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.
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Its quality is predictive of outcomes at the individual, group and organizational level (Gerstner & Day, 1997), including employee engagement.”
From Servant Leadership and Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Study (2022) · cites this paper as Gerstner & Day, 1997
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)
- ORCID
- Day, David V.
- 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