CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 835Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and ManagementEmployee Performance and Leadership

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 269 of the 275 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta‐Analytic Review

Open access
Martin, Robin, Guillaume, Yves, Thomas, Geoff, Lee, Allan, Epitropaki, Olga·2016·Personnel Psychology
DOI 10.1111/peps.12100
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper reports a meta‐analysis that examines the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship quality and a multidimensional model of work performance (task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance). The results show a positive relationship between LMX and task performance (146 samples, ρ = .30) as well as citizenship performance (97 samples, ρ = .34), and negatively with counterproductive performance (19 samples, ρ = ‒.24). Of note, there was a positive relationship between LMX and objective task performance (20 samples, ρ = .24). Trust, motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction mediated the relationship between LMX and task and citizenship performance with trust in the leader having the largest effect. There was no difference due to LMX measurement instrument (e.g., LMX7, LMX‐MDM). Overall, the relationship between LMX and performance was weaker when (a) measures were obtained from a different source or method and (b) LMX was measured by the follower than the leader (with common source‐ and method‐biased effects stronger for leader‐rated LMX quality). Finally, there was evidence for LMX leading to task performance but not for reverse or reciprocal directions of effects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/peps.12100

Cites

269 of 269 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 275 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1037//0022-3514.48.2.393 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1037//0021-9010.81.3.282 · DOI
  3. Basu R, 1991, An empirical examination of LMX and transformational leadership as predictors of innovative behavior
  4. 10.1111/j.15591816.1997.tb00643.x · DOI
  5. Campbell JP, 1990, Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 687
  6. *ChenC ChangW HuC. (2007).The relationship between leader‐member exchange trust supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior: A case study of nurses. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference Melbourne Australia.
  7. Doyle S, 2006, The role of organizational citizenship behavior in volunteer organizations
  8. 10.2307/256698 · DOI
  9. Erdogan B, 2002, Leader‐member exchange differentiation fairness: Evidence for a new construct
  10. Erdogan B, 2002, Leadership, 65
  11. 10.1037//0033-295X.102.4.652 · DOI · Paper page
  12. *GaaSM.(2010).An exploratory analysis of the relationships between leadership safety climate and organizational citizenship behavior within high‐containment biosafety laboratories. Unpublished Thesis. Capella University. UMI Number: 3412440.
  13. Gandolfo CJ, 2006, The role of Leader‐member exchange theory and multi‐rater feedback on evaluating the performance appraisal process
  14. 10.1037//0021-9010.82.6.827 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Graen GB, 1975, Leadership, 143
  16. 10.1037//0021-9010.68.2.298 · DOI
  17. Greenwood DM, 2000, Is anybody listening? Individual differences in reactions to performance feedback
  18. 10.1348/096317905×53859 · DOI
  19. 10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.819 · DOI
  20. Hackman JR, 1980, Work redesign
  21. 10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1037//0021-9010.84.2.286 · DOI
  23. 10.1348/096317908×292374 · DOI
  24. 10.1177/014920630202800402 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/014920639802400105 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Michael DF, 2004, Gender differences in information‐exchange and outcomes at work
  27. Murphy KR., 1989, Testing: Applied and theoretical perspectives, 218
  28. Murphy KR, 1995, Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal‐oriented perspectives
  29. Muthén L, 1998, Mplus
  30. Ouyang Y, 2011, An exploration of LMX and personal guanxi on job performance: The mediating effects of CSR, Journal of Global Business Issues, 5, 1
  31. Podsakoff PM, 1998, Appendix: Measures and Assessments for the Substitutes for Leadership Approach, Monographs in Organisational Behavior and Industrial Relations, 24, 259
  32. Schaninger WS, 2002, The workplace social exchange network: An empirical examination
  33. Shalhoop JH, 2004, Social‐exchange as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and workplace outcomes
  34. Smith PC, 1987, Manual for the revised JD1 and job in general scales
  35. 10.1177/0013161×06290648 · DOI
  36. 10.2307/3069458 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00023-0 · DOI
  38. Williams LJ, 1989, Longitudinal field methods for studying reciprocal relationships in organizational behavior research: Toward improved causal analysis, Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 247
  39. Yuan L, 2007, A motivational model of organizational citizenship behavior

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 835

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Aston University (GB)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Martin, Robin
ORCID
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-25
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
67-121
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/peps.12100
OpenAlex
W2096370644
Cited by
809
References
275
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 5
FWCI
87.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
Keywords
leader-member exchange, employee performance, task performance, citizenship performance, trust in leadership, methodological bias, reciprocal effects

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