Cited by 3,005Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and LeadershipTeam Dynamics and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues.

Gerstner, Charlotte R., Day, David V.·1997·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

The leader-member exchange (LMX) literature is reviewed using meta-analysis. Relationships between LMX and its correlates are examined, as are issues related to the LMX construct, including measurement and leader-member agreement. Results suggest significant relationships between LMX and job performance, satisfaction with supervision, overall satisfaction, commitment, role conflict, role clarity, member competence, and turnover intentions. The relationship between LMX and actual turnover was not significant. Leader and member LMX perceptions were only moderately related. Partial support was found for measurement instrument and perspective (i.e., leader vs. member) as moderators of the relationships between LMX and its correlates. Meta-analysis showed that the LMX7 (7-item LMX) measure has the soundest psychometric properties of all instruments and that LMX is congruent with numerous empirical relationships associated with transformational leadership. Within the broad area of organizationa l leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has evolved into one of the more interesting and useful approaches for studying hypothesized linkages between leadership processes and outcomes. First proposed by Graeri and colleagues (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman, 1975), LMX is distinguished from other leadership theories by its focus on the dyadic relationship between a leader and a member. Unlike traditional theories that seek to explain leadership as a function of personal characteristics of the leader, features of the situation, or an interaction between the two, LMX is unique in its adoption of the dyadic relationship as the level of analysis. Although the theory has been modified and expanded

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 117 · Cited by 3,005

Metadata

Authors
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
1997-12
Volume
82
Issue
6
Pages
827-844
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W1997571096
Cited by
3,005
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 153 · 2021: 147 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 160 · 2018: 137 · 2017: 146 · 2016: 176 · 2015: 199 · 2014: 178 · 2013: 161 · 2012: 177
FWCI
34.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
leader-member exchange, LMX theory, employee performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, role conflict, role clarity, turnover intention, turnover, transformational leadership

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review