Fulfilled Expectations about Leaders Predict Engagement through LMX

Main Article Content

Andreea Petrus

Abstract

Drawing on the bandwidth-fidelity principle (Cronbach & Glaser, 1957), this paper challenges the use of broad Implicit
Leadership Theories (ILTs) domains in predicting organizational outcomes (i.e., prototypic ILTs and anti-prototypic
ILTs) and provides preliminary arguments for examining ILTs narrow traits (e.g., sensitivity, intelligence) effects on
LMX and consequently on work engagement. Specifically, using polynomial regression and response surface
methodology, I examined the effects of followers’ ideal-actual ILTs congruence on LMX. Additionally, using the block
variable approach, I tested the mediation effects of LMX on the relationship between ideal-actual ILTs congruence and
work engagement, on a sample of 68 employees. The results showed that followers’ fulfilled expectations about
sensitivity and tyranny had linear effects on LMX, indicating the generalized benefits for leaders to be high on sensitivity
and low on tyranny to enhance followers’ LMX. Intelligence, dedication, dynamism, and masculinity had non-linear
effects, revealing that fulfilling followers’ expectations are the best option for leaders to develop high-quality
relationships with their followers. The mediation hypothesis received partly support, suggesting that additional
mechanisms can explain the relationship between followers’ ideal-actual ILTs congruence and work engagement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Petrus, A. (2020). Fulfilled Expectations about Leaders Predict Engagement through LMX. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v18i2.475
Section
Research articles

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Andreea A. Petruș
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance:
the importance of narrow traits. Journal of
Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 289-303.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199805)19:3<289::AID-JOB841>3.0.CO;2-C
Ayman, R., & Chemers, M. M. (1983). Relationship of
supervisory behavior ratings to work group
effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction among
Iranian managers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68(2),
338–341.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.68.2.338
Bakker, A.B. (2014). The Job Demands–Resources
Questionnaire. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job Demands-
Resources theory. In C. Cooper & P. Chen (Eds.),
Wellbeing: A complete reference guide. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–
resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3),
273-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Biermeier-Hanson, B., & Coyle, P. (2019). Investigating
leader role congruity and counterproductive work
behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 153(8), 820-
842.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1627274
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life.
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Van den
Heuvel, M. (2015). Leader-member exchange, work
engagement, and job performance. Journal of
Managerial
Psychology,
30,
754-770.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-03-2013-0088
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers
should expect from authors regarding common
method bias in organizational research. Journal of
Business
and
Psychology,
25,
325–334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Coyle, P. T., & Foti, R. (2015). If You’re not with me,
you’re . . .? examining prototypes and cooperation in
Leader–Follower
relationships.
Journal
of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(2), 161-
174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814550830
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological
tests and personnel decisions. University of Illinois
Press.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic
review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.82.6.827
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size
guidelines for individual differences researchers.
Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74-78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based
approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-
247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Huell, F., Vincent-Höper, S., Bürkner, P. C., Gregersen,
S., Holling, H. & Nienhaus, A. (2017). Leader-
Member Exchange and Employee Well-Being: A
Meta-Analysis. Academy of Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.13537abstractFulfilled expectations about leaders and LMX
Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership
theory as a determinant of the factor structure
underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736−741. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736
Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores:
Polynomial regression analysis and response surface
methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. W. Schmitt (Eds.),
Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350-
400). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value
congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3),
654-677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998).
Person environment fit theory: Conceptual
foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for
future research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of
organizational stress (pp. 28–67). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of
polynomial regression equations as an alternative to
difference scores in organizational research. Academy
of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256822
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership
theories in applied settings: Factor structure,
generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of
Applied
Psychology,
89(2),
293-310.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A
longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership
theories on leader-member exchanges and employee
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659-
676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition.
Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley
Publishing
Company.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons
from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a
good thing: The curvilinear effect of leader-member
exchange on stress. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 146, 65–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/
SOCP.146.1.65-84
Jenkins, M., & Griffith, R. (2004). Using personality
constructs to predict performance: Narrow or broad
bandwidth. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19(2), 255-269. . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
004-0551-9
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The
Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and
Initiating Structure in Leadership Research. Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
89(1),
36–51.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Junker, N. M., Schyns, B., van Dick, R., & Scheurer, S.
(2011).
Die Bedeutung der Führungskräfte-
Kategorisierung für Commitment, Arbeitszufriedenheit
und Wohl- befinden unter Berücksichtigung der
Geschlechterrollentheorie. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie,
55(4),
171-179.
https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000055
Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in
organizational settings: A systematic review and
121
research agenda of implicit leadership and
followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly,
25(6), 1154-1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2014.09.002
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An
Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2),
263-291. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185?origin
=JSTOR-pdf
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual
differences and implicit leadership theories. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589-607. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00033-8
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership
sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2),
141-160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)
00007-9
Khorakian, A., & Sharifirad, M.S. (2019). Integrating
Implicit Leadership Theories, Leader-Member
Exchange, Self-Efficacy, and Attachment Theory to
Predict Job Performance. Psychological Reports,
122(3), 1117-1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294
118773400
Leung, A., & Sy, T. (2018). I am as incompetent as the
prototypical group member: An investigation of
naturally occurring golem effects in work groups.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1581. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01581
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test
of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure,
information processing, and leadership perceptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
34, 343−378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)
90043-6
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and
information processing: Linking perceptions and
performance. Boston: Routledge.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994).
Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and
generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43-
58. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1
Quaquebeke, N. V., Graf, M. M., & Eckloff, T. (2014).
What do leaders have to live up to? contrasting the
effects of central tendency versus ideal-based leader
prototypes in leader categorization processes.
Leadership, 10(2), 191-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1742715013476081
Rahn, D. L., Jawahar, I., Scrimpshire, A. J., & Stone, T.
(2016). Are leaders defined by followers? role of
follower’s ILT and the mediating influence of LMX
on follower outcomes. Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, 3(1), 43-69.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-04-2015-0016
Riggs, B. S., & Porter, C. O. L. H. (2017). Are there
advantages to seeing leadership the same? A test of
the mediating effects of LMX on the relationship
between ILT congruence and employees'
development. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 285-
299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.009
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The
Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An
Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership
Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5),
635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509122
Rosenthal, R. (1993). Interpersonal expectations: Some
antecedents and some consequences. In P. D. Blanck
(Ed.), Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research,
and applications. Studies in emotion and social
interaction (pp. 3–24). New York, NY, US:
Cambridge University Press.
Rueb, J. D., Erskine, H. J., & Foti, R. J. (2008).
Intelligence, dominance, masculinity, and self-
monitoring: Predicting leadership emergence in a
military setting. Military Psychology, 20(4), 237–
252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600802345139
Rupprecht, E. A., Kueny, C. R., Shoss, M. K., & Metzger,
A. J. (2016). Getting what you want: How fit between
desired and received leader sensitivity influences
emotion and counterproductive work behavior.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(4),
443-454. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040074
Salgado, J. F. (2017). Bandwidth-Fidelity Dilemma. In V.
Zeigler-Hill, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.).
Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual
Differences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-28099-8_1280-1
Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S.
C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression
with response surface analysis: A powerful approach
for examining moderation and overcoming
Andreea A. Petruș
limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25(4), 543-554. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4
Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010).
Developments in implicit leadership theory and
cognitive science: Applications to improving
measurement and understanding alternatives to
hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
21(6), 959-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2010.10.004
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-
based interactionist model of job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500-517.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.8
Wang, X., & Peng, J. (2016). The effect of implicit-
explicit followership congruence on benevolent
leadership: Evidence from Chinese family firms.
Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 812-812. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2016.00812
Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders'
conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally
occurring pygmalion effects. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23(5), 822-834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.
2012.03.006