by similarity,
mj = fully mediated by interactional justice
mp = fully mediated by performance,
na = non-applicable,
(*m) = multicollinearity likely
Entries beginning with ‘r’ indicate that there is a relationship only a correlational level; these variables are not
considered to be significant determinants although they are included in the table.
In the row for demographic factors, ‘a’ stands for age, ‘e’ for education and ‘g’ for
gender
e) Leader LMX in intracultural Chinese dyads
On the following pages, following the procedure adopted in the previous sections, six
tables are inserted. Again, the first table reports the result obtained for overall leader
LMX quality in Chinese dyads (i.e. Chinese leader LMX), and the following four tables
the results obtained for the affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect
dimensions. The sixth table summarises the results obtained for overall LMX and its
dimensions, including the mediating variables. After the tables presenting the results
obtained for overall LMX and each dimension, the results are summarised in one table.
.
362
Table 47: Results of regression analyses
for leader LMX in Chinese dyads a
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Perform
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.075
-.226
-.315*☻
-.224
-.231
.094
.150
.073
.772
.310** m
-.036
-.102
-.553**
-.115
-.079
.050
.138
1.58
.073
.068
-.157
-.500**
-.228†
-.003
.157
.047
-.273*
-.585***
-.281†
-.009
.027
.327**
.115
-.187
-.619***
-.191
-.168
.047
.330**
.116
-.168
-.622***
-.188
-.165
.033
.345**
.174
-.116
-.558**
-.132
-.194
.015
.186†
.108 r+
-.067
-.314* r-.095
-.125
.032
-.022
-.060
-.106
.054
-.066
.523**☻
.068
-.072
-.089
.122
1.01
-.192☻
-.241†☻
-.087
-.055
-.027
-.060
-.170
-.059
-.187†
.128
1.16
-.150
.039
-.115
.105
.147
.274*
-.038
.075
-.113
.122
1.13
-.338*
-.069
-.048
.215
.117
.359*
-.097
.127
-.076
-.320*
-.051
-.057
.193
.127
.312*
-.119
.114
-.077
-.343*
-.065
-.014
.214*
.128
.251†
-.102
.153
-.051
-.228†
.062☻ r+
.020
.260*☻ m
.132☻
.284*☻
-.116
.143
.037
.086
.013
.009
-.136
-.039
-.071
.104
-.337*☻
.080
.097
.774
.165†
-.065
-.093
-.209*
-.134
.028
-.023
.121
.089
.127
1.18
.289*
.074
-.232†
-.204*
-.175
-.216†
-.025
-.026
.145
.211
2.36*
.286*
.089
-.246†
-.211*
-.165
-.196†
-.020
-.012
.137
.269*
.061
-.226†
-.165†
-.171
-.209†
-.055
.054
.129
.155†
.110☻
-.117
-.106
-.093
-.238*☻
-.044
.030
.050
.076
.003
.324
-.047
-.211†☻ m
Step1: Leader characteristics
Time in company
No. of supervised followers
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Age
Education
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Age difference
Gender difference
Education difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Leader LMX; Chinese dyads
-.010
.161
1.89†
.277*☻
.102
10.11**
.277*
-
.256*
.041
4.31*
.105 r++
.502***
.414
.109
.838
☻r++ †☻
.123
.056
3.09†
.551
.289
2.10*
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.171
.142
10.4***
.680
.483
3.44***
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed
tests
363
Table 48: Results of regression analyses
for leader affect in Chinese dyads a
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Perform
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.226
-.075
-.315*
-.224
-.231
.150
.073
.772
-.036
.310**
-.102
-.553**
-.115
.050
.138
1.58
-.073
-.226*
-.022
.228*
.240
.166
.191
2.76*
-.168
-.165†
-.143
-.392*
-.066
-.104
-.158
-.130
-.198†
-.431**
-.138
-.107
-.166
-.108
-.164
-.452**
-.153
-.122
-.093
-.103
-.078
-.355*
-.081
-.142
-.094
-.156†☻ r-.018
-.195
-.040
-.107
-.106
.054
-.066
.523**
-.072
-.089
.122
1.01
-.087
-.055
-.027
-.060
-.059
-.187†
.128
1.16
.001
.129
.146
.316*
.000
-.108
1.07
1.63
-.001
.177
.195†
.462**
-.001
-.161
-.019
.135
.192†
.361*
-.029
-.157
.040
.151
.201†
.254†
.021
-.122
.092
.225†m
.174†
.309*☻ r++
.009
-.038 r--
.086
.013
-.110
-.071
.104
-.337*
.080
.097
.774
.165†
-.065
-.254*
.028
-.023
.121
.089
.127
1.18
.191*
-.091
.021
-.066
.011
-.178†
.136
.090
1.19
.190*
-.061
.001
-.026
.023
-.157
.113
.144†
-.099
.044
-.023
-.035
-.049
.102
.095 r+
-.062
.106
-.074
-.026
-.064
.057
.165†
.018
1.70
.022
-.112
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. Relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Leader affect; Chinese dyads
.277*
.102
10.11**
.277*
-
.359**
.080
8.53**
.271*☻
.312**☻
r++
.414
.109
.838
.123
.056
3.09†
.551
.289
2.10*
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.122
.065
3.84*
.551
.356
2.82***
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed
tests
364
Table 49: Results of regression analyses
for leader loyalty in Chinese dyads a
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
Perform
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.226
-.075
-.315*
-.224
-.231
.150
.073
.772
-.036
.310**
-.102
-.553**
-.115
.050
.138
1.58
.174†
.015
-.053
-.375*
-.164
-.125
.142
1.93†
.052
.142
-.234*
-.486**
-.277*
-.073
.004
.194†
-.219†
-.462**
-.254†
-.037
.001
.222*
-.168
-.495**
-.261†
-.062
.011
.223*
-.156
-.481**
-.251†
-.064
.010
.185†
-.108 ☻m
-.106
.054
-.066
.523**
.068
-.072
-.089
.122
1.01
-.087
-.055
-.027
-.060
-.170
-.059
-.187†
.128
1.16
-.215*
-.006
.164
.293*
-.049
-.019
-.295**
.217
3.05**
-.247*
-.015
.181
.280*
-.013
-.005
-.296**
-.275**
-.086
.181†
.139
-.075
-.051
-.294**
-.267*
-.084
.182†
.123
-.071
-.044
-.289**
-.232*
-.032
.166☻m
.167
-.129
-.063
-.231*☻
.086
.013
-.110
-.071
.104
-.337*
.080
.097
.774
.165†
-.065
-.254*
.028
-.023
.121
.089
.127
1.18
.084
-.037
-.235*
-.054
-.023
-.082
-.079
.072
1.01
.081
.013
-.261*
.003
-.006
-.029
-.112
.074
.007
-.255*
.003
-.015
-.015
-.113
.037
.043
-.209*☻m
-.039
-.006
-.007
-.151☻
.246*
.038
3.95†
.225†
.130
.051
.002
.161
-.017
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
Time in company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Harmony
R2
F
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Harmony
Self-enhancement values
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic difference
Difference in individualism
Difference in collectivism
Personality (FFM4) difference
Diff. in interpers. Relatedness
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
Leader loyalty; Chinese dyads
.277*
.102
10.11**
.277*
-
.414
.109
.838
-.368* r--.212†m
-.039
.226†☻ r++
.125
.040
2.10
.510
.284
2.26**
.123
.056
3.09†
.551
.289
2.10*
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
r+
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed
tests
365
Table 50: Results of regression analyses
dyads a
Mediators b
Independent variables
N = 88, listwise deletion
for leader contribution in Chinese
Similar
Perform
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
-.226
-.036
Time in company
-.075
.310**
Cultural knowledge
-.315*
-.102
Neuroticism
-.224
-.553**
Extroversion
-.231
-.115
Conscientiousness
.094
-.079
Harmony
.150
.050
R2
.073
.138
F
.772
1.58
Step 2: Follower
characteristics
-.087
Cultural knowledge
-.106
-.027
Extroversion
-.066
.054
-.055
Neuroticism
-.170
Conscientiousness
.068
.523**
-.060
Agreeableness
-.059
Harmony
-.072
-.187†
Self-enhancement values
-.089
.128
∆R2
.122
1.16
∆F
1.01
Step 3:Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
.086
.165†
Months of interaction
.013
-.065
Demographic difference
-.110
-.254*
Difference in individualism
-.071
.028
Difference in collectivism
.104
-.023
Personality(FFM4) difference -.337*
.121
Diff. In interpers. relatedness
.080
.089
∆R2
.097
.127
∆F
.774
1.18
Step 4: Follower LMX
Follower overall LMX
.277*
2
∆R
.102
∆F
10.11**
Step 5: Mediator
Leader perceived similarity
.277*
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
.123
∆R2
.056
∆F
3.09†
Final R2
.414
.551
Final adjusted R2
.109
.289
Final F
.838
2.10*
a
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
b
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
Leader contribution; Chinese dyads
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
.084
.087
-.178†
-.645***
-.442**
.149
.059
.315
4.53***
-.070
.207*
-.384***
-.800***
-.501**’
.099
.179†
-.075
.252*
-.359**
-.853***
-.407**
-.025
.137
-.076
.270**
-.321**
-.875***
-.418**
-.012
.120
-.049
.278**
-.286**
-.838***
-.383**
-.030
.111
-.023 r++
.197*☻
-.232*☻m
-.650***☻
-.275**
-.049
-.112
-.055
.275*
.118
-.215*
.209
3.89***
-.251**
-.068
-.102
-.130
.259*
.166†
-.207*
-.274**
-.068
-.158
-.172†
.151
.131
-.205*
-.247**
-.065
-.145
-.166
.109
.154†
-.191*
-.194*☻
-.098
-.109
-.113☻m
.151
.165†☻ r+
-.102
.148†
.072
-.138†
-.109
.064
.113
.126
.060
1.13
.143
.107
-.159†
-.061
.073
.153
.102
.128
.093
-.140†
-.067
.052
.193†
.098
.068
.117☻
-.082 r--.084
.050
.171†
.067
.185*
.021
2.92†
.122
.016 r+
.149†
.014
1.89
.050 r+
-.357**☻
.01
.135
r--
.344**☻m
-.035
.058
4.59*
.677
.519
4.28***
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
onetailed
tests
366
Table 51: Results of regression analyses
Chinese dyads a
Independent variables
Mediators b
N = 88, listwise deletion
Similar
for leader professional respect in
Leader professional respect; Chinese dyads
Perform
Step1: Leader characteristics
No. of supervised followers
-.226
-.036
Time in company
-.075
.310**
Cultural knowledge
-.315*
-.102
Neuroticism
-.224
-.553**
Extroversion
-.231
-.115
Harmony
.150
.050
2
R
.073
.138
F
.772
1.58
Step 2: Follower characteristics
Age
-.022
-.192
Education
-.060
-.241†
Cultural knowledge
-.106
-.087
Neuroticism
.054
-.055
Extroversion
-.066
-.027
Conscientiousness
.068
-.170
Harmony
-.072
-.059
Self-enhancement values
-.089
-.187†
∆R2
.122
.128
∆F
1.01
1.16
Step 3: Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
.086
.165†
Months of interaction
.013
-.065
Age difference
.009
-.093
Education difference
-.039
-.134
Gender difference
-.136
-.209*
Difference in individualism
-.071
.028
Difference in collectivism
.104
-.023
Personality (FFM4) difference
-.337*
.121
Diff. In interpers. Relatedness
.080
.089
∆R2
.097
.127
∆F
.774
1.18
Step 4: Follower LMX
.277*
Follower overall LMX
2
.102
∆R
10.11**
∆F
Step 5: Mediator
.277*
Leader perceived similarity
∆R2
∆F
Step 6: Follower performance
Leader perspective (mediator)
Follower perspective
.123
∆R2
.056
∆F
3.09†
Final R2
.414
.551
Final adjusted R2
.109
.289
Final F
.838
2.10*
a
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
b
(β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Entries
Variables retained at final step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
-.142
.020
-.171
-.270†
-.142
.059
.040
.409
-.098
.048
-.170
-.299†
-.117
.097
-.203
.113
-.205
-.393*
-.148
.179
-.210
.126
-.187
-.410*
-.146
.176
-.146
.138
-.148
-.339†
-.105
.179
-.178
-.041
-.079
-.034
-.014
.150
-.151
.044
.179†
.127
-.097
.148
.130
-.026
.059
.582
-.244
-.143
.172
.114
-.204
.197
.216†
-.001
-.218
-.123
.155
.113
-.184
.141
.189
.003
-.257†
-.155
.202†
.158
-.188
.165
.230†
.041
-.114
.007
.251* m
.195†m
-.169
.201
.250* r+
.138
.002
-.003
.064
-.282†
-.363**
.047
-.055
.077
.091
.138
1.07
-.007
.015
.034
-.265†
-.369**
.070
-.049
.086
.085
-.032
-031
.053
-.276†
-.317*
.052
-.094
.141
.084
-.135
.034
.150
-.185☻
-.213†
.014
-.068
.097
.008
.144
.015
1.04
-.007
-.179
.109 r++
.047
3.38†
.605***☻r++
.048
.175
8.12***
.473
.183
1.63†
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
367
As previously, the table below summarises the results presented in the five tables above by
indicating which determinants demonstrated a significant effect on LMX and its dimensions as well
as perceived similarity and inrole performance in the regression analyses. ‘Sim’ stands for
similarity, Per = inrole perfromance, Aff = affect, Loy = loyalty, Con = contribution, Res =
professional respect). The ‘+’ symbol indicates a positive beta weight with p < .10, ‘++’ = p < .05,
‘+++’ = p<. 01, ‘++++’ = p < .001. In a similar vein the ‘□’ symbol signifies a negative effect. The
remaining symbols are explained in the last rows of the table.
Table 52: Summary of results obtained for Chinese leader LMX and dimensions
DETERMINANTS
Follower characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
CHINESE LEADER PERCEPTIONS
Dyad type
Chinese
Sim
Per
e□▪a▪□
Lmx
a□ e▪r+
Aff
na
Loy
na
Con
na
Res
amp□
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
□□
□□▪
++
Chinese
Chinese
(+•m)
(+m)
Chinese
•+
+
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
No. of supervised follow.
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
Chinese
Months of interaction
Demographic differences
(▪□m)
+++▪
++•
++•r
+▪r
Chinese
□
Chinese
r□
Chinese
Chinese
Sim
na
Chinese
Chinese
**
***
Aff
na
Loy
na
Con
na
(+▪m)
+
□•r
+
++▪
msp□
(•□m)
(□▪m)
□□r
□□□□▪
(□m)
(□□□)
□□▪
Chinese
r+
□□r
Chinese
na
mp□
Lmx
na
□□□▪
Chinese
□□r
Per
na
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
na
Chinese
Chinese
na
na
***
Sim
†
Per
+
Chinese
Chinese
na
na
na
r+
Chinese
Chinese
na
++r
Res
na
msp□
na
r+
Chinese
Interpersonal variables
Interaction intensity
(•+m)
Chinese
Leader characteristics
Demographics
(+m)
†
*
†
***
Lmx
+
Aff
rmsp+
Loy
Con
amp□
na
r+
Res
▪+
•+
g□□
na
(□•m)
rmp□
g□ e▪□
368
Personality differences
Differences in interpers
rel.
Differences in
individualism
Differences in collectivism
Chinese
□□▪
+
•□
Chinese
□□•
Chinese
Chinese
∆F at Step 3
Chinese
Perceptions & behaviour
Other’s perceptions of
LMX
Chinese
Per
++▪
Lmx
(□•m)
Aff
ms+
Chinese
++▪
rmp+
++•
*
**
na
na
na
na
na
Chinese
++++•
+++•r
+•r
(+▪m)
++++▪
Follower inrole
performance
Chinese
+•
∆F at Step 6
Chinese
***
*
†
Similarity
Sim
∆F at Step 5
Chinese
Follower interactional
justice
Chinese
Leader inrole performance
*
na
na
Loy
msp+
Con
rms+
Res
r+
rmp+
†
*
+ = positive effect (magnitude of beta weight or sign of correlation)
□ = negative effect
r = significant correlation (p < .05)
▪ = variable selected using backward deletion
ms = fully mediated by similarity,
mj = fully mediated by interactional justice
mp = fully mediated by performance,
na = non-applicable,
(*m) = multicollinearity likely
Entries beginning with ‘r’ indicate that there is a relationship only a correlational level; these
variables are not considered to be significant determinants although they are included in the table.
In the row for demographic factors, ‘a’ stands for age, ‘e’ for education and ‘g’ for gender
f) Summary of results obtained for leader LMX
The results obtained in the regression analyses for leaders in both intercultural Western-Chinese and
intracultural Chinese dyads are summarised in the table below. As the Western and Chinese
measures of leader LMX as well as the measures of the antecedents of LMX are not identical across
groups (this concerns at least the measures of LMX, perceived similarity and inrole performance, as
the validation analyses demonstrated cross-cultural inequivalence), it is not possible to make direct
comparisons between Western and Chinese leader LMX and their antecedents. However, although
the employed constructs are not identical across groups, it is presumed that they at least measure
similar constructs that are meaningful for both Western and Chinese leaders. The word
‘comparison’ is hence not used in this section to denote comparisons in a strict sense, but it is used
to represent general tendencies, including differences and similarities across groups.
The signs in the table are explained in the last rows of the table.
369
Table 53: Summary of results obtained for leader LMX
DETERMINANTS
Follower characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
LEADER PERCEPTIONS
Dyad type
Chinese
Intercult
Sim
Per
e□▪a▪□
a□
Lmx
a□ e▪r+
a□e□•
Aff
na
na
Loy
na
na
Con
na
na
Res
amp□
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
na
++
+
(+•m)
(+m)
•+
+
Leader characteristics
Demographics
Tenure, company
Cultural knowledge
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Harmony
Self-enhancement
No. of supervised follow.
F (Step 1) ∆F (if Step 2)
Interaction intensity
Months of interaction
Demographic differences
Personality differences
Interpersonal variables
Differences in interpers
rel.
Differences in
individualism
Differences in collectivism
∆F at Step 3
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
r□
□□□▪
(+m)
(•+m)
++•
++•r
(•□m)
+▪r
++
□
□▪
Sim
na
na
(•+m)
Per
na
na
(+▪m)
□▪r
Lmx
na
na
+
ms□
r+
r+
++•r
□□r
r□
++▪r
r+
(□▪m)
+▪r
na
na
na
na
(□▪m)
na
na
na
na
□□□▪
□□▪
***
++▪r
□□▪
□▪
□□□▪
□□▪
•r+
(▪□m)
+++▪
Sim
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
Intercult
Chinese
na
□□
□□□▪
□▪
(□r+m
na
na
(□m)
na
na
r+
r□
ms□
□□r
mp□
**
***
Con
na
na
++▪
(•m□)
na
na
na
na
Loy
na
na
+
□□•r
(•□m)
++•r
□□r
•rmp□
(□m)
(□m)
na
na
na
na
na
na
(•□m)
na
na
Aff
na
na
□•r
msp□
†
*
+
(•+m)
•+
rms+
amp□
(a□•m)
*
(□m)
mp□
•□ms
Per
Lmx
Aff
†
+
+++▪
g□□
†
***
rmsp+
ms+
(□▪m)
++•
□□□□▪
r□
(□□□)
r+
na
na
r+
□•
na
na
r+
++r
Res
na
na
msp□
•r□msp
(□•m)
na
na
na
na
***
*
□□•
▪+
++•r
(□•m)
Loy
•□
rmp□
□•
+
Con
•rmsp+
g□ e▪□
ams□
ms□
Res
□□•
(+•m)
+
•+
*
(+•m)
370
Intercult
Perceptions & behaviour
Other’s perceptions of
LMX
*
Sim
*
Per
Lmx
†
Aff
Loy
Chinese
++▪
(□•m)
ms+
msp+
Intercult
▪+
mp+
r+
Chinese
++▪
rmp+
++•
Similarity
Intercult
+++•r
+++•r
r+
Chinese
*
**
∆F at Step 5
Intercult
**
***
Follower interactional
Chinese
na
na
na
na
na
justice
Intercult
na
na
na
na
na
Chinese
++++•
+++•r
+•r
Leader inrole performance
Intercult
+•r
++•r
•r+
Follower inrole
Chinese
+•
performance
Intercult
+
r+
•r+
Chinese
***
*
∆F at Step 6
Intercult
†
*
+ = positive effect (magnitude of beta weight or sign of correlation)
□ = negative effect
r = significant correlation (p < .05)
▪ = variable selected using backward deletion
ms = fully mediated by similarity,
mj = fully mediated by interactional justice
mp = fully mediated by performance,
na = non-applicable,
Con
Res
rms+
na
na
(+▪m)
r+
++•
rmp+
++++•
†
***
na
na
++++▪
++r
*
†
r+
rmp+
(*m) = multicollinearity likely
The table indicates that intercultural and Chinese dyads have some common features with regard to
the antecedents of leader LMX but that many specific characteristics distinguish them from each
other.
371
APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION TABLES: LMX AND OCB
The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses. Two different
models for the relationship between LMX and OCB are analysed. In the first model, the
relationship between overall LMX and OCB is examined using a composite measure of
LMX. In the second model, all the dimensions of LMX are entered as independent
variables. The effect of the moderating variables will only be examined in the first
model with regard to overall LMX measured with the composite measure. Moderating
effects will be tested by examining the significance of change in R2 attributable to the
interaction terms as well as the significance of the beta weight of the interaction term at
the final stage. In both models, control variables will be entered in the first step.
Regarding the first model, the composite measure of follower LMX will be entered in
the second step, the interaction terms between LMX and moderators (follower
definition of job breadth and follower ren qin) in the third step, the mediators
(organisational justice, POS, job satisfaction, OBSE) in the fourth step, and finally,
follower perceptions of their own OCBs in the fifth step. Regarding the second model,
instead of entering the composite measure of follower LMX in the second step, the four
different dimensions of LMX are entered at the second step, the mediators in the third
step (same as in the first model) and follower OCB at the fourth and final step. In
addition, in order to enable analyses of mediation in both models, the mediators are
regressed on LMX including the majority of the OCB antecedents as control variables.
As in the LMX regression analyses, as a further aid to determine the relative importance
of various antecedents of LMX, the backward deletion method was used at the last step.
The variables that were retained at the final step of the backward deletion procedure are
marked in the last column. All hypothesised antecedents of OCB (i.e. not all variables
included in the model) that correlate significantly with the dependent variable are also
marked in the last column. Furthermore, the significant hypothesised antecedents that
obtain inconsistent beta signs at different steps or signs that differ from the ones
obtained in the correlation matrix are marked. Very significant beta weights obtained
despite very low correlations (r <.1, p > .6) are also marked as these could be indicators
of potential multicollinearity problems. It should be noted again that the full hierarchical
model is the theoretical model, while the results obtained trough backward deletion and
the reported correlation coefficients serve only as additional aids during the
interpretation of results.
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses will be presented in tables with a
similar format to the LMX regression table format. The first column lists the
independent variables entered at each step, the next five columns present the results
(beta weights) of regressing the mediators on LMX and control variables, and the
following columns the results obtained at each step after adding different groups of
antecedents of OCB. The effect of the mediating variables can be examined by
comparing the results obtained at Step 3 and Step 4 with regard to the first model, and
by comparing the results obtained at Step 2 and Step 3 with regard to the second model.
As noted earlier, according to Baron and Kenny (1986), the following conditions should
be met for a independent variable-mediator-dependent variable relationship: the
independent variable (LMX) must affect the mediator (justice, POS, satisfaction,
372
OBSE) in the first equation; the independent variable (LMX) must affect the dependent
variable (OCB) in the second equation; the mediator must affect the dependent variable
(OCB) in the third equation; and finally, the effect of the independent variable (LMX)
on the dependent variable (OCB) must be less in the third equation than in the second
equation (Baron & Kenny, 1986: 1177). In certain cases, it is possible that LMX
influences the hypothesised mediator and that the mediator demonstrates a significant
effect on OCB, but that there at no stage is a direct relationship between LMX and
OCB. This type of relationship does not constitute a variable-mediator-dependent
variable relationship according to the definition of Baron and Kenny, but the stance
taken in the present study is that such relationships are relevant and that they will hence
be reported.
The results pertaining to the relationship between LMX and OCB in intercultural
Western-Chinese dyads will be presented first, continuing with the results obtained for
Chinese dyads.
a) OCB in intercultural dyads
The results of regressing OCB on follower LMX and hypothesised mediators and
moderators in intercultural dyads are presented in this section. Two tables are inserted
below. The first table reports the results obtained using the composite measure of
follower LMX quality to examine the relationship between LMX and OCB. The second
table reports the results obtained entering all the dimensions of follower LMX quality
instead of the composite measure and excluding the moderating factors. After the tables,
the results pertaining to each specific hypothesis are reported. The results obtained from
both models will be used to test the hypotheses. A significant effect demonstrated by a
hypothesised antecedent of OCB in either model (i.e. using either the composite score
or the dimensions of LMX) will be regarded as providing at last partial support for the
hypothesis.
373
Table 54: Results of regression analyses for relationship between overall
Independent variables
Step1: Control variables
Leader neuroticism
Leader agreeableness
Follower age
Follower gender
Follower position
Time in position
Follower neuroticism
Follower agreeableness
Follower conscientiousness
Follower collectivism
Follower individualism
Follower ren qin
Definition of job breadth
R2
F
Step 2: Follower LMX
Overall follower LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interactions
LMX x Job definition
LMX x Ren qin
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Mediators
Follower organisational justice
Follower POS
Follower job satisfaction
Follower OBSE
∆R2
∆F
Step 5: Follower OCB
LMX and OCB in intercultural dyads a
Mediators b
OCB from a leader perspective; intercultural dyads
Justice
POS
OBSE
Satis
FOCB
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
-.118
-.082
-.125
.160
-.229*
-.041
-.029
.134
.304*
.172†
-.080
.012
.017
.331
2.02*
.012
-.236*
-.064
-.056
-.042
-.094
-.164
.061
-.191†m
-.105
-.089
-.031
.018
.344.
2.14*
-.033
-.003
.235†
-.069
-.083
-.105
.012
.072
.363*
.279†
.378†
-.046
-.003
.488
2.62**
.180
.258
.279†
.369*
-.144
-.426*
-.214
-.005
.068
.391†
.229
.094
.093
.340
1.42
-.113
.006
.183
.136
-.098
-.340*
-.234
-.209†
-.048
.429*
.242
.020
.134 c
.418
1.91†
-.198
-.433**
-.327*
.087
-.270†
-.311*
-.487*
-.036
-.574***
.020
-.164
.082
-.118
.498
2.57**
-.143
-.458**
-.337*
.126
-.336†
-.325*
-.543*
-.046
-.599**
.048
-.127
.026
-.121
-.138
-.469**
-.333*
.053
-.289†
-.311*
-.476†
-.019
-.583**
-.036
-.144
.018
.066
-.395*
-.193
-.052
-.212
-.386*
-.526*
-.026
-.665**
.123
.235
.015
.077
-.401*☻
-.210☻
-.067
-.205☻
-.358*☻
-.503*☻
-.005
-.660**☻m ns
-.085
.217
.015
.303*r++
.067
5.38*
.003r++
.056
4.45*
.140r++
.039
2.63
.244
.032
.1.64
.378*r++
.066
3.97*
.105
.008
.464
.034
-.131
-.165
-.129
.171
.012
.352
-.151
.348†
-.166
.379†
.223†
-.124
.100
3.50*
†
.095***
.137*
.302
23.36***
-.069
.539**
.010
.112
2.99*
-.225
.146
.146
.015
.237
-.136mr+
.266r++
-.092
.411**r+
.139
2.68*
.207
.483*
-.192
-.280†
.154
2.90*
.221r+
.460*☻r+
-.182r--.317†m
374
Follower OCB
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
.398
.235
2.44**
.702
.605
7.23***
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
c
Weight obtained at Step 2 before removal of the variable
☻Variable retained at last step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.638
.439
3.2**
.388
.050
1.14
.086
.002
.177
.671
.410
2.58**
.664
.431
2.68*
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
375
Table 55: Results of regression analyses for relationship between LMX
Independent variables
Step1: Control variables
Leader neuroticism
Leader agreeableness
Follower age
Follower gender
Follower position
Time in position
Follower neuroticism
Follower agreeableness
Follower conscientiousness
Follower collectivism
Follower individualism
Definition of job breadth
R2
F
Step 2: Follower LMX
Affect
Loyalty
Contribution
Respect
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Mediators
Follower organisational justice
Follower POS
Follower job satisfaction
Follower OBSE
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower OCB
Follower OCB
∆R2
∆F
dimensions and OCB in intercultural dyads a
Mediators b
OCB; leader perspective, intercultural dyads
Justice
POS
OBSE
Satis
FOCB
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
-.152
-.037
-.086
.257*
-.220*
.035
-.081
.098
.276*
.210
-.048
.064
.331
1.98*
.088
-.246**
-.136
.023
-.047
-.088
-.160
.022
-.246*m
-.136
-.053
-.016
.349
2.14*
-.091
-.016
.283*
-.082
-.042
-.066
-.064
.148
.408**
.301†
.326
.052
.489
2.56**
.169
.250
.280
.297
-.046
-.427*
-.159
.009
.078
.421†
.246
.063
.365
1.53
-.175
.153
.150
.034
.119
-.257†
-.161
-.350*
-.099
.172
.107
.107
.423
1.96†
-.247*
-.378**
-.284†
-.028
-.182
-.258†
-.315†
.004
-.492**
.022
-.205
-.086
.464
2.13*
-.191
.402*
-.284†
.034
-.244
-.262†
-.401*
-.018
-.537*
.032
-.154
-.063
.018
-.389*
-.142
-.107
-.181
-.367*
-.362†
.091
-.566*
.267
.214
-.096
.028
-.397*
-.151
-.109
-.188
-.352*☻
-.353☻
.111
-.560*☻m
.257
.208
-.102
.157
.099
-.169m
.345**
.157
3.37**
.027
-.076
.196*
.034
.123
2.57*
.169
.123
-.213*m
-.116
.081
1.33
-.143
.308†
-.015
.135
.090
1.16
.098
-.100
.155r+
.200r+
.072
.996
.078
.093
-.065
.079
.021
.280
-.070
.208
-.109
-.105
-.076
.213
-.117m
-.116m
.643**
-.066
.572**
.045
-.204
.151
-.229mr+
.302r++
-.087
.450*r+
.151
2.55†
.299
.395†
-.204
-.164
.135
2.12
.312r+
.378*☻r+
-.199☻r--.190
.293*
.260
20.37***
.117
3.14*
.077
.016
.247
.057
.001
.069
376
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
.488
.301
2.62**
.732
.617
6.37***
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variable retained at last step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.668
.451
2.91**
.470
.068
1.17
.646
.351
2.18*
.621
.274
1.79†
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
377
b) OCB in intracultural Chinese dyads
The results of regressing OCB on follower LMX and hypothesised mediators and
moderators in Chinese dyads are presented in this section. Two tables are inserted
below. As in the previous section, the first table reports the results obtained using the
composite measure of follower LMX quality to examine the relationship between LMX
and OCB. The second table reports the results obtained entering all the dimensions of
follower LMX quality instead of the composite measure and excluding the moderating
factors. After the tables, the results pertaining to each specific hypothesis are reported.
378
Table 56: Results of regression analyses for relationship between overall LMX and OCB in Chinese dyads a
Independent variables
Step1: Control variables
Leader neuroticism
Leader agreeableness
Follower age
Follower gender
Follower position
Time in position
Follower neuroticism
Follower agreeableness
Follower conscientiousness
Follower collectivism
Follower individualism
Follower ren qin
Definition of job breadth
R2
F
Step 2: Follower LMX
Overall follower LMX
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Interactions
LMX x Job definition
LMX x Ren qin
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Mediators
Follower organisational justice
Follower POS
Follower job satisfaction
Follower OBSE
∆R2
Mediators b
OCB; leader perspective, Chinese dyads
Justice
POS
OBSE
Satis
FOCB
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
-.003
.031
.143
.082
-.017
-.082
-.289**
.012
-.029
.028
-.010
.112
.316**
.278
2.35**
.022
-.030
.020
.075
-.016
-.014
-.040
-.031
.026
-.067
-.103†
.098
.087†
.027
-.004
-.159
-.098
-.006
-.087
.108
.094
.028
-.508
-.021
.094
.090
.068
.389
-.132
.012
.198†
.128
-.041
.040
-.042
.020
.223†
.104
-.107
.020
.240**c
.455
4.46***
-.194†
-.006
.277*
.019
-.264*
-.247*
.089
.082
-.110
.204†
-.348*
.082
-.042
.339
2.73**
-.198*
.013
.283*
.055
-.347**
-.200*
.071
.026
-.147
-.177
-.321*
.026
-.069
-.180†
.034
.272*
.037
-.359**
-.195*
.089
.018
-.134
-.171
-.360**
.018
-
-.186†
.011
.258*
.028
-.327**
-.195†
.118
.015
-.183
-.187
-.359*
.015
-
-.192†
.011
.266*☻
.033
-.328**☻
-.193†m
.116
.015
-.173m
-.183m
-.364*☻
.102
-
3.34***
.090
.222**
.166*
-.044
.059
.093
-.083
-.046
.467***
.218*
.084
.076
-.091
.535
6.15***
.327*
.083
9.36**
.120*
.113
15.35***
.119
.069
10.9***
.104
.009
.594
-.066m
.024
2.90†
.276**
.057
5.96**
.501**
.460*
.457*☻
-.116
-.204
.016
.821
-.171
-.207
-.156
-.207
.015
.093
.064
.075
.015
.006
.097
.063
.084
.-.467
-.001
.002
.146
.642***
.235**
.355
.071
.347*
-.030
.086
.477*
-.330
-.084
.057
-.193
.101
-.028
.200
.022
379
∆F
Step 5: Follower OCB
Follower OCB
∆R2
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
70.16***
.361
.246
3.14***
.823
.785
21.70***
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
c
obtained at Step 2 before removal of the variable
☻Weight
Variable retained at last step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
5.53***
.690
.607
8.37***
1.32
.134
-.107
.580
.647
.387
-.043
.001
.092
.427
.237
2.24*
.497
.341
3.19***
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
380
Table 57: Results of regression analyses for relationship between LMX dimensions and OCB in Chinese dyads a
Independent variables
Step1: Control variables
Leader neuroticism
Leader agreeableness
Follower age
Follower gender
Follower position
Time in position
Follower neuroticism
Follower agreeableness
Follower conscientiousness
Follower collectivism
Follower individualism
Definition of job breadth
R2
F
Step 2: Follower LMX
Affect
Loyalty
Contribution
Respect
∆R2
∆F
Step 3: Mediators
Follower organisational justice
Follower POS
Follower job satisfaction
Follower OBSE
∆R2
∆F
Step 4: Follower OCB
Follower OCB
∆R2
Mediators b
OCB; leader perspective, Chinese dyads
Justice
POS
OBSE
Satis
FOCB
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
-.053
.015
.116
.103
-.042
-.101
-.255*
-.028
-.032
.118
.054
.306**
.278
2.31**
.021
-.030
.009
.086†
-.025
-.003
-.042
-.031
.039
-.043
-.092
.084†
.335
3.31***
.107
.228**
.158†
-.034
-.030
.119†
-.095
-.041
.486***
.211*
.092
-.088
.533
5.99***
-.104
-.035
-.215
-.089
-.027
.061
.098
.061
-.038
.015
.024
.110
.070
.394
-.130
.030
.166
.118
-.052
.067
-.052
.041
.224
.128
-.066
.277
.454
4.36***
-.193*
-.008
.276*
.018
-.264*
-.244*
.089
.085
-.111
-.201†
-.346*
-.044
.338
2.68**
-.198*
.060
.297*
.011
-.395**
-.169†
.122
.104
-.083
-.137
-.227†
-.053
-.199*
.029
.290*
.005
-.355**
-.172†
.145
.104
-.147
-.172
-.239†
-.082
-.206*☻
.031
.299*☻
.011
-.358**
-.169†m☻
.142
.106
-.135m☻
-.166m
-.243†
-.067
.221*
.060
-.025
.267*
.160
4.8**
.089
.045
.073
.006
.168
6.01***
.010
.059
.149†
-.088
.083
3.17**
.035
-.100
-.010
.285†
.087
1.53
-.054
.058
.095
.120
.035
1.02
-.217†
.318**
-.008
.252†
.099
2.60*
-.245†
.285*
-.015
.209
-.248†ns corr
.288*r+
-.010m
.216
.630***
.149
.304*
-.008
.362
-.309†
-.167
.069
-.032
.202
.018
.501
.038
.047
.061
.104
.014
.349
.029
.050☻
.059
.115
.223**
.307
59.63***
.085
5.30**
-.022
.027
.628
-.054
.001
381
∆F
Final R2
Final adjusted R2
Final F
.438
.305
3.31***
.830
.784
17.98***
Entries are standardised regression coefficients (β)
Entries (β) obtained at final stage of analysis
☻Variable retained at last step using backward deletion
m
Result probably confounded by multicollinearity
.701
.599
6.90***
.184
-.093
.664
.142
.453
.240
2.13*
.507
.328
2.83***
a
b
†
p < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
one-tailed tests
EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE
Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan
Publications of the Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration
88. JANNE VIITANEN: Auditors' Professional Ethics and Factors Associated with
Disciplinary Cases against Auditors. Helsingfors 2000.
89. SIMO LEHTONEN: Venture Capitalist's Exit Vehicles and Their Effects on
Perceived Utility, Allocation of Rewards and Contract Structure. Helsingfors 2000.
90. KAREN SPENS: Managing Critical Resources through Supply Network Management - A Study of the Finnish Blood Supply Network. Helsingfors 2001.
91. RONNIE SÖDERMAN: Essays on Derivatives Risk Management - Examining the
Pricing and Monitoring Processes of Financial Derivatives. Helsingfors 2001.
78. INGER ROOS: Switching Paths in Customer Relationships. Helsingfors 2001. 2 tr.
2nd pr.
92. RITVA KINNUNEN: Creating and Testing of Service Ideas and Service Production
Concepts. Helsingfors 2001.
93. KIM SUNDKVIST: Essays on Option Pricing with Smiles and Non-Constant
Volatility. Helsingfors 2001.
94. PÄIVI VOIMA: Negative Internal Critical-Incident Processes - Windows on
Relationship Change. Helsingfors 2001.
95. DARYOUSH FARSIMADAN: Reforming Public Administration Based on New
Public Management Concepts. The Case of the Public Administration Reform in
Kyrgyz Republic. Helsingfors 2001.
96. PETER ZASHEV: IMF in Eastern Europe - Success or Failure? International
Monetary Fund Operations in Eastern Europe - Comparing the Results. Helsingfors
2001.
97. THOMAS SANDVALL: Essays on Mutual Fund Performance Evaluation. Helsingfors 2001.
98. MIKAEL VIKSTRÖM: Essays on Option Pricing and Trading - Evaluating the
Effects of Dividends and Different Time Units in the Pricing Models. Helsingfors
2001.
99. KIRSTI LINDBERG-REPO: Customer Relationship Communication - Analysing
Communication from a Value Generating Perspective. Helsingfors 2001.
100. JAN-ERIK KRUSBERG: Studies on Dumping and Antidumping Policy in Finland.
Helsingfors 2001.
101. JAN-MAGNUS CEDERLÖF: Ecological Modernisation and Market-based Policy
Instruments. The Use of New Instruments in Environmental Policy in Finland and
Sweden. Helsingfors 2001.
102. AKU PENTTINEN: Peso Problems in the Level and Volatility of Stock Returns.
Helsingfors 2001.
103. INGALILL ASPHOLM: Rättsekonomisk analys av revisors skadeståndsansvar i
Norden. Helsingfors 2002.
104. JUHANI PEKKOLA: Etätyö Suomessa - Fyysiset, virtuaaliset, sosiaaliset ja henkiset työtilat etätyöympäristöinä. Svensk resumé. English Summary. Helsinki 2002.
105. MATS EHRNROOTH: Strategic Soft Human Resource Management - The Very
Idea. An Exploration Into a Social Science. Helsingfors 2002.
106. PIA POLSA: Power and Distribution Network Structure in the People's Republic of
China - The Case of an Inland City in Transition. Helsingfors 2002.
107. JOAKIM WESTERHOLM: The Relationship between Liquidity, Trading Activity
and Return - Studies of the Finnish and Swedish Stock Markets. Helsingfors 2002.
108. ANDERS EKHOLM: Essays on Stock Market Reactions to New Information.
Helsingfors 2002.
109. DANIEL PASTERNACK: Essays on Stock Options, Incentives, and Managerial
Action. Helsingfors 2002.
110. NIKLAS AHLGREN: Inference on Cointegration in Vector Autoregressive Models.
Helsingfors 2002.
111. HELI ARANTOLA: Relationship Drivers in Provider - Consumer Relationships.
Empirical Studies of Customer Loyalty Programs. Helsingfors 2002.
112. RICHARD OWUSU: Collective Network Capability in International Project
Business Networks - A Case Study of the Business Network for the Ashanti
Electrification Project in Ghana. Helsingfors 2003.
113. WILHELM BARNER-RASMUSSEN: Knowledge Sharing in Multinational
Corporations. A Social Capital Perspective. Helsingfors 2003.
114. MOHAMMED ABA AL-KHAIL: Essays on the Determinants of International
Portfolio Investments. Helsingfors 2003.