A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE, EFFECTIVENESS AND PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN WORK ORGANISATIONS

BY KWABENA NKANSAH SIMPEH

THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF M.PHIL PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE

©Kwabena Nkansah Simpeh

SEPTEMBER 2003

i

DECLARATION I Kwabena Nkansah Simpeh, author of this thesis, do hereby declare that the work presented here was done by me as a student of the Department of Psychology, University of Ghana, Legon, 2002/2003 academic year under the supervision of Dr.Robert Akuamoah-Boateng and Dr.Agyepong Afrifa.All references to other literature have been duly acknowledged. This work has never been submitted in whole or part for any degree of this University or elsewhere. This has been submitted for examination with approval by my supervisors.

Signature of Student

------------------------------------------------------(Kwabena Nkansah Simpeh)

Signature of Supervisor

---------------------------------------------------------(Dr.Robert Akuamoah –Boateng)

Signature of Supervisor

---------------------------------------------------------(Dr.Agyepong Afrifa)

ii

DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to the glory of God.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to my Supervisors Dr.Robert Akuamoah Boateng and Dr.Agyepong Afrifa who took time to read and made the necessary criticisms, suggestions and corrections in the course of writing this thesis.

My special thanks also go to Mr. Jonathan Ocansey, Human Resource Manager Fan Milk Limited, Mr.Aryeh Human Resource Director and Mrs. Louisa Mc Carthy Turkson HR Officer of Accra Breweries Limited, Mr, Bright Osei, Graphic Communications Group, Mr.Sarfo Prempeh of Nestle Ghana Limited and Mr.Ampadu of Ghana Breweries. Without your help this work could not have been completed. To all employees who participated in the study, I am very grateful.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT CHAPTER ONE 1.0. Introduction CHAPTER TWO 2.0. Literature Review 2.1. Research Hypotheses 2.2. Definition of Terms CHAPTER THREE 3.0. Research Methodology 3.1. Population 3.2. Sample 3.3. Research Instruments 3.4. Procedure CHAPTER FOUR 4.0. Results CHAPTER FIVE 5.0. Discussion 5.1 Conclusion 5.2 Limitations of the study 5.3 Recommendations References Appendices 77 97 98 100 57 47 47 47 49 55 11 39 42 1 ii iii iv v vi viii

v

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1 Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four factors of LMX and Organizational Effectiveness Table 4.2 Summary of Pearson Product –Moment Correlation between LMX and Organizational Effectiveness Table 4.3 Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four Components of LMX and Perception of Change Table 4.4 Summary of Pearson’s product –moment correlation between LMX and perception of change 63 58 60 61

Table 4.5 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the Impact of Sex and Level of LMX on employees Effectiveness Table 4.6 Summary of Two–way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to Which Sex and Level of LMX Predict effectiveness of Employees Table 4.7 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations Scores on the Influence of Sex and LMX on Perception of change among Employees Table 4.8 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to Which Sex and LMX Influence Perception of change Table 4.9 Summary of Newman Kuel’s multiple comparisons following 2-way ANOVA to determine which two means precisely interact in predicting perception of change Table 4.10 Summary of Means and standard deviations showing the extent to which Job status and LMX influence Effectiveness

65 66

67 68

69

70

Table 4.11 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Influence of Employee Job Status and LMX influence Effectiveness Table 4.12 Summary of Means and standard deviations showing the impact of education and LMX influence Effectiveness ble 4.13 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Education and LMX influence Effectiveness vi

71 72 Ta 73

Table 4.14 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of age and LMX on Effectiveness Table 4.15 Summary of Two – way Analysis of Variance showing the extent to which age and LMX impact on Effectiveness

74 75

vii

ABSTRACT The combined effect of leader-member interaction on leader effectiveness is an emerging area of research. The importance of this study is to investigate the combined effect of leader-member interaction on effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations. Two hundred participants of middle and line staff with standard seven/Junior secondary school certificate to Higher National Diploma/Degree were drawn from the population for the study. The participants were systematically selected from the production departments of five manufacturing organizations. . Out of the two hundred participants, one hundred and eighty six (186) participants completed the questionnaire and returned them. This resulted in ninety three percent (93%) return rate. Thirty -six (36) were rejected because some participants failed to fill the questionnaires well. This resulted in a total of one hundred and fifty (150) completed questionnaires for analysis. All participants were given questionnaires, which measured the LMX interaction, effectiveness and perception of change at work. The study found that there was a positive and significant relationship between LMX and employees effectiveness. Again LMX was positively and significantly related to perception of change. However, affect and professional respect, two of the four factors of LMX, had significant effect on effectiveness in work organizations. The same effect was recorded between contribution and employees perception of change. In addition, sex, job status and education of employees also impacted on the study of LMX. However, the age of employees had no impact on the LMX. These findings provide further empirical evidence of the importance of studying Leader-member exchange (LMX) through a multi-dimensional approach.

viii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Leadership, effectiveness and change in work organizations are very important components to any profit or non-profit making organization. Their importance explains why researches on these three concepts have been widely conceptualized and tested in psychology, management and military studies.

The area of leadership and leadership effectiveness is full of theory, most of which emphasize leader traits, behavior, personality and interaction between leader behavior and the situation. The combined effect of leader-member interaction on leader effectiveness is an emerging area of research. The importance of this study is to investigate the combined effect of leader-member interaction on effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations.

In line with this, four main aims have been outlined in this study. To establish a positive significant relationship among affect, loyalty, contribution, professional respect and effectiveness in work organizations. To establish a positive significant relationship among affect, loyalty, contribution, professional respect and perception of change in work organizations. To investigate whether the strength of the relationship among leadermember exchange (LMX), effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations. Finally the study is aimed at investigating the impact of sex or gender on the leadermember exchange.

ix

By investigating these relationships a clearer understanding of the three concepts: leadership, effectiveness and change will be achieved. This could serve as the basis for the formulation of a comprehensive framework of how leadership relates to effectiveness and change in work organizations.

Given the volume of research on leadership, one might assume that psychologists are in fairly good agreement about what leadership is. Unfortunately, this is not the case; Bass (1990) describe the situation well when he said, “There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.”

In defining leadership (Bernard, 1986; Jenkins, 1947) referred to certain personality traits or characteristics as constituting leadership. Thus, people with such traits have the potential to influence others and become leaders, whereas people without them are destined to be followers. The emphasis on great leaders directed researchers’ attention to identifying the characteristics that distinguish leaders from non-leaders. Hence most leadership research was designed to identify such traits.

Stodgill (1948) reviewed the early literature on leader traits, and found consistent evidence that leaders were higher than other work-group members on such characteristics as intelligence, scholarship, dependability, activity, participation, and socio-economic status. Stodgill also found that leaders tended to score higher on measures of sociability,

x

initiative, persistence, self-confidence, insight, popularity, adaptability, cooperativeness, verbal skill and task knowledge. House & Baetz, (1979) unlike using personality traits in explaining leadership saw leadership as influence, that is to say leader behavior has some desired effect on follower behavior. This approach does not really suggest why leaders are effective or why some people are better leaders in a given situation, though it does stress that leadership involves getting others to do what the leader wants. In effect, the leader’s role is what matters.

While others viewed leadership as certain personality trait or influence, others looked at leadership as behavior. Thus, leadership is defined here as the behaviors in which the leaders engage (Fiedler, 1967; Hemphill, 1949). In practice, this approach has virtually always equated leadership with managerial or supervisory behavior, meaning ineffective leadership results when supervisors engage in the wrong behaviors.

The significant difference between this approach and the definition of leadership as influence is that, if you view leadership as influence, then you must examine the behavior of the followers to see whether or not leadership has taken place. On the other hand, when leadership is looked as simply the behavior of the people in supervisory positions, then we have not taken into account reactions of the follower.

Subsequently, power is introduced as the basis for leadership. French & Raven (1959) have described power as the extent to which one person (the Leader) can expend more force on other group members than they in turn can exert to resist the leaders intentions.

xi

It should be noted that power depends on the reactions of followers as well as the behavior of leaders. In fact, unlike most leadership explanations, the power approach does not also automatically assume that supervisors and managers are the only leaders in an organization. Depending on their ability to influence others, all members of an organization can, at times, be leaders.

A close analysis of these leadership theories has not been completely satisfactory. They tend to argue their point from the leaders perspective, making the leader the cardinal focus in their analysis. For example, the presence of certain personality traits or

particular behaviors has not been explained satisfactorily to constitute leadership.

In the writing of Stodgill, he admits that people do not become leaders simply because they possess a certain combination of traits, but rather because the traits must be appropriate for the situations in which leaders find themselves. In other words,

leadership depends on the characteristics of the leader and those of the environment. The environmental characteristics include such things as the follower, organizational goals, and competition from outside the group. It is the first component (the follower’s

behavior) that has engaged the researcher’s attention.

Contrary to previous explanations to leadership, the present study is focused on the importance of the quality of exchange between leader and member/follower. researcher intends to examine how these exchanges affect leaders’ behavior. The This

exchange (LMX) is the basis for the present study. It is against this background that the

xii

study proposes a dyadic relationship approach usually referred to as leader-member exchange theory to explain the concept of leadership.

This approach is a fairly recent development in leadership research, where leadership depends not only on the behavior, personality, power, goal achievement and attribution of the leader but essentially on the reactions of the followers, which in turn have implications for the leader’s subsequent behavior. The leader-member exchange

approach conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered in the interaction between leaders and followers (Dansereau, Graen &Haga, 1975; Graen, Novak &Sommerkamp, 1982; Liden &Graen, 1980).

According to Yukl (1998), Leader-member exchange (LMX) describes how a leader and an individual subordinate develop a relationship as they influence each other and negotiate the subordinate’s role in the organization. The negotiation occurs during the role formation process. This process involves three important phases. During the first phase, role taking, the member enters the organization and the leader assesses his or her abilities and talents. Based on this assessment, the leader provides opportunities for the member to “take” a specific role. At the second phase, role making, the leader and the member engage in unstructured and informal negotiation. It must however be

emphasized that it is during the second phase that the member begins to “make” a role. During the third phase, role routinization, an on going social exchange pattern emerges. This entire role formation process is expected to occur early in the member’s tenure with the leader.

xiii

The role formation process develops through a mechanism referred to as “Negotiating latitude”. This negotiation occurs through series of exchanges or interactions between the leader and the member. As the relationship develops, the latitude given to the subordinate by the supervisor increases. This latitude, which makes the exchanges

greater, is linked to member perceptions of the degree of empowerment (sparrow 1994).

Positive relationship has also been found between Leader-member exchange and subordinate performance such that a higher quality LMX correlated with higher levels of performance. This relationship was moderated by perceptions of task analyzability and variety (Dunegan, Duchon&Uhl-Bien, 1992). In addition to this, research has also found supervisor liking of subordinate to positively influence the expected leader-member exchange treatment of the subordinate, and evaluations of subordinate performance.

Therefore, in seeking a clear understanding of the concept of leadership so that its relationship with effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations can be explained, Quinn and Rohrbagh’s (1981, 1983) competing values framework of organizational effectiveness would be of particular importance to the present study.

Turning to the concept of effectiveness. There are many ways in which an organization can be effective or otherwise. Cameron (1980) described four major approaches to evaluating effectiveness: goal, system resource, multiple constituency and internal process approaches.

xiv

The first approach states that an organization can be described as effective if it is successful in accomplishing its goals, usually with respect to outputs or production. The second approach to evaluating effectiveness is the successful acquisition of resources the organization needs from the environment. In particular, this approach emphasizes

successful competition for scarce resources. Unlike goal and resource acquisition the third means of evaluation looks at how smooth an organization’s internal functioning is and free of major problems. Such characteristics as trust and benevolence towards individual workers, smooth information flow, and freedom from conflict between work units represent such an organization. While the third emphasizes internal functioning, the fourth approach of evaluating an effective organization may be seen as one that is able to keep its “strategic constituencies” satisfied. Strategic constituencies are groups of people who have a stake in the organization, such as customers, workers, and stockholders. There have been many studies on organizational effectiveness that have attempted to identify the factors that determine organizational performance. The present study is no exception, where it departs from previous studies is an emphasis on a global perspective of evaluating organizational effectiveness.

Cameron (1981) has argued that effectiveness is multidimensional rather than a unitary construct. In effect, we cannot measure a single aspect of an organization’s performance and hope to have captured the essence of its effectiveness. Connally, Conlon &Deutsch (1980) have earlier indicated that, in general, the consensus seems to be that the measure of effectiveness that is used in a given situation should be contingent upon a variety of

xv

factors.

Accordingly, Cameron (1980) suggests the following six critical factors or

questions that should be considered when evaluating organizational effectiveness: (1) what domain of activity is being focused on? (2) Whose perspective, or which constituency’s point of view, is being considered? (3) What levels of analysis is being used? (4) What time of frame is being employed? (5) What type of data is to be used? (6) What reference is being employed?

In line with these, Quinn &Rohrbaugh’s (1981; 1983) competing values framework of effectiveness was used. The rationale for using the competing values framework lies in its consideration of multiple measures and perspectives in evaluating effectiveness .It has nine (productivity-efficiency, quality, cohesion, adaptability readiness, information management-communication, growth, planning and goal setting) underlying criteria or dimensions for measuring effectiveness. Finally, this framework takes into account the six questions or factors that Cameron mentioned in his writings.

In much the same vein, change in organization is an important area of research. Much of the researches on change in organizations have dealt with changes in either jobs or the tasks that jobs comprise. These types of changes tend to be narrow. The purpose of the present study is to broaden the scope of the internal factors of change while adding some external factors. Of importance, would be employee perception of change. The rationale is attributed to this statement that “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”. In other words, as individuals, we vary in the way we perceive our environment. Because of this

xvi

variation in perception, we may respond to situations differently at the work place as individuals or group.

Thus our reaction towards change at the workplace may be influenced by our perception. For example, employees have been found to be less likely to resist when they perceived that the benefits of a change overshadow the personal costs.

It is worth pointing out that most researchers and theorists in the past have considered leadership from the perspective of the leader, the leader always has played the dominant role at the neglect of the influence. The follower brings to bear on the leader’s behavior. This situation does not present a better understanding of the concept of leadership. That is, the essence of leadership centers on the leader but what should be noted is that organizations are manned by leaders and followers; as such any attempt to study leadership should factor the follower into the equation. This is the problem the study seeks to address.

The existing theories of leadership, effectiveness and perception of change in organizations may only at best be described as partial theories in the sense that they explain only a narrow band or specific aspects of the three concepts. It is hoped that by succeeding in identifying the quality of exchange and establishing relationships between the quality of exchange, effectiveness and perception of change, it would provide the basis for the formulation of a comprehensive theory of leadership which takes into account the influence of both leader and follower in work organizations.

xvii

The present study beside the theoretical relevance is expected to provide improved explanation for the relationship among the leader-member exchange, effectiveness and perception of change in organizations so that they can be interpreted for purposes of practical application.

xviii

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction This chapter reviews relevant literature in leader-member exchange, organizational effectiveness, and change. 2.1Leader-member Exchange The leader-member exchange theory asserts that leaders do not interact with subordinates uniformly because supervisors have limited time and resources. In-group subordinates perform their job in accordance with the employment contracts and can be counted on by the supervisor to perform unstructured tasks, to volunteer for extra work, and to take on additional responsibilities. Supervisors exchange personal and positional resources

(inside information, influence in decision making, task assignment, job latitude, support, and attention) in return for subordinates’ performance on unstructured tasks (Graen & Cashman, 1975)

As a result, research shows mutual trust, positive support, informal interdependencies, greater job latitude, common bonds, open communication, high referee and autonomy, satisfaction and shared loyalty (Dansereau, Graen, &Haga, 1975; Dienesch &Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

In contrast, subordinates who perform only in accordance with the prescribed employment contract are characterized as “out-group” with limited reciprocal trust and

xix

support, and few rewards from their supervisors (Deluga, 1998). The exchange among the superior-subordinate (dyad), a two-way relationship, is the unique basic premise and the unit of analysis of LMX.

The theoretical development of LMX is based on the premise that leader-member relationships emerge as the result of a series of exchanges or interactions during which leader and member roles develop. This role formation process involves three phases. During the first phase, role taking, the member enters the organization and the leader assesses his or her abilities and talents. Based on this assessment, the leader provides opportunities for the member to “take” a specific role. During the second phase, role making, the leader and the member engage in unstructured and informal negotiation. It is during the second phase that the member begins to “make” a role. During the third phase, role routinization, an ongoing social exchange pattern emerges or becomes “routinized”. This entire role formation process is expected to occur early in the

member’s tenure with the leader.

Graen et al., (1975, 1976 & 1978) developed the most widely known of these theories. His proposed Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL), or leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, is an important attempt to explain how the relationship between leader and follower can affect the leadership process. According to the theory, a manager’s subordinates can be divided into two groups: The in-group and the out-group. The in-group consists of the workers believed by the supervisor to be competent, trustworthy, and motivated to work hard and accept responsibility. The nature of the relationship between the leader and the

xx

in-group members is different from the relationship between the leader and the out-group members. In-group members are given responsibility for important tasks, thereby

making the supervisor’s job easier. In return, the leader provides in-group members with support, understanding, and a more personal relationship. Out-group members are given tasks requiring less ability and responsibility and so do not benefit from a personal relationship with the supervisor. Interaction with the out-group members is based on the supervisor’s formal authority rather than on respect or friendship.

The quality of the leader-member exchange relationship is theorized to be related to work and attitudinal outcomes. For example, exchange quality has been demonstrated to

predict such outcomes as employee withdrawal or resignation, salary and promotion, productivity, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment.

Research on leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has generally supported the theory. For example, in-group foremen accepted greater responsibility and were rewarded with more support, feedback and personal attention than out-group foremen (Liden & Graen, 1980). Examining the relationship between conflict and dyadic relationships, Howat & London (1980) found that as the relationship approached an in-group style; there were fewer interpersonal conflicts between supervisor and subordinate. In much the same vein, perceptions of organizational climate are related to the quality of leader-member relations (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989).

xxi

Deluga&Perry (1994) using the LMX theory found that subordinate performance was positively associated with higher exchanges. The same researchers found that subordinates ingratiating activity, including opinion conformity, other enhancement, and self-presentation augmented performance in the prediction of higher quality exchanges.

However, some research has not supported the theory’s predictions, such as a study conducted by Vecchio (1985). He reported that leader-member relationship or exchange was unrelated to employee turnover. One implication of leader-member exchange

(LMX) theory is that leadership can be better understood by focusing on individual leader-member dyads rather than the supervisor’s “average leadership style” (ALS), which assumes that all subordinates are, treated the same. A number of researches have tested this prediction. Comparing forecasts on turnover based on leader-member

interactions with those based on manager’s overall styles, the dyadic approach resulted in a better prediction (Graen, Novak &Sommerkamp, 1982).

Katerberg & Hom (1981) examined the relationship between national guardsmen’s ratings of their supervisor’s consideration and initiation of structure and measures of satisfaction and role perceptions. They found that within-unit differences, corresponding to differences in dyadic relationships, predicted the satisfaction and role perceptions better than between unit differences, which represent average leadership styles. However, both measures were significantly related to job satisfaction and perceptions, indicating that they are both important to consider. Similar results were found in a study of Air force personnel, but only for predicting attitudes such as job satisfaction.

xxii

Perhaps the most interesting influence on the development of a high quality LMX relationship is affect. The role formation process develops through a mechanism referred to as “negotiating latitude”. This negotiation occurs through the series of exchange or interactions between the leader and the member. The exchanges or interactions, of interest are primarily work-related in terms of content. However, recent empirical

findings suggest that person-related variables may contribute to LMX in addition to work related variables.

The affective responses are influenced by the perceived similarity between the leader and the member, the more they perceive themselves to be similar the more they like each other and the more likely they are to develop a high quality LMX relationship. Persons who are similar are more likely to interact frequently causing an increase in the level of familiarity within an LMX relationship. In addition, leaders and members who share a high quality LMX relationship tend to interact more about personal topics than about work-related topics. This may occur because these leaders and members may develop a high level of communication comfort and they may feel that they can broach any topic with each other.

The increased interaction may result in higher levels of trust. Leaders tend to trust ingroup subordinates and therefore empower them with decision-making authority. Leaders use delegations, not as a test of the member’s abilities, but as a reward for excellent past performance and as a sign of respect and consideration. Therefore, as trust

xxiii

between the leader and the member increases, so is the number of delegated responsibilities from the leader to the member, consequently, the quality of the LMX relationship also increases.

As indicated earlier, many work-related outcomes have been predicted by LMX quality. For example, LMX quality has been found to predict job satisfaction (Dionne, 2000), specifically, as the reported quality of the LMX relationship increases, so does the follower’s report of job satisfaction. Other research has indicated that LMX-outcomes relationships are moderated by several variables. Task characteristics as moderators of the LMX-outcome relationship were examined. By taking into consideration the level of complexity and challenge afforded by the task, a wider variety of outcomes were more strongly predicted than by using LMX quality alone. For example, LMX quality was found to correlate positively with performance when the task challenge was extremely low or extremely high. In addition, job satisfaction related more strongly to LMX quality when the type of task was taken into account than when it was not considered.

Situational factors specifically unit size, workload, and financial resources have also been examined as moderators. These factors, in conjunction with LMX quality, were able to predict organizational commitment and to more strongly predict job satisfaction.

Demographic differences in leaders and members accounted for seventeen percent (17%) of the variance in LMX. It is likely that social categorization on the basis of gender explains a significant amount of LMX variance and it may have a negative impact on

xxiv

LMX relationships in diverse groups. Specifically, gender diversity in the workplace may have substantial impact on the way leaders and members interact and on the establishment of LMX relationships. For example, supervisors in mixed sex dyads rated the members’ performance lower and reported more negative affect towards members than those supervisors in the same sex dyads.

Furthermore, the subordinates in mixed sex dyads related their level of role ambiguity higher than subordinates in same sex dyads. In the first stage of the LMX development process, role taking and mutual respect is essential, leaders and members must each understand how the other views and desires respect. This is especially difficult in mixed gender relationship and will not develop and progress to the next stage if there is lack of respect. This is common in gender diverse relationships because of social categorization on the basis of gender groups and the prevalence of stereotyping.

In the second stage of the LMX relationship, role-making, trust must be developed in order for leaders and members to further develop the relationships and influence each other’s attitudes and behaviors. This role making is critical in diverse dyads. If trust is violated in a single time in diverse dyadic relationships, the relationship may be destroyed. Trust is especially critical in diverse relationships because violations may reinforce discriminatory practices.

xxv

The final stage of LMX development is role routinisation, where mutual obligation is formed. This stage also addresses any gender relevant issues. This last stage establishes role making, here, leaders and members have shared meanings.

Cultural competence and perspective taking are also very important to the LMX process. In order for a high quality LMX relationship to develop, leaders and members must be able to take each other’s perspective. Cultural and gender barriers may naturally exist that hinder dyad members and increasing education about other groups may avoid social categorization and the reliance on stereotypes. This facilitates the development of high quality LMX relationships regardless of the leader’s and the member’s sex. Perspective taking reflects a tendency to use one’s existing role-taking capacities in order to understand the psychological point of view of another person, a non-affective component of dispositional empathy. Empathy consists of empathetic concern, personal distress and perspective taking.

Traits that related positively to perspective taking were patience, reasonableness and sensitivity. Traits that related negatively to perspective taking were aggressiveness and sarcasm. High perspective takers were more accurate than low perspective-takers at judging others. Perspective taking is likely to be important in the development of LMX relationships. Three role-taking aspects related to high perspective taking have been identified. First, role takers must be accurate in their ability to perceive how others understand and respond to the world. Secondly, role takers should have large role-taking ranges. In other words, they should be able to view a situation from many perspectives.

xxvi

Thirdly, role takers should be able to perceive the other’s perspective in depth and have a full understanding of the other’s perspective. When leaders and members are high on these aspects, then the role taking process may result in higher quality LMX relationships.

Perspective taking also involves suppressing one’s usual egocentric point of view and viewing the world from the other’s vantage point. Perspective taking may influence a member’s task motivation; increase with respect to his or her leader, then the member should be better able to “read” his or her leader. The member’s level of perspective taking may also affect the quality of information shared between the leader and the member. Because perspective taking has shown to be related to understanding others, those high in perspective-taking skills may be better able to know what information needs to be discussed in order to reach a solution on the task.

Now let us turn our attention to studies conducted on the leader-member exchange theory. Heneman, Greenberger & Anonyuo (1989) surveyed one hundred and eighty eight supervisors in thirty seven organizations to assess the relationships among supervisory attributions, the exchange relationship between leaders and subordinates and critical performance incidents. Results indicate that internal but not external causal attributions were significantly related to the leader-member exchange and to critical performance incidents. Supervisors were less consistent on attributions for both in-group and out-group members.

xxvii

In another study, Dockery & Steiner (1980) examines the influence of ability, liking and three upward-influence tactics (ingratiation, assertiveness and rationality) on the quality of leader-member exchange both from the perspective of group leaders and members in one hundred and eighty- eight undergraduates assigned to groups of four (a leader and three members). From the leader’s perspective, liking for members and ability of

members were the variables most consistently related to quality of leader-member exchange. Members placed more importance on the emotional or interactive aspects of their relationships with leaders during the initial interaction, while leaders tended to focus more on considerations such as work group productivity and member ability. From the member’s perspective all variables except self assessed ability were related to quality of leader-member interaction, while leaders tended to focus more on consideration such as work-group.

Mc Clane (1991) studied the leader-member exchange (LMX) model of leadership and the impact of the interaction of leader and member characteristics on the leader-member relationship by constructing twenty six task group, composed of six members (undergraduates) and one leader (a graduate student with work experience). In the first session, the leader and members were encouraged to exchange information about one another in preparation for a second task. Variables included gender, locus of control, least preferred coworker, power and achievement needs. Subjects completed individualdifference measures prior to the group session and leaders completed post session measures assessing member-negotiating latitude (NL). The hypothesis that leaders would accord additional negotiating latitude to members with critical characteristics similar to

xxviii

their own received only limited support. In contrast, leader -member need for power appeared to play a critical role in determining members negotiating latitude.

Waldron (1991) used an inductive procedure to identify upward maintenance tactics (UMTS) used by subordinates, subsequent factor analyses using five hundred and eighteen working adults yielded four maintenance tactic types; personal, contractual, regulative and direct. Supervisory relationship quality influenced reported tactic use: subjects participating in leadership exchanges scored higher on the personal, contractual and directiveness factors. Subordinates in supervisory exchanges scored higher on the regulative factor. Results indicate that in high quality supervisory relationships, upward maintenance tactics (UMTS) may be multi-functional, simultaneously preserving relational stability and the capacity for negotiation and change. Results both confirm and extend previous research on leader-member exchange by specifying how subordinate communication contributes to exchange quality, Fairhurst &Chandler (1989).

Schriesheim, Scandura, Eisenbach &Neider (1992) as part of LMX scale development investigated the convergent and discriminant validity of a short (six Item) new leadermember exchange scale (LMX- 6). Using data from a sample of two hundred and twenty one (221) MBA students, the validity of the new scale was confirmed by its high and significant loadings on a leader-member exchange factor and by the superiority exchange factor over all their rival models.

xxix

Research by Wayne, Liden & Sparrowe (1994) explores the effects of gender on the leader-member exchange (LMX) model and occurrence of ingratiating. High-quality LMX (in-group exchange) was characterized by mutual trust and support, where lowquality LMX (out-group exchanges) were based on fulfilling the employment contract. It is noted that members involved in high LMX relationships enjoy a significantly better relationship with their supervisors, including greater access to information, influence and opportunities for professional growth, decision-making latitude and supervisory support than members involved in low LMX relationships.

On the other hand, Vecchio (1985) in predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange administered a questionnaire battery, including the job description index, to forty-five (45) bank tellers to replicate the findings of Graen, Novak &Sommerkamp (1982) which indicated that leader-member exchanges rather than overall leadership style influenced a member’s decision to remain in an organization. Leader-member exchange scores were calculated for subjects, using the method by Graen, Novak &Sommerkamp (1982). Within 1 year, two (2) subjects had involuntarily left and twelve (12) had voluntarily left, while thirty-one (31) remained at their jobs. None of the leader-member exchanges correlated significantly involving eighty-three (83) computer-processing employees of a large service organization.

In a recent study, Dionne (2000) investigated the relationship between leader-member exchange and job satisfaction. Results showed positive relationship between leadermember exchange and subordinate job satisfaction. Also found in the same study was

xxx

positive relationship between all four variables (Affect, Loyalty, Contribution and Professional Respect) and employee job satisfaction. Truckenbrodt (2000) has also examined the relationship between leader-member exchange, commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Results indicate that leader-member exchange was positively found to relate to employee commitment and citizenship behavior.

Vecchio & Kinicki (1994) investigated the impact of time-based stress on leader-member exchange (LMX) in a sample of one hundred and thirty eight employees and twenty-four managers (all aged 21-64 years). Results indicated that unit level variability on LMX was inversely related with time-based stress, while unit level mean on LMX was positively related with time-based stress. Additionally, LMX acted as a mediator of the relation between employee locus of control (a suspected antecedent of dyadic quality) and organizational commitment (a suspected outcome), while employee locus of control correlated with employee organizational commitment. Result suggests the usefulness of considering time-based stress in conjunction with current models of leadership.

Liden, Wayne & Stilwell (1993) in a longitudinal study investigated the first six-month that one hundred and sixty six (166) newly hired employees and their immediate supervisors worked together. Expectations, perceived similarity, liking, demographic similarity and performance were examined as determinants of leader-member. Perceived similarity and liking from both the leaders’ and members’ perspectives predicted LMX at most time periods. Demographic similarity between leaders and members had no

xxxi

significant effects on LMX development and subordinate performance ratings were relatively less important in predicting LMX than were affective variables.

Results from a field study with one hundred and fifty two (152) members of a large urban hospital indicate that the relationship between the quality of leader-member exchange (LMX) and subordinate performance was moderated by perceptions of task analyzability and variety. LMX and performance were found to be related significantly when task challenge was either very high or very low. Under these task conditions, data indicate that there was a positive link between LMX and performance such that a higher quality LMX correlated with higher levels of performance. On the other hand, analyses revealed that when tasks were perceived to be moderately challenging, no significant relationship between LMX and performance was present. In other word, these data suggest that characteristics of the task act as moderating agents of the LMX performance relationship (Dunegan, Duchon & Uhl-Bien 1992).

Turban, Jones & Rozzelle (1990) investigated the influence of supervisor liking (SL) of a subordinate on the treatment of the subordinate, the leader-member exchange with the subordinate, and the evaluations of subordinate performance (SP). One hundred and forty (140) undergraduates worked on their own tasks and supervised an alleged subordinate during a thirty minutes work period. SL of a subordinate was manipulated by altering the personality characteristics and the attitude similarity of the subordinate. Reward context was manipulated by rewarding supervisors for either the total performance of both the supervisors and subordinates or for the individual performance

xxxii

of each supervisor only. SL positively influenced the expected leader-member exchange treatment of the subordinate and an evaluation of subordinate’s performance.

In a constructive replication of past vertical dyad linkage (VDL) research, the leadermember exchange scores of one hundred and ninety two (192) hospital employees in the US were used to predict reports of felt equity and satisfaction, as well as employment status over a one-year period. Subjects also completed scales of job satisfaction and an organizational fairness scale. Although the results failed to establish leader-member exchange as predictive of employee turnover, leader-member exchange was closely associated with satisfaction and felt equity. Results suggest that findings reported should not be overgeneralised rather additional conceptual refinement of VDL approach may be necessary (Vecchio &Norris 1996).

2.2 Organizational effectiveness The organizational effectiveness concept is based on four (goal model, system resources model, multiple constituency, internal process model) major models Cameron (1980). These four models or approaches to evaluating effectiveness in organization have been integrated into what has been referred to as the competing values framework.

Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983) developed this framework by integrating the four models. Pounder (1999) evaluating effectiveness of higher educational institutions in Hong Kong also developed nine underlying criteria or dimensions (productivityefficiency, quality, cohesion, adaptability-readiness, information management

xxxiii

communication, growth, planning goal setting, human resource development and stability-control) based on the competing values framework.

Pounder’s work tested for the empirical basis of this framework by using a behaviorally anchored rating scale to standardize the nine dimensions and use them to evaluate institutional or organizational effectiveness. The outcome of Pounder’s work eliminated the last two dimensions (human resources development and stability-control) of the competing values framework on grounds of low reliability. It is due to this development that the present study has conceptualized effectiveness in line with the competing values framework, but with the first seven dimensions retained by Pounder’s study. In addition, the researcher’s choice is as a result of the integrative nature of the competing values framework and its emphasis on multiple measures. In other words, it has a global perspective of evaluating organizational effectiveness.

Traditionally, organizational effectiveness has been defined as the meeting or surpassing of organizational goals (Barnard, 1938). This perspective has become known as the goal model to the study and measurement of organizational effectiveness since it views organizations as principally concerned with the attainment of certain end products or goals.

2.2.1

The Goal Model

The goal model rests on the implicit assumption that an organization’s goals can be clearly established and that necessary human and material resource can be manipulated

xxxiv

for goal attainment. Various shortcomings in the goal model have been noted repeatedly. For instance, it has been observed that most contemporary organizations are multifunctional, pursuing numerous goals at the same time (Cameron, 1981). Consequently effectiveness in attaining the goal may be inversely related to effectiveness in attaining other goals. This suggests the likelihood that an organization will find it impossible to be effective in all areas simultaneously if it has multiple goals.

Secondly, the establishment of unambiguous criteria for measuring effectiveness has been labeled as a shortcoming and ability to assess effectiveness on the basis of goal attainment depends upon the extent to which goals are measurable, Business firms for example, have identifiable “Bottom line” objectives. The goal model has no comparable yardstick for public organizations such as social welfare agencies and voluntary associations (Keating & Keating, 1981, Meyer 1985). The determination of what

constitutes goal attainment in these and similar situations can be quite unclear. Beside the goal model another model for evaluating effectiveness is the system resource model.

2.2.2 The System Resource Model Another accepted alternative to goal model is known as the system resource model. This model incorporates an open systems perspective and defines effectiveness as the degree to which an organization is successful in acquiring scarce and valued resources. The system resource model focuses on the interaction between the organization and its environment. In contrast to the goal model, inputs replace outputs as the primary Organizations are viewed as involved in a

consideration (Shipper &White, 1983).

xxxv

continuous bargaining relationship with their environment, importing scarce resources to be returned as valued inputs. An organization’s survival through time clearly depends upon its ability to establish and maintain a favorable input-output ratio. In other words, the organization is to establish and maintain a greater resource intake than is required to produce its output. Like the goal model, the system resource model (SRM) has also some shortcomings. Principal among these is that, it is difficult to operationalise. While the system resource model (SRM) holds that an organization is most effective when it optimizes its resources intake, it provides little guidance as to what constitutes optimum procurement. Moreover, it does not elaborate on which scarce and valued resources are relevant for assessing an organization’s effectiveness and how, once obtained, they should be internally allocated. More recent models relating to organizational Two of these models, the multiple

effectiveness have been largely integrative.

constituency model and the competing values models, have generated sufficient concern.

2.2.3 The Internal Process Model The internal process model views organization effectiveness in terms of the internal functioning of the organization. In other words, an effective organization is one whose internal functioning is smooth and free of major problems. Such characteristics as trust, and benevolence toward individual workers, smooth information flow, and freedom from conflict between work units would typify such an organization. More recent models relating to organizational effectiveness have been largely integrative. Two of these

models, the multiple constituency models and the competing values model have generated sufficient concern.

xxxvi

2.2.4 The Multiple Constituency Model Connally, Conlon & Deutsch (1980) defines effectiveness as the extent to which an organization satisfies the goals of its strategic constituent thus, it represents an expansion of the goal model in the sense that it incorporates in the assessment process the goals of constituencies other than managers. As generally portrayed, a typical organization’s constituencies include society in general, customers, governments, owner, employees’ suppliers and competitors (Bedeian, 1986a).

The multiple constituency model thus, avoids problems of specifying and assessing organizational goals inherent in the goal model, as well as problems of identifying and assessing optimal resource acquisition as required by the system resource model (SRM).

Its shortcomings most notably are that it incorporates several underlying value based issues. Major among these are that, selecting specific constituencies to participate in assessing an organization’s effectiveness (Mark & Shortland, 1985). This obviously has implications for the actual measurement of organizational effectiveness. Admittedly, perceptions of an organization’s effectiveness depend largely upon its constituents’ frame of reference (Zammuto, 1984).

As Bedeian (1986b) has observed, this presents three rather complicated measurement issues. Any and all effectiveness criteria that are proposed will doubtlessly be viewed in terms of self-interest by each of the constituents involved, notwithstanding claims to the contrary; no criteria will be viewed impartially. Assessment of effectiveness does not

xxxvii

take place in a neutral vacuum. Each criterion will likely benefit some constituents more than others. Third and finally, given the above consideration, in a situation in which resources are scarce, we would have every reason to expect a wide divergence and commensurate conflict in the criteria different constituents propose for assessing effectiveness. The above models or approaches for evaluating effectiveness are narrow by their explanation, viewing only a section of effectiveness rather than employing a multidimensional approach for assessment.

Cameron (1981) in his writings concluded that effectiveness is a multidimensional rather than a unitary construct. In other words, we cannot measure a single aspect of an organization’s performance and hope to have captured the essence of its effectiveness. It is against this backdrop that the present study views effectiveness as a multidimensional construct that consider multiple measures and perspectives for evaluation. Hence, the rationale for choosing the competing values model over any single model that emphasizes unidimensionality in its analysis of organizational effectiveness.

2.2.5 The competing Values Model This framework is a multidimensional and integrative model for assessing organizational effectiveness. It is the most recent one developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983). This is called the “competing values” model because; it provides a means for integrating different models of organizational effectiveness with respect to three underlying value dimensions. An internal focus versus external focus, a concern for flexibility versus a concern for control and a concern for ends versus a concern for means.

xxxviii

Using these three underlying value dimensions, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983) integrated four alternative models of organizational effectiveness. The human relations model, this emphasizes an internal focus together with flexibility. It stresses

effectiveness criteria such as cohesion and morale (as means) and human resource development (as an end). The second, the “rational goal” model, emphasizes an external focus, as well as control. It stresses effectiveness criteria such as planning and goal setting (as means) and productivity (as an end). The third model, the open system model; emphasizes an external focus along with flexibility. It stresses effectiveness criteria such as innovation and readiness to adapt (as means) and organizational growth (as an end). The fourth and final model, the internal process model emphasizes internal focus together with control. It stresses effectiveness criteria such as the role of information management and communication (as means) and stability and predictability (as ends).

The critical point to note, however, is that while certain pairs of effectiveness criteria reflect competing values, in practice they are not mutually exclusive. To be effective it may require that an organization be both cohesive and productive, or stable and innovative. The competing values models clearly recognizes that multiple criteria and potentially conflicting constituent interests underline any effort at assessing and understanding of the values different constituencies hold, it provides a basis for predicting the effectiveness criteria a constituency will likely employ in judging an organization’s performance.

xxxix

2.3 Perception of change Over the past several decades, leaders and organizations have come to terms with the fact that change really is here to stay. Change in the organization could occur in the structure of competition, the shifts of consumer preferences, employer relations, developments in new technology (products and process), the aging of buildings, equipments and, machines. In addition, the resources get older, employee skills and abilities are also affected. These changes can affect all aspects of the operation and functioning of the organization.

To survive, organizations must be properly prepared to face the demands of internal and external changes. Most organizational change are triggered by the need to respond to opportunities or demands presented by external environmental factors such as:

1. 2.

Customers demanding products and services to be customized to their needs. Customers’ satisfaction standards are increasingly established by global competition.

3. 4.

Reductions in international trade barriers and growth of foreign competitors. Rapidly changing and developing technology, this is in many cases, easily transferable.

5.

Public sectors financial constraints and political pressure for higher value of money

6.

Privatization of the public sector

xl

7.

Growth of environmental issues (green movement, environmental protection law etc.)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

The growth of service industries and decline of manufacturing industries. More frequent changes in ownership through acquisition by another company. Growth of disposable income. Acceleration in business cycles Interest rates Money supply Gross national product (GNP) trends. Rates of obsolescence etc

There seem to be no end for environmental factors, which are affecting organizations. Change could also be triggered by the changes in the workplace. These are referred to as internal forces of changes. These forces may be subtle, such as low morale, or can manifest in outward signs, such as low productivity and conflict. Internal forces of change come from both human resource problems and managerial behavior or decisions. These problems stem from employee perceptions about how they are treated at work and the match between individual and organizational needs and desires.

Theories underpinning changes in organization stem from the landmark work by Lewin (1958). He proposed a three-stage model of planned change (Lewin’s change model), which explains how to initiate, manage and stabilize the change process. The three stages

xli

are unfreezing, changing and refreezing. Before reviewing each stage, it is proper to underscore the importance of the assumption that underlies this model:

1.

The change process involves learning something new, as well as discontinuing current attitudes or organizational practices.

2.

Change will not occur unless there is motivation to change. This is often the most difficult part of the change process.

3.

People are the hub of all organizational changes. Any change whether in terms of structure, group process, rewards systems or job design, requires individuals to change.

4.

Resistance to change is found even when the fouls of change are highly desirable.

5.

Effective change requires reinforcing new behaviors and attitudes.

The unfreezing stage focus is to create the motivation to change. In so doing, individuals are encouraged to replace old behaviors and attitudes with those desired by management. Managers can begin the unfreezing process by disconfirming the usefulness or appropriateness of employees’ present behaviors or attitudes. In other words, employees need to become dissatisfied with the old way of doing things. Managers also need to devise ways to reduce the barriers to change during this stage.

The second, changing, is the next stage. Because change involves learning, this stage entails providing employees with new information, new behavior models and new ways

xlii

of looking at things. The purpose is to help employees learn new concepts or point of view. Role models, mentors, experts and training are useful mechanisms to facilitate the change process. The third and Final stage is refreezing. This is where helping employees integrate the change behavior or attitude into their new way of doing things brings stability to the change process. This is accomplished by first giving employees the change to exhibit the new behaviors or attitudes. Once exhibited, positive reinforcement is used to reinforce the desired change. Additional coaching and modeling also are used at this point to reinforce the stability of the change.

Nutt (1986) also proposed a transactional model of planned change. This model of change describes the interactions among five stages of planned change. These five stages of change are formulation, concept development, detailing, evaluation and installation.

This model is premised upon unforeseen circumstances, e.g. the likelihood of a wildcat strike, accidents and a death of some key executive personnel. Other changes including strategic shifts, management purposely implements reorganization, personnel changes and adoption of new technology. He argues that there is a distinction between the decision-making and developmental portions of the change process. The decision mode portion of the model constitutes the manager’s formal authority and ultimate responsibility for the proposed change. The developmental mode happens given the fact that organizational problem solving, creativity and decision-making generally are group activities. The decision-making manager may or may not play a full role in the

developmental team, however critical transactions occur between the manager and

xliii

developmental team during each stage. Again each set of the transactions brings the proposed change closer to reality.

In that regard, the manager can contribute to the change process by specifying needs in stage one and premises (assumptions about how to proceed) in stage two. The manager can further assist the developmental team by pointing out misconceptions in stage three and specifying criteria for weighing options in stage four. Before installation of the change in stage five, the manager needs to do some administrative housekeeping. Skilled people, resources, incentives and delegation mechanisms must be in place.

For it part, the committee or project team defines problems and suggests objectives. It also recommends options and tentative plans, considers cost and benefits and gathers feedback information once the change has been installed. The greater the degree of participative management, the greater the contribution of the developmental team. The present study has integrated aspects of the three perspectives mentioned in this discussion. In other words, this research views change as comprising both internal and external forces that affects the overall performance of work organizations.

Studies on perception and change are explored.

In a field survey and laboratory

experiment by Brockner et al, (1993) the determinants of survivors’ reactions to job layoffs were examined. Independent variables included (1) change in the perceived intrinsic quality of the content of survivors’ jobs relative to and before the layoffs and (2) context favourability as determined by (a) the perceived fairness of the layoffs and (b)

xliv

survivor’s perceptions of their co-workers’ reactions to the layoffs. Both studies revealed similar job contents, context interaction effects on the primary dependent variable of commitment: change in job content was more strongly (positively) related to survivors’ organizational and task commitment when the context was more favorable.

Kleiner &Corrigan (1989) in a related study present a simplified organizational model and organizational life cycle that views change from a systemic perspective. Developmental (evolutionary), transitional (TSC) and transformational (TFC) change categories are discussed. TSC is planned within a set time frame and implements a known new state to obtain a known, desired outcome, whereas TFC is revolutionary and implemented rapidly in bursts. TFC often includes reformed mission and core values, altered power and status, reorganization, revised interaction patterns and new executives. Also described is the role of the company culture in organizational change, the mechanics of TFC and the pitfalls of successful TFC.

Carnall (1986) discusses personal evaluations of change based on the assumption that people experience change as fair or not in relation to their perceptions of their own position in the network of exchange relations that emerges from the organizational change to be evaluated. Resistance or opposition to change emerges from the experience of injustice and control over resources and information combined with the emergence of leaders able to mobilize support. Responses can be active (e.g. exit, mobilization of support) or passive (e.g. dependency, absenteeism). The distinction between

organizational evaluations and organizational effectiveness is emphasized and it is

xlv

suggested that evaluation should concentrate on people’s own evaluations, their experience of change and their response to it.

A review of the industrial robotics literature identified 4 areas of employee concern during the implementation of robots: general robotics orientation, job security, management concern and expected change. A principal factor analysis of a 58 – item questionnaire generated to measure these dimensions extracted 4 factors that reproduced the priori conceptual areas. Composite scales formed from items loading on these factors yielded acceptable reliabilities. A discriminate analysis using the scale scores indicated significant group differences among 316 manufacturing employees in 3 occupational classes – assembly line workers, job setters and skilled trades. These results,

corroborated by a content analysis of an open-ended question, show that low skill workers reacted negatively toward the implementation of robots, perceiving them largely as threats to their job security. High-skill workers reacted more positively toward the robots and perceived the implementation as providing opportunities to expand their skills (Chao &Kozlowski 1986).

Maloney, Bartz & Allanach (1991) in examining staff perceptions of their work environment before and six months after an organizational change administered the work environment scale to 170 professional and 175 paraprofessional nursing staff members before and after an organizational change designed to address problems in supervisor effectiveness, staff productivity and consistency of patient care. Middle management supervisors had little influence on the work environment, since there was essentially no

xlvi

change in any of the work environment scales. The working environment showed little cohesion among staff members. There was strong pressure to keep up with the workload. The staff members perceived the setting as poorly organized and inefficient and were unclear as to expectation about rules and procedures. There was a high degree of control over the workers. Findings highlight the need to employ mechanisms that create working environments in which employees feel their work is an important contribution to the organization.

Based on the studies reviewed the following hypotheses have been advanced for testing. The leader member exchange (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) is the Independent variable. While Effectiveness and Perception of Change are the two dependent variables.

2.4 Statement of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Liden and Maslyn (1998) in their formulation of the leader member exchange (LMXMDM) concept of leadership put forward four different factors: Affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect as constituting LMX. For the purposes of this research, LMX is conceptualized as multidimensional with four factors explaining the concept. Since any combination of these factors can be different for each individual who fills out the questionnaire, different specific factors can influence the results of LMX. This is the reason why each domain should be verified against effectiveness in work organizations. Based on the above reasoning, it is hypothesized that:

xlvii

Hypothesis 1 1.There will be significant positive correlation between affect and effectiveness in work organizations. Hypothesis 2 2.There will be a significant positive correlation between loyalty and effectiveness in work organizations. Hypothesis 3 3.There will be a significant positive correlation between contribution and effectiveness in work organizations. Hypothesis 4 4.There will be a significant positive correlation between professional respect and effectiveness in work organizations. Hypothesis 5 5.There will be a significant positive correlation between affect and perception of change in work organizations. Hypothesis 6 6.There will be a significant positive correlation between loyalty and perception of change in work organizations. Hypothesis 7 7.There will be a significant positive correlation between contribution and perception of change in work organizations.

xlviii

Hypothesis 8 8.There will be a significant positive correlation between professional respect and perception of change in work organizations. Hypothesis 9 The literature on LMX indicates that empowerment and productivity have been found to have a high relationship; likewise, empowerment has also been found to have a high relationship with job satisfaction (Schriesheim, Neider&Scandura, 1998). In other words, the higher the degree of leader-member exchange (LMX) the more satisfied the worker is on the job. Thus, it is hypothesized that there will be a positive significant relationship between Leader-member exchange and organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 10 Research on LMX has generally supported the theory. For example, in-group foremen accepted greater responsibility and were rewarded with more support, feedback, and personal attention than out-group foremen (Liden & Graen, 1980). Further, examining the relationship between conflict and dyadic Relationship, Howat & London (1980) found that as the relationship approached an in-group style, there were fewer interpersonal conflicts between supervisor and subordinate. Kozlowski & Doherty

(1989) examined the LMX theory and indicated that perceptions of organizational climate were related to the quality of exchange. It is therefore hypothesized that there will be a positive significant relationship between LMX and perception of change.

xlix

Hypothesis 11 Female employees will exhibit a high level of effectiveness than their male counterparts. Hypothesis 12 Female employees’ perception of change will be less favorable than their male counterparts.

2.5 Definition of Terms The researcher provides the following definitions for terms used in the course of the study. 2.5.1 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) For purposes of this study LMX is defined as the personal exchanges or interaction between the leader and member in work organizations. It is measured using four factors: affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect.

2.5.2 Affect This is the mutual affection member of the dyad have for each other based primarily on interpersonal attraction, rather than work or professional values. Such affection may be manifested in the desire for/or occurrence of a relationship, which has personally rewarding components and outcomes, e.g. a friendship.

l

2.5.3 Loyalty This refers to the expression of public support for the goals and the personal character of the other members of the LMX dyad. Loyalty involves faithfulness to the individual that is generally consistent from situation to situation.

2.5.4 Contribution This refers to the perception of the current level of work-oriented activity each member puts forth toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad. Members of the dyad handle responsibilities and complex tasks that extend beyond their job description and/or employment contract and like wise, the extent to which the supervisor provides resources and opportunities for such activity.

2.5.5 Professional Respect This refers to the perception of the degree to which each member of the dyad had built a reputation, within and/or outside the organization, of excelling at his or her line of work. This perception is be based on historical data concerning the person, such as; personal experience, comments made about the person from an individual within or outside the organization and awards or other professional recognition achieved by the person.

2.5.6 Organizational Effectiveness Organizational effectiveness refers to the competing values framework (Quinn &Rohrbaugh’s 1981; 1983). This framework integrates four alternative models: human relations model which emphasizes two criteria cohesion and morale as means and human

li

resource development as end. The second is the rational goal model focusing on planning and goal setting as means and productivity as end. The third is open system model, stresses on innovation and readiness to adapt as means and organizational growth as end. While the last one internal process model emphasizes information management and communication as means and stability and predictability as ends.

2.5.7 Productivity-Efficiency This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that account for the quantity of produce and the cost of operation.

2.5.8 Quality This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that accounts for the quality of product or service.

2.5.9 Cohesion This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that account for staff morale, interpersonal relationship, teamwork.

2.5.10 Adaptability-Readiness This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that accounts for its readiness to alter or adapt its structure, programmes, courses etc, in response to change demands.

lii

2.5.11 Information Management Communication This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that accounts for the timely and accurate distribution of information needed by employees to do their jobs.

2.5.12 Growth This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that reflects the ability to secure external support, acquire resources and increase its capabilities.

2.5.13 Planning-Goal Setting This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that reflects the ability to set goals and systematically plan for the future.

2.5.14 Human Resources Development This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that accounts for the responsiveness of the individual needs of employees. It also has to do with the extent to which the organization facilitates employees’ participation in decision-making. In addition, this aspect is concerned with behavior relating to hiring, training and development of employees.

liii

2.5.15 Stability-Control This refers to an aspect of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that reflects the ability to control the flow of work, to direct the behavior of its members and to maintain the organization’s continuity particularly under periods of pressure and threat.

2.5.16 Perception of Change This refers to interpretations employees give to change that have a propensity of occurring in work organizations. These comprise external and internal factors that affect change in organizations. 2.5.16 Young Employees This refers to employees between the ages of nineteen to thirty-nine. 2.5.17 Old employees While old employee refers to those between forty to sixty years old

liv

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.0 Population The population sampled was workers in the manufacturing industry in Accra and Tema. The essence of using this target population is in two fold: first, the importance of LMX is in the interaction that exists between supervisors and subordinate, thus most of the participants of interest would easily be found in the manufacturing sector. The second is the fact that some of the components the researcher used in measuring effectiveness would only be useful in organizations that were in the manufacturing sector. It was for these reasons that workers from mainly the manufacturing industry were used as participants

3.1 Sample Two hundred participants of middle and line staff with standard seven/Junior secondary school certificate to Higher National Diploma /Degree were drawn from the population for the study. The participants were drawn mainly from the production departments of five manufacturing organizations. Only employees who reported to an immediate

supervisor were sampled, since the LMX theory basically looks at supervisor– subordinate relationship. In selecting the participants for the study the researcher randomly selected the first participant after which every third person on the list of employees in the production unit was selected.

lv

Seventy nine (79) were male and seventy one (71) were female employees. The minimum age was nineteen (19) and the maximum age fifty-one (51). The average age was thirty two (32). Education of participants was put into three categories for convenience. Eighteen (18) employees had MSLC/JSS certificates representing twelve percent (12%) of participants. Eighty six (86) had SSCE/O&A LEVELS/DIPLOMA representing fifty seven percent (57%). Forty-six (46) employees had HND/DEGREE representing thirty one percent (31%) of the total sample for the study.

In the case of job status, participants were classified into three; factory hands (37) representing 25%, assembly line staff (51), representing 34%, assistant supervisors (62) representing 41%. The age of employees was also put into two groups: young (19-39years) and old (40-60years). The young employees were 41 and the old were 44.There is a short fall of sixty five (65) participants who failed to fill in their age on the questionnaires. Thus, they did not reflect in the analysis when the two age groups were compared.

Out of the two hundred participants selected, one hundred and eighty six participants completed and returned the questionnaires. This resulted in ninety three percent (93%)return rate. Thirty -six (36) were rejected because some participants failed to fill the questionnaires well. This resulted in a total of one hundred and fifty participants.

lvi

3.2 Research Instruments 3.2a. LMX-MDM scale Warr et al, (1979) have argued that “adequate measurement of complex psychological states usually requires an interactive process; researchers must move several times between conceptualization and operationalization, adjusting their ideas and measures as they go… and it is sometimes necessary to accept or adapt a previously reported measure or to create a new scale…”. For this reason the data collection instruments or materials for the present study consists of an LMX-MDM scale formulated and validated by Liden & Maslyn, (1998).

The organizational effectiveness questionnaire used was based on the competing values framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1981; 1983) and Pounder’s seven dimensions for assessing effectiveness in higher institutions, which was standardized in Hong Kong (1999).

Also used in the present study was a perception of change questionnaire designed and validated by the researcher in a pilot study. Reliability levels for each dimension and for the pilot study have been discussed below.

The study examined each of the three questionnaires used by the researcher. The leadermember exchange used the LMX-MDM scale (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). The LMX-MDM scale has a total of twelve items categorized into four domains of affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect. Question 1-3 of the LMX-MDM questionnaire is

lvii

designed to measure employees overall affect. Question 4-6 of the same scale tapped information on loyalty. Question 7-9 measured employees’ overall contribution or effort and the extent to which the supervisor provides resources and opportunities for such activity. Question 10 – 12 measured employees’ professional respect. In effect it is to measure employees’ perception of the degree to which each member of the dyad has built a reputation, within and / or outside the organization, of excelling at his or her line of work. All 12 items were scored from one (1) through seven (7). One (1) represents the lowest score and seven (7) the highest rating on each item.

On each of the four domains (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) the minimum score for an employees who filled the questionnaire was 3 and the maximum score 21.The minimum score for all four domains was 12 while the maximum score was 84. The lower the score the lower the exchange and the higher the score the higher or better the exchange.

Test-re-test reliability over two weeks for the four factors of LMX were as follows; affect (r = 0.83, p<0.01), loyalty (r = 0.75, p<0.01), contribution (r = 0.72,p<0.01) and professional respect (r = 0.83,p<0.01). The present study recorded a test-re-test reliability levels for affect (r = 0.86, p<0.01), loyalty (r = 0.81, p<0.01), contribution (r =

0.89,p<0.01) and professional respect (r = 0.91,p<0.01) The validity of the LMX-MDM was derived from support for the 4-factor model using exploratory factor analysis, and conformation using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with independent samples (Bagozzi, Yi & Phillips 1991;Rahim&Magner, 1995). However, consistent with Schmidt

lviii

& Klimoski (1991) argument that validity is best assessed using multiple approaches, Liden & Maslyn (1998) in their own words said, “we examined our scale with respect to response bias susceptibility, content validity, discriminated validity and criterion-related validity.

3.2 b Organizational effectiveness scale The second instrument used in measuring effectiveness was a behaviorally anchored rating scale developed by Pounder (1997). The scale has nine criteria or dimensions (productivity – efficiency, quality, cohesion, and adaptability – readiness, information management-communication, growth, planning-goal-setting, human resource

development, and stability-control).

This multi-domain effectiveness scale is based on the competing values framework or model (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1981, 1983) of effectiveness. This model or framework integrates all four models of effectiveness (rational goal model, human relations model, internal process model and the open system model) with the above-mentioned underlying dimension or criteria. Each question on the organizational effectiveness questionnaire is rated on a 7-point scale beginning from 1 – 7. The minimum and maximum rating a participant could obtain on answering a question was 1 and 7 respectively; the questionnaire had a total of 19 questions, segmented into 7 dimensions. The first dimension, productivity efficiency contained 2 items or questions which tapped employees behavior relating to how much they produced and the cost of production .The

lix

minimum and maximum score a participant could obtain on these two items were 2 and 14 respectively.

The second dimension contained three items or questions. It sought to tap employees’ behavior, which accounted for quality of produce. The minimum and maximum score obtained on this dimension or domain was 3 and 21 respectively.

On the third dimension of measuring effectiveness, a total of 5 items or questions were asked. These questions tapped information relating to cohesion in organization (i.e. behavior that reflects the extent to which effectiveness is concerned with staff morale, interpersonal relationship, teamwork, and sense of belonging. It had a minimum and maximum domain score of 5 and 35 respectively.

Adaptability-readiness was the fourth dimension or domain of effectiveness. This dimension contained 2 items which required information on employee behavior that reflects the ability to readily alter to adapt the organization’s structure, programmes courses in response to changing demands. In effect, the extent of the organization’s readiness to adapt to change. It was also rated on a seven-point scale of 1-7 and had a minimum and maximum rating score of 2 and 14 respectively.

The fifth dimension touched on information management and communication as aspects for evaluating effectiveness in the present study. This domain dealt with the timeliness

lx

and accuracy of information distributed to members to do their jobs. It also contains 2 items with a minimum and maximum rating score of 2 and 14 respectively.

Growth is the sixth dimension for evaluating effectiveness in the present study. It had 3 items or questions on aspects of an organization’s performance, which has to do with behavior that reflects the extent of its ability to secure external support, acquire resources, and increase its capabilities. It also had total minimum and maximum scores of 3 and 21.

Planning and goal setting was the last domain or dimension for evaluating effectiveness. This last dimension, which is also the seventh, had 2 items or questions and was rated on a 7-point scale of 1-7. It also had 2 as its minimum rating score and 14 as its maximum rating score. In short, the overall effectiveness questionnaire contained a total of 19 items or questions of 7 dimensions or domains for measuring effectiveness of organization in the present study. The total minimum score a respondent could get on the overall effectiveness questionnaire was 19 and the maximum score he / she could obtain was 133.The midpoint (67) of the effectiveness scale was chosen as the criteria to determine high or low effectiveness. Scores above the midpoint represented high effectiveness and scores below represented low effectiveness.

The reliability for each domain as presented by Pounder (1999) is as follows; productivity-efficiency (r = 0.89,p<0.05), quality (r = 0.88,p<0.05), cohesion (r = 0.90,p<0.05), adaptability-readiness (r = 0.89,p<0.05), information managementcommunication (r = 0.92,p<0.05), growth (r = 0.90,p<0.05), planning – goal-setting

lxi

(r = 0.9515), human resources development (r = 0.69,p<0.05), and stability control (r = 0.59,p<0.05). With reference to scalability, the above results led to the decision to eliminate the human resources development and stability-control scale on the basis of the considerably lower correlation coefficients for these two. It was on this ground that the present study included the first seven dimensions for evaluating effectiveness in organization.

The present study recorded a total test-re-test reliability (over two weeks) level of (r = 0.92,p<0.05). In the writings of Pounder, (1999) he stated that “ the refinement of the behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) method of scale development employed in the Hong Kong study resulted in scales conducive to convergent and discriminated valid ratings in four of the nine effectiveness dimensions contained in the competing values model (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981, 1993) namely information management – communication, planning goal setting productivity – efficiency and cohesion.

3.2 c Perception of change scale Turning to the third questionnaire used in the present study, the researcher developed a 15-item questionnaire based on employees’ perception of change in the work place. The items included both internal and external forces of change in the work place with a rating scale beginning from 1-7. One (1) indicated the minimum rating score and seven (7) represented the maximum rating score an individual filling the questionnaire could obtain. The researcher in a pilot study of 29 participants pre-tested all 15 items and reported a total item reliability of (r = 0.81,p<0.05) and validity of (r = 0.56,p<0.05). The

lxii

present study recorded a total item reliability of (r = 0.92,p<0.05). In this questionnaire the minimum rating score a participant could obtain is 15 and the maximum rating score 105.The increase in the coefficient alphas was as a result of the large sample size used in the present study.

3.3 Procedure The researcher worked with Human resource Directors /Managers and Heads of the production departments of the selected organizations. First, an introductory letter from the Department of Psychology, University of Ghana was sent to the five organizations.

The relevance and objectives of the study was then communicated to the Human resource Directors and managers in each of the organizations and to seek informed consent. A copy of the research questionnaire was given to the Human Resource Departments for consideration after which a human resource/Personnel officer was asked by the Human resource manger/Director to assist the researcher with employee population list. The officers also assisted in introducing the researcher to the production managers for easy identification of selected employee, administration and retrieval of the questionnaires.

Each participant selected was given three questionnaires (LMX, Effectiveness and Perception of Change) to complete in a maximum time period of two weeks. This duration of time was given to help participants have time to respond to the questions at home in the face of heavy work schedules.

lxiii

Completed questionnaires were received through the production mangers. This was done on a weekly basis for all five organizations. Gradually a total of one hundred and eighty six completed questionnaires were collected. However, thirty-six were taken out due to insufficient information. This resulted in a total of one hundred and fifty questionnaires, which were used for the analysis.

The approach used to gather the data considered confidentiality by using the following procedure. Each of the five manufacturing organizations that participated in the study received a number of questionnaires, which bore no numbers and values to identify respondent. Assurance of strict confidentiality was indicated on each of the questionnaire respondents received.

lxiv

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 4.0 Introduction Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), three statistical methods were applied to the data collected for the study. First, Pearson’s inter-correlations were used to determine the Inter-correlations among the four factors of LMX and Organizational effectiveness, LMX and Perception of change. These inter-correlation tested hypotheses one to four and six to nine. These are found in table one and three.

Second, the Pearson product-moment correlation was used to analyze hypotheses five and ten. These tested for positive significant relationships between LMX and Effectiveness, LMX and Perception of change. These are also found in table two and four.

Third, the two-way ANOVA was used to analyze hypotheses eleven and twelve, which tested for gender differences in predicting the rate of effectiveness and also perception of change. The analyses have been presented in table 4.1 to 4.15 below.

lxv

Table 4.1 Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four factors of LMX and Organizational Effectiveness Measures 1.Organisational Effectiveness 2.Affect 3.Loyalty 4.Contribution 5.Professional respect N = 150 ** p < .01 1 2 .59** .39** .20** .43** 3 4 5

Table 4.1 shows the inter-correlations among the four factors of the independent variable (LMX) and Organizational effectiveness. The results indicate strong positive and significant correlation between affect and Organizational effectiveness (r = .59, p<. 01). In other words, as affect increases so also employee effectiveness increases in organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.35) means that 35% of the differences in the effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by affect. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H1) that Affect is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

lxvi

The analysis in table 4.1 revealed moderate positive and significant correlation between loyalty and Organizational effectiveness (r = .39, p<. 01). In other words, the higher the level of loyalty, the higher employee effectiveness in organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.15) reveals that 15% of the differences in the effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by loyalty. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H2) that loyalty is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

However, in the same table the results revealed low positive and significant correlation between contribution and Organizational effectiveness (r = .20, p<. 01). In other

words, the lower the level of contribution, the lower employee effectiveness in organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.04) means that 4% of the differences in the effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by contribution. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H3) that contribution is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

Meanwhile results from the above table correlation between Professional

revealed moderate positive and significant and Organizational effectiveness

respect

lxvii

(r = .43, p<. 01). This means that, the higher the level of professional respect, the higher employee effectiveness in organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.18) indicates that 18% of the differences in the effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by professional respect. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H4) that professional respect is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

Table 4.2 Summary of Pearson Product –Moment Correlation between LMX and Organizational Effectiveness Independent Dependent Variable Leadermember Exchange (LMX) The relationship between LMX and organisational effectiveness was determined using the Pearson Product - Moment correlation coefficient. There was a moderate positive correlation between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .39, P <. 01], with higher levels of LMX associated with higher levels of employee effectiveness towards the organisation. . The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = .15) further revealed that 15% of the differences Variable Organizational Effectiveness .391 r N 150 df 148 < .01 p

lxviii

in the effectiveness level of employees could be predicted by the LMX in their organisation. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H5) that LMX is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ effectiveness in work organisations.

Table 4.3 Summary of Pearson’s Inter-Correlations among the four Components of LMX and Perception of Change Measures 1.Perception of Change 2.Affect 3.Loyalty 4.Contribution 5.Professional respect N = 150 ** p < .01 ns 1 2 .114ns .066ns .40** .29** 3 4 5

Table 4.3 shows the inter-correlations among the four factors of the independent variable (LMX) and Perception of change. The results indicate very low, positive but nonsignificant correlation between affect and Perception of change (r = .114, p<. ns).

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = .013) means that 1.30% of the differences in the perception of change of employees can be predicted by affect. The outcome of the analysis therefore partially supports the hypothesis (H6) that Affect is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change at work. lxix

The analysis in table 4.3 again revealed very low, positive but non-significant correlation between loyalty and perception of change (r = .066, p<. ns). In other words, employees’ loyalty has no consequence for their perception of change at work. The fact that somebody is loyal does not mean he/she will be positive about reforms at work.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.0044) means that 0.44% of the differences in the perception of change of employees can be predicted by loyalty. The outcome of the analysis therefore partially supports the hypothesis (H7) that loyalty is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change in work organisations.

Meanwhile results in Table 4.3 indicated moderate positive and significant correlation between contribution and perception of change (r = .40, p<. 01). In other words, the

higher the level of contribution, the more positive employees perception of change in organizations. While the lower employees contribute to work the more negative their perceptions become of change at the work place.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.16) means that 16% of the differences in perception of change of employees can be predicted by contribution. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H8) that contribution is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change.

lxx

However, analysis in Table 4.3 revealed low positive and significant correlation between Professional respect and perception of change (r = .29, p<. 01). This means that, the lower the level of professional respect, the lower perception of change of employees in organizations.

The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.084) means that 8.4% of the differences in perception of change of employees can be predicted by professional respect. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H9) that professional respect is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change.

Table 4.4 Summary of Pearson Product –Moment Correlation between LMX and Perception of change Independent Dependent Variable Leadermember Exchange (LMX) The relationship between LMX and perception of change was investigated using the Pearson Product - Moment correlation coefficient. There was a low positive correlation between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .21, p <. 01], with higher levels of LMX associated with higher levels of employee perception of change towards the Variable Perception of Change .21 r N 150 df 148 < .05 p

lxxi

organisations. The coefficient of determinant (i.e., r2 = 0.044) means that 4% of the differences in the effectiveness level of employees can be predicted by the LMX in their organisations. The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis (H10) that LMX is positively and significantly correlated with employees’ perception of change in work organisations.

Table 4.5 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the Impact of Sex and Level of LMX on employees Effectiveness Sex Level of Mean Std. Deviation N

lxxii

LMX Low LMX Male High LMX Total Low LMX Female High LMX Total Low LMX Total High LMX Total 21.5455 14.0094 17.4278 26.4348 15.9149 22.1724 23.6943 14.5948 19.2032 9.91911 6.46234 9.01222 10.72270 6.98704 11.92241 10.46101 6.66337 10.43646 32 47 79 20 51 71 52 98 150

The mean scores on the extent to which sex and level of LMX influence employees’ effectiveness in organisation was investigated using a two way analysis of variance. The results and its corresponding interpretation are shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Summary of Two–way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Sex and Level of LMX Predict effectiveness of Employees Source Sex LMX Sex * LMX Error Total Sum of Squares 726.186 5703.361 124.397 26197.425 33656.197 df 1 1 1 146 149 Mean Square 7266.186 5703.361 124.397 85.612 F 7.423 56.319 1.008 p <. 005 <. 001 ns -

lxxiii

The two-way between group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of sex and LMX on effectiveness of participants. The result as shown in Table 6 revealed that sex had significant effect on effectiveness [F (1,146) = 7.423, p<. 005]. The mean scores on the effectiveness for males and females 17.43 and 22.17 respectively meant that females show higher effectiveness in organisations compared to males. The outcome is in consonance with the hypothesis (H11) that female employees will exhibit a higher rate of effectiveness compared to their male counterparts.

It was also found that LMX had significant effect on employees’ effectiveness [F (1,146) = 56.319, p <. 001], with a large effect size of .15. There was, however no significant interaction between sex and LMX in predicting employees’ effectiveness.

Table 4.7 Summary of Means and Standard Deviation Scores on the Influence of Sex and LMX on Perception of change among Employees Sex Male Level LMX Low LMX High LMX Total Low LMX Female High LMX Total Low LMX Total High LMX Total Mean 61.6250 79.3868 71.3299 39.9855 77.0213 54.9914 52.1146 78.6601 65.2161 Std. Deviation 15.03659 9.32643 15.09433 21.34416 11.49762 25.60689 20.99450 10.06437 21.19096 N 32 47 79 20 51 71 52 98 150

lxxiv

The standard deviation scores in Table 4.7 showed some amount of deviation of individual scores around their population means. Individuals within the various categories differed on perception of change. The two –way Analysis of variance was performed to identify the source of the variation. The results are presented in Table 4.8 below.

Table 4.8 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Sex and LMX Influence Perception of change Mean Source Sex LMX Sex* LMX Error Total Sum of Squares 10186.875 53083.521 6567.195 65863.731 138758.519 df Square 1 1 1 146 149 10186.875 53083.521 6567.195 215.241 42.328 216.624 28.501 <. 001 <. 001 <. 001 F p

The two-way analysis of variance showed a significant main effect of sex on perception of change of employees [F (1,146) = 42.328, p <. 001]. This means that employees’ perception of change is dependent on their sex. The mean scores on perception of change for males and females as shown in Table 8 above revealed that males perception of change are more favorable. The outcome supports the hypothesis (H12) that females’ perception of change is less favorable than their male counterparts in work organizations.

lxxv

A significant interaction was also observed between sex and LMX in predicting perception of change among employees [F (1,146) = 28.501, p <. 001], however the effect size was moderate (eta square =. 091). Multiple comparisons were done to find out which of the sexes performed well under LMX. The result is shown in Table 4.9 below.

Table 4.9 Summary of Newman Kuel’s Multiple Comparisons following 2-way ANOVA to determine which Two Means Precisely Interact in Predicting Perception of change Variables Male LMX Male LMX Female LMX Female Low high low high Male Low LMX Male high LMX 17.76 Female low LMX 21.64 39.40* Female high LMX 15.39 2.37 38.04* -

LMX *P <. 05 level of significance The multiple comparisons between groups using Newman Keuls (this is comparatively sensitive/conservative to other post hoc test like Fisher’s LSD) showed that female workers who enjoy low LMX and male workers with high LMX differ significantly on the perception of change scale with the latter group being high on perception of change. The analysis also showed that females with high LMX and females with low LMX differ significantly when it comes to perception of change (p<. 05 level in all cases). With a

lxxvi

moderate level of eta, it can still be said that sex moderate LMX in predicting perception of change of employees. Table 4.10 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of Job Status and LMX on Effectiveness Job status Level of LMX Low LMX High LMX Factory Hand Assembly line Total Low LMX High LMX Assistant supervisor Total Low LMX High LMX Total Total Low LMX High LMX Total 62.7155 50.9143 80.6739 74.2268 66.2243 87.8022 59.3272 81.5135 69.9194 14.12528 19.91412 6.86393 21.68302 7.45661 8.78586 14.23441 17.65924 9.73002 18.18593 37 25 26 51 27 35 62 69 81 150 Mean 65.7283 81.8922 Std.Deviation 12.45661 10.78586 N 17 20

A two-way analysis of variance was carried out to ascertain the impact of job status and LMX on Effectiveness. The median score on the measures LMX was used to segment the respondents into two independent groups (Low and high levels of LMX). The summary of the ANOVA analysis is shown in Table 4.11.

lxxvii

Table 4.11 Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Influence of Employee Job Status and LMX on Effectiveness Source Job Status LMX Job Status * LMX Error Total Sum of Squares 4623.305 38440.213 3354.160 55353.615 102194.984 df 1 1 1 146 149 Mean Square 4623.305 38440.213 3354.160 180.894 F 23.420 197.552 18.022 P <. 001 <. 001 <. 001 -

The two-way analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of job status on effectiveness [F (1,146) = 23.420, p <. 001]. This means that employees’ effectiveness is also influenced by their position. The mean scores on effectiveness as shown in Table 4.10 indicated that assistant supervisors were more effective than assembly line worker. Similarly, assembly line workers were found to be effective than the factory hand workers.

It was also observed that LMX had significant effect on employees’ effectiveness [F (1,146) = 197.552, p<. 001]. Similar to this finding, there was a significant interaction between job status and LMX in predicting effectiveness [F (1,146) = 18.022, p <. 001]. In other words, one’s position and the quality of relationship between leader and follower was a determinant in one’s effectiveness at work.

lxxviii

Table 4.12 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of Education and LMX on Effectiveness Education MSLC/JSS Level of LMX Low LMX High LMX Total O&A LEVELS Low LMX SSS/DIPOLMA/ High LMX HND/DEGREE Total Low LMX High LMX Total Total Low LMX High LMX Total Mean 68.0227 79.3774 64.4265 51.0435 79.8511 71.4432 43.5475 55.6531 59.2115 60.5605 79.5229 77.9194 Std.Deviation 13.73139 12.30753 15.10549 20.55225 8.86799 19.46307 16.32221 5.96891 19.42317 12.99543 10.89765 15.18478 N 7 11 18 41 45 86 17 29 46 65 85 150

The standard deviation scores showed some amount of deviation of individual scores around their population means. Individuals within the various categories differed on the degree of deviation around their population means. The mean scores on employees’ educational background were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance. The result is shown in Table 4.13 below.

Table 4.13 lxxix

Summary of Two-way Analysis of Variance showing the Extent to which Education and LMX impact on Effectiveness Source Education LMX Education* LMX Error Total Sum of Squares 4816.116 28514.949 5384.869 63175.687 102194.984 df 1 1 1 146 149 Mean Square 4816.116 28514.949 5384.869 206.456 F 23.328 138.116 26.082 p <. 001 <. 001 <. 001 -

From the two-way analysis of variance in Table 4.13, education had significant impact on effectiveness [F (1,146) = 23.328, p <. 001]. This means that employees’ effectiveness is also dependent on one’s level of education. The mean scores on effectiveness as shown in Table 4.12 indicated that those in the second category (O, A, SSS and Diploma level) were more effective than those with MSLC and JSS and HND and Degree holders.

It was also observed that LMX had significant effect on employees’ effectiveness [F (1,146) = 138.116, p <. 001]. Similarly it was found that a significant interaction exists between education and LMX in predicting effectiveness [F (1,146) = 26.082, p <. 001]. In other words, one’s level of education and quality of relationship between leader and follower was key to effectiveness at work.

lxxx

Table 4.14 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations showing the impact of age and LMX on Effectiveness Age Low LMX Young High LMX Total Low LMX Old High LMX Total Low LMX Total High LMX Total LMX Mean 21.0924 18.6610 20.2865 26.9167 16.8250 17.7424 21.6260 17.4302 19.2032 Std. Deviation 10.67390 10.62465 10.68934 7.35414 9.71671 9.93922 10.52786 10.03250 10.43646 N 25 19 44 12 29 41 37 48 85

Table 4.14 shows the means and standard deviation scores of age and LMX in relation to effectiveness. The median score on LMX and ages for the employees were used to split employees into high LMX and low LMX respectively. The mean scores for the groups were subjected to a two – way analysis of variance. The result is shown in Table 4.15 below.

lxxxi

Table 4.15 Summary of Two – way Analysis of Variance showing the extent to which Age and LMX impact on Effectiveness Source Age LMX
Age* LMX

Sum of Squares 135.925 1340.188 501.451 31821.445 33656.197

df 1 1 1 81 84

Mean Square 135.925 1340.188 501.451 103.992 -

F 1.307 12.887 4.822 -

p ns <. 001 <. 05 -

Error Total

The results revealed that age of employees had no significant effect on Effectiveness [F (1, 81) = 1.307, p = ns]. This means that differences in age of employees is not a factor in predicting effectiveness. However, It was observed that LMX had significant effect on employees’ effectiveness [F (1,146) = 12.887, p <. 001]. Similarly, there was a significant interaction between age and LMX in predicting effectiveness

[F (1,146) = 4.822, p <. 05]. In other words, a combination of one’s age and the quality of relationship between leader and follower influenced one’s effectiveness at work.

Summary of Results The multiple correlations in Table 4.1 and 4.3 indicated positive relationship among the four factors of LMX (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) and effectiveness. The same positive relationship was found among the four factors of the LMX and perception of change. The maximum coefficient values were observed between affect and effectiveness in organisations(r = .59, r2 = .35). The minimum coefficient value was found between loyalty and perception of change(r = .066, r2 = .044) .The correlation between LMX and effectiveness revealed that LMX explains 15% of the variance in lxxxii

effectiveness. Deducing from the positive relationship of LMX with all the effectiveness and perception of change, it is no doubt that LMX contributes to the effectiveness and perception of change of the individual employee.

The Pearson’s Product Moment correlations were carried out to investigate the relationship among the selected variables. These are shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.4. The first analysis was to ascertain the relationship between LMX and effectiveness in this study. It was observed that LMX correlated positively and moderately with effectiveness (r = .39). However, LMX had a positive and low correlation with perception of change (r = .165).

Though relatively moderate coefficient values were observed among the four factors of LMX, effectiveness and perception of change using the multiple correlations, the variables could not be solely attributed to the LMX. The coefficient of non-determinants for the variables indicates that other factors could account for the effectiveness and perception of change of employees. The two-way analysis was therefore used to ascertain the interaction between LMX and other demographic variables such as sex, education, job status and age. All three except age impacted on effectiveness.

lxxxiii

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5.0 Discussion The study investigated the relationship among the LMX, Effectiveness and Perception of Change at work. In line with this, four aims were put forward: To establish a positive and significant relationship among the four factors of LMX (affect, loyalty, contribution, professional respect) and effectiveness in work organizations. To establish a positive and significant relationship among the four factors of LMX (affect, loyalty, contribution, professional respect) and perception of change in work organizations. To determine the strength and explain how much each factor of LMX predict effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations. Finally, to investigate the impact of sex or gender on the leader-member exchange.

The first hypothesis stated that there would be a positive and significant relationship between affect and effectiveness in work organizations. The results indicate strong positive and significant correlation between affect and Organizational effectiveness (r = .59, p<. 01). In other words, as affect increases so employee effectiveness increases in organizations. This outcome supports the hypothesis and is consistent with Dionne’s studies on the LMX. Dionne (2000) studying the four factors of LMX, found that a positive relationship exist between affect and job satisfaction. It has also been found that supervisor liking of a subordinate positively influence the expected leader-member exchange treatment of the subordinate and evaluations of subordinate performance. From the leader’s perspective, liking for members and ability of members were the variables

lxxxiv

most consistently related to quality of leader-member exchange (Turban, Jones &Rozzelle, 1990). Members placed more importance on the emotional or interactive aspects of their relationships with leaders during the initial interaction, while leaders tended to focus more on considerations such as work group productivity and member ability. From the member’s perspective all variables except self assessed ability were related to quality of leader-member interaction, while leaders tended to focus more on consideration such as work-group Dockery & Steiner (1980).

These findings are consistent with the findings of the present study. However, the present findings have established a significant relationship and (based on Cohen’s statistical power) demonstrated affect contributed 35% in the a strong power of the relationship .It was found that prediction of effectiveness in work organizations. This

outcome is an improvement over previous findings. The implication here is that the LMX is still relevant in the study of leadership in work organizations. Organizations and managers who want to enhance employee performance and organizational effectiveness should pay attention to developing a strong LMX (supervisor-subordinate interaction) by providing affection to subordinates.

It was hypothesized that there will be a positive and significant relationship between loyalty and effectiveness in work organizations. The analysis in Table 4.1 revealed moderate positive and significant correlation between loyalty and Organizational effectiveness(r = .39, p<. 01). In other words, the higher the level of loyalty, the higher employee effectiveness in organizations .The outcome supports hypothesis two. This is

lxxxv

in consonance with previous studies. For example, research shows mutual trust, positive support, informal interdependence, greater job latititude, common bond, open communication, high referee and autonomy, satisfaction and shared loyalty are related to LMX (Dansereau, Graen & Haga 1975;Dienesch & Liden 1986;Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995). Dionne (2000) also found that a positive relationship exist between loyalty and job satisfaction. Furthermore, the finding established a significant relationship, determined a moderate strength of the relationship and contributed 15% in the prediction of effectiveness in work organizations.

This finding is indicative of the growing need of some organizations and leaders

now

sharing the same canteen, parking space, engage in keep fit activities with employees and even participate in the actual work with subordinates. A sense of being part of the organization is generated hence employees willing to stay and put in extra effort to ensure organizational goals are achieved.

The implication is that using the LMX, as a multidimensional tool is still important in the study of leadership in work organizations. Organizations looking for employee loyalty should show keen interest in improving the interaction between supervisor and subordinates.

The third hypothesis posited that there would be a positive and significant relationship between contribution and effectiveness in work organizations. The results revealed low positive and significant correlation between contribution and Organizational effectiveness

lxxxvi

(r = .20, p<. 01). In other words, the lower the level of contribution, the lower employee effectiveness in organizations. This hypothesis was supported. Similar studies have found the same outcome. For example, it has been found that a positive relationship exists between contribution and job satisfaction (Dionne 2000). The relevance of this outcome is that the study established a positive and significant relationship.

The implication is that employees’ contribution as a result of the interaction might not be a very good way to influence effectiveness. Organizations and managers who want to enhance employee performance and organizational effectiveness should focus more on developing affection, professional respect and loyalty.

The fourth hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between professional respect and effectiveness in work organizations. The analysis in table 4.1 revealed moderate positive and significant correlation between Professional respect and Organizational effectiveness (r = .43, p<. 01). This means that, the higher the level of professional respect, the higher employee effectiveness in organizations. The results supported the fourth hypothesis.

The finding is consistent with that of previous literature. For instance, Dionne (2000) research on LMX revealed a positive relationship between professional respect and job satisfaction.

lxxxvii

The explanation is that members in the dyad, both leaders and followers were conscious of the fact that for people to perform due cognizance should be given to members ability and reputation, within and/or outside the organization. Further, excellence at members’ line of work remains important in ensuring that effectiveness was achieved.

The implication is that professional respect as a factor of the LMX is still relevant in organizations. Leaders and managers who want to achieve high effectiveness should focus on improving interaction with special attention on recognizing members as professionals who also have a stake in making the goals of the organization achievable.

Hypothesis five tested for a positive and significant relationship between LMX and effectiveness in work organizations. It is important to note that LMX is a summation of the four factors (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect). There was a moderate positive correlation between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .39, P <. 01], with higher levels of LMX associated with higher levels of employee effectiveness in organisations. The outcome of the analysis therefore supported the hypothesis as indicated in Table 4.2.

Previous studies using the LMX have found similar results. Trunkenbrodt (2000) in studying the LMX, commitment and citizenship behavior, found that a positive relationship exist between LMX and commitment. The same outcome was established between LMX and citizenship behavior. Dionne (2000) has also reported a positive

lxxxviii

relationship between LMX and job satisfaction. These findings are consistent with the findings of the present study.

However, the present findings have established a significant relationship, determined a moderate strength of the relationship and found that LMX represented 15% in the prediction of effectiveness in work organizations. The rest could be explained by other variables such as age and sex of participants. Other studies have found that demographic factors explained 17% of the variance in LMX. Previous studies provide strong support for the LMX theory. For example, LMX with job satisfaction, commitment, citizenship behavior, productivity, performance, perception of organizational climate and now effectiveness. Comparing forecasts on turnover based on leader-member interactions with those based on manager’s overall styles, the dyadic approach resulted in better prediction (Graen, Novak&Sommerkamp, 1982). This is indicative of the fact that the LMX theory is empirically supported and thus remains relevant in the present interpretations of effective leadership in organizations.

The sixth hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between affect and perception of change in work organizations. The results indicate very low, positive but not-significant correlation between affect and Perception of change(r = .114, p<. ns).

The outcome of the analysis therefore supported the hypothesis partially. Though the result was positive it was not significant. Previous studies using the LMX have found positive relationships among affect and other organizational variables. For example

lxxxix

Dionne (2000) found that a positive relationship exist between affect and job satisfaction. Even the present study has also found similar relationship between affect and effectiveness. Although affect is highly related to effectiveness it was different with perception of change. Even though organizations accept that change has come to stay, employees view it to be undesirable and detrimental to their survival. Infact, to them change have always suggested downsizing or retrenchment. Thus employees often have resisted change bearing such perception. This could have influenced the outcome.

The seventh hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between loyalty and perception of change in work organizations. The analysis in Table two again revealed very low, positive but non-significant correlation between loyalty and perception of change (r = .066, p<. ns). This hypothesis was partially supported. Though the result was positive it was not significant. Previous studies using the LMX have found positive relationships among affect and other organizational variables. For example Dionne (2000) found that a positive relationship exist between affect and job satisfaction.

The findings suggest that a positive relationship exist between the two variables. In other words, when loyalty is low, effectiveness is also low and the reverse is true. The other argument is that the impact of loyalty on effectiveness was negligible. This outcome failed to improve on previous findings. While loyalty improved employee effectiveness as indicated in hypothesis two it was not important to employees when it came to their perception of change. For these employees, loyalty to their supervisors was not a function or automatic in the way they perceived change in organizations. In other words, loyalty

xc

was not a good predictor of employees’ perception of change. However, it is likely that some demographic factors could explain this outcome.

The eighth hypothesis tested for a positive and significant relationship between contribution and perception of change in work organizations. Results in Table 4.3

revealed moderate positive and significant correlation between contribution and perception of change (r = .40, p<. 01). In other words, the higher the level of contribution, the higher employees’ perception of change in organizations

Hypothesis eight was supported. This outcome is consistent with Dionne’s findings. Dionne (2000) found that a positive relationship exists between contribution and job satisfaction (The present findings established a positive and significant relationship. However, a low relationship was revealed by the analysis and 4% of contribution explained the prediction of effectiveness in work organizations.

Even though two of the four factors of LMX (affect and loyalty) were low, on the contrary contribution was high in predicting perception of change. This could be that employees putting a lot into their work have a better understanding of events and as such are in a better position to view things differently.

The implication is that employees’ contribution as a result of the interaction might not be a good way to influence effectiveness. However, it is a solid way of improving employees’ perception about change.

xci

Hypothesis nine tested for a positive and significant relationship between professional respect and perception of change in work organizations. The analysis revealed low positive and significant correlation between Professional respect and perception of change (r = .29, p<. 01). This means that, the lower the level of professional respect, the lower perception of change of employees in organizations. This supported hypothesis nine which states that there will be a positive significant relationship between leadermember exchange and organizational effectiveness.

The outcome is similar with the findings of previous studies. Dionne (2000) found that a positive relationship between professional respect and job satisfaction. The present findings established a positive and significant relationship. A moderate power of the relationship was revealed by the analysis and 16% of professional respect explained the prediction of perception of change in work organizations. Thus the finding suggests that these organizations recognized the abilities and capabilities of their employees thereby encouraged favorable perception of change. The implication is that Organizations should focus more on contribution and professional respect when using the LMX as the basis for improving interaction and perception of change.

Hypothesis ten tested for a positive and significant relationship between LMX and perception of change in work organizations. There was a low positive correlation between the two variables [r (N = 150) = .21, p <. 01], with low levels of LMX associated with low levels of employee perception of change in work organisations.

xcii

The outcome of the analysis therefore supports the hypothesis, which states that there will be a positive significant relationship between LMX and perception of change. This finding is also congruent with previous studies using the LMX.Trunkenbrodt (2000) in studying the LMX, commitment and citizenship behavior, found that a positive relationship exist between LMX and commitment. In the same study it was established that LMX was related to citizenship behavior. Deluga & Perry (1994) using the LMX theory found that subordinate performance was positively associated with higher exchanges. The same researchers found that subordinates ingratiating activity, including opinion conformity, other enhancement, and self-presentation augmented performance in the prediction of higher quality exchanges.

Dionne (2000) has also reported a positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction. These findings are consistent with the findings of the present study. However, the present findings have established a significant relationship, determined a moderate strength of the relationship and found that LMX represented 8.4% in the prediction of perception of change in work organizations. The rest could be explained by other variables such as age and sex of participants. Other studies have found that demographic factors explained 17% of the variance in LMX. Previous studies provide strong support for the LMX theory. Perceptions of organizational climate were related to the quality of leader-member relations (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989).

xciii

Given its recent emergence on the leadership landscape, LMX has proved to be empirically supported by numerous researches. For example, LMX with job satisfaction, commitment, citizenship behavior, productivity, performance, perception of

organizational climate and now perception of change. Organizations embarking on change are entreated to help develop a strong leader-member interaction particularly focusing on employees’ contribution and professional respect as evidenced in hypotheses eight and nine. This improves our understanding of LMX and form part of the basis for providing a new model for LMX.

Hypothesis eleven tested that female employees (under the exchange) will exhibit a higher rate of effectiveness compared to their male counterparts. The result as shown in Table 4.6 revealed that sex had significant effect on effectiveness

[F (1,146) = 7.423, p<. 005]. The mean scores on the effectiveness for males and females 17.43 and 22.17 respectively meant that females show higher effectiveness in organisations compared to males. The outcome supported this hypothesis.

Though gender has been reported to account for 17% of the variance in LMX, a previous study indicates that Females may be at a disadvantage in terms of developing high, LMX Wayne, Liden & Sparrowe (1994). With these contrasting findings it still remains that females are the preferred group when using LMX at least by the present outcome. However, further research could help explain the impact of sex or gender on the LMX.

xciv

The twelfth hypothesis tested that female employee (under the exchange) perception of change is less favorable than their male counterparts in work organizations. The result showed a significant main effect of sex on perception of change of employees [F (1,146) = 42.328, p <. 001]. This means that employees’ perception of change is dependent on their sex or gender.

The mean scores on perception of change for males (71.33) and females (54.99) indicate that females’ perception of change is less favorable than their male counterparts. The outcome-supported hypothesis eleven. Meanwhile a previous study indicates that

Females may be at a disadvantage in terms of developing high LMX, Wayne, Liden &Sparrowe (1994). Females in work organizations though seen to improve effectiveness are usually not found in influential positions like their male counterparts. Males who form the majority of the work force especially in the manufacturing sector are better placed in areas that could influence their views and perspectives favorably. The implication is that organization may have less difficulty with males in the pursuit of potential changes.

Apart from the sex of employees the alternative explanations of the variance in the LMX could be found in the level of education and job status of employees. However, the impact of employees’ age on LMX was not significant and thus fails to explain the variance. Tables ten and eleven, show that significant differences exist between one’s job status and the quality of the exchange. In the same regard, Tables 4.12 and 4.13 indicate

xcv

that significant differences exist between one’s educational level and the quality of the exchange. On the other hand, one’s age was not important to the prediction of the quality of the exchange. This is shown in Tables 4.14 and 4.15. The number of completed questionnaires (85), which bore the age of employees, explains this outcome .It is the opinion of the researcher that a larger group will improve the present outcome.

The implication is that organizations that intend improving the quality of exchange or interaction at work should consider focusing on improving the educational backgrounds of employees since people with high education tend to exhibit high quality of exchange. The same should also be considered for the individual’s job status or position when managers are looking out to improve high quality interaction in organizations.

5.1 Conclusion Hitherto the uni-dimensional approach has been used and has produced some positive and moderate relationships. However, from the analysis so far, it is clear that the LMX theory is empirically supported. The four factors of LMX (multidimensional) had major effect on the theory producing significant relationships with effectiveness.

These factors suggest good exchanges between supervisors and subordinates as prerequisite for employees’ effectiveness and perception of change in work organizations. As demonstrated in the study, previous studies have also had similar outcome. However, this study is a major improvement over the previous findings .The study found significant relationships among the four aspects of leader-member

xcvi

relationship and organizational effectiveness. These findings provide a new model of LMX and contribute to the theoretical knowledge in the area.

In the long run, the interaction between leader and member could be improved when organizations focus on helping leaders/managers/supervisors and members/subordinates develop positive and high quality relationships. Developing this high quality relationship (means focusing on affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect as they may apply) is key to improving employee effectiveness and favorable perception of change. This is empirically evidenced by the findings of the present study.

5.2 Limitations of the study The majority of participants failed to fill in their age. This made it difficult in finding out the full impact of age on the LMX. Only manufacturing organizations were used. This makes it difficult to generalize findings to all organizations. However, the outcome is a sample of what could be a better understanding of the way organizations work and how to improve them.

5.3 Recommendations Based on the outcome of the present study it is recommended that the LMX theory is still relevant to the study of leader and member behavior in work organizations. Thus, researchers are encouraged to explore this emerging area in leadership for theoretical and practical application. Emphasis should be put on the four (affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) factors of the LMX in further research.

xcvii

In essence organizations and mangers who want to improve performance, productivity, efficiency and effectiveness are charged to focus more on encouraging relationships that develop affection, professional respect, contribution and loyalty among leaders and members.

xcviii

REFERENCES Baggozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y., &Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in Organizational research. Administrative science quarterly, 36, 421-458 Barnard, C. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bass, B .M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free press. Bedeian, A.G. (1986a). Management.Hinsdale.IL: Dryden Press Bedeian, A.G. (1986b). Contemporary challenges in the study of organizations. Yearly Review Journal of Management, 12,185-201 Bernard, L.L. (1986). An introduction to social psychology. New York: Brockner, J., Grover, S., O’Malley, M.N., Reed, T.F., &Glynn, M.A. (1993). Threat of future layoffs, self-esteem and survivors’ reactions: Evidence from the laboratory and the field. Strategic Management Journal, 14,153-166. Cameron, K.S. (1980). Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 9, 66-80 Cameron, K.S. (1981). Domains of organizational effectiveness in Colleges and Universities. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 25-47 Carnall, C.A. (1986). Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change. Human Relations, 39,745-765. Chao, G.T., &Kozlowski, S.W.J (1986). Employee perceptions on the implementation of robotic manufacturing technology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 70-76. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum

xcix

Connally, T., Conlon, E.J., & Deutsch, S.J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness. A multiple-constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211-217. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organization behavior and human performance, 13, 46 – 78 Dienesch, R .M, & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership. A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review. Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Management. Deluga, R.J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organizational Management Journal, 23,189-216 Deluga, R. J. & Perry, J.T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management Journal. Bryant College. Dionne, L. (2000). Leader-member Exchange (LMX): Level of Negotiating Latitude and Job satisfaction. Universite Moncton, shippagan. Dockery, T. M., &Steiner, D.D. (1980). The role of the initial interaction in leadermember exchange. Group and Organization Studies. Louisiana State University.

Dunegan, K.J., Duchon, D. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader-member exchange and subordinates performance: The role of task

c

analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management. Cleveland State University Fairhurst, G.T., &Chandler, T.A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monograph, 56 (3) 215-239.University of Cincinnati. Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. French.J.R.P, &Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D.Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: Institute for social Research, University of Michigan. Graen G.B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach: J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds): Leadership frontiers, 143-165, Kent State University press. Graen, G (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M.D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Graen, G & Schriesheim, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,206-212 Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leadership exchange and job design, productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational behavior and human performance, 20,109-131

Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. (1987). Toward a psychology of Dyadic Organizing. Research in organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208

ci

Graen, G.B & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based approach to leadership. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. Hemphill, J.K. (1949). The leader and his group. Journal of Educational Research, 28,225-229,245-246 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. Ohio State University. House, R.J., &Baetz, M.L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. In B.M Staw (Ed), Research in Organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT.JAI Press. Howat, G., & London. (1980). Attributions of conflict management strategies in supervisor-subordinate dyads. Journal of Applied Psychology.65, 172-175 Jenkins, W.O. (1947). A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Psychological bulletin, 44, 54-79. Katerberg.R. & Hom, P.W. (1981). Effects of within group and between groups variation in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,218-223 Keating, B.P., & Keating, M.O. (1981), Goal Setting and efficiency in social service agencies. Long range planning, 14, (1), 39-48. Kleiner, B H, & Corrigan A.W (1989). Understanding organizational change. Leadership &Organizational Development Journal, 3, 25-31 Kozlowski, S.W & Doherty, M.L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology.74,

cii

546-553 Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social exchange in E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Liden, R.C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465. Liden, R.C., Maslyn, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An Empirical Assessment through scale Development. Journal of Management 24 (1): 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. University of Illinois, Chicago. Maloney, J.P, Bartz C, & Allanach B.C (1991): Staff perception of their work environment before and six months after an organizational change. Journal of military medicine, 2, 86-92 Mark, M.W., & Shortland, R. I (1985). Stakeholder-based evaluations and value judgments. Evaluation Review, 9, 605 – 626 Mc Clane, W. E. (1991). Implication of member’s role Differentiation: Analysis of a key Concept in the LMX model of Leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 16,102 133. Meyer, M.W. (1985). Limits to Bureaucratic Growth. Berlin Gruyter. Nutt, P.C., (1986). Organizational change: Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 230-261.

ciii

Pounder, J.S. (1997). Measuring the performance of institutions of Higher Education in Hong Kong: an organizational effectiveness approach, Ph.D. Dissertation, Brunel University/Henley Management College. Pounder, S.J. (1999) organizational self-assessment in Higher Education: Experimenting with the Competing Values model and Behaviorally Anchored Rating scales. Research in Post-compulsory Education, 4. Lingnan University, Juen Mun, Hong Kong. Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5, 122 – 140. Quinn, R. E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a Competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29,363 – 377 Rahim, M.A., & Magner, N. (1995). Confirmatory factor analyses of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups: Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,122-132 Scandura, R.A, & Graen, G.B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,428-436

Schriesheim, C. A. Scandura, T. A., Eisenbach, R. J., Neider, L.L. (1992). Validation of a new leader-member exchange scale (LMX-6) using hierarchically

civ

nested maximum likelihood confirmatory factors analysis. Journal of Educational & Psychological measurement. University of Miami, School of Business Administration, Coral Gables. Schriesheim, C.A., Neider L.L., & Scandura, T.A. (1998) Delegation and leadermember exchange: Main Effects, Moderators and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298 – 318 Schmidt, N.W& Klimoski, R.J (1991). Research methods in human resources management.Cincinnati.South Western Publishing Shipper, & White, C.S. (1983). Linking organizational effectiveness and environmental change, Long Range planning, 16, 99 – 106 Sparrowe, R.T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospital industry: an exploration of antecedents and outcomes. Hospitality Research Journal, 17, 51 – 73 Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71 Trunkenbrodt, Y.B (2000). The relationship between leader-member exchanges, commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Acquisition Review Quarterly. Turban, D.B. Jones, A.P., & Rozelle, R.M. (1990). Journal of Motivation and Emotion. University of Missouri.

Vecchio, R.P & Norris, W.K. (1996). Predicting employee turnover from performance, satisfaction and leader-Member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology,

cv

11, 113-125 Vecchio, R.P & Kinicki, A.J. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisorsubordinate Relations: The role of Time pressure, organization commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behaviour.15, 75-82. Vecchio, R.P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange: A failure to replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28,478-485 Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving Communication goals in Superior-Subordinate relationship; the multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. University of Kentucky. Warr, P., Cook J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well being. Journal of occupational psychology, 52,129-148 Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., & Sparrowe, R.T. (1994). Developing leader-member exchanges: The influence of gender and ingratiation. Special issues: impression management and diversity: issues for organizational behavior. American Behavioral Scientist. University of Illinois. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed) Prentice Hall, upper saddle River, NJ. 7,149 174 Zammuto, R.F. (1984). A comparison of multiple constituency models of organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 9, 606 – 619

cvi

APPENDIX I LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE QUESTIONNAIRE (LMX) INSTRUCTIONS: The following are descriptive items about leadership. Please circle the response that best fits your belief about your relationship with your supervisor. Make only one mark for each question. Please answer all items. 1. 2. I like my supervisor very much as a person My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend……………………….. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with… My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issues in question……………………….... My supervisor would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others…………………… 6. My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake 7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description……… 8. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s work goals…………………………………….. 9. I do not mind working my hardest for my Supervisor……………………………………. cvii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

3. 4.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5.

10. I am impressed with my superior’s knowledge of his/her job………………………………… 11. I respect my superior’s knowledge of and Competence on the job……………………….. 12. I admire my superior’s professional skills… 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

cviii

APPENDIX II PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGE QUESTIONAIRE INTRUCTIONS: The following are descriptive items about members (employees) perception of change in the work place. Please circle the response that best describes your perception with regard to changes that are likely to occur at where you work. Make only one mark for each question. Please answer all items. Respondents are to rate each question on a Seven point scale, where: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Represent very poor Represent poor Represent below average Represent average Represent above average Represent good Represent very good

Demographic Characteristics Age……………………………… Education……………………….. Sex (M/F)……………………… Job status………………………

1. How well will you describe change with regard to workload at the workplace? 2. How will you rate the reduction of the workforce as a result of the introduction of a new technology? 3. To what degree will you describe change with regard to the organization’s structure that may reduce the workforce? 4. How would you characterize your organization’s response to conflicts as a means to ensuring good social interaction at the workplace?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5. How would you describe a move that allows employee participation in decisions that affect their job? 1 cix

2

3

4

5

6

6. As part of your organization’s new arrangements in ensuring effectiveness, how are you likely to describe a change that offers employee career advancement. 1 7. Again change that gives opportunity for promotion at the workplace. 8. Also change concerning demotion with regards to no performance. 9. Also change that calls for employee transfer. 10. How would you describe a workforce reduction exercise carried out by your organization, which could affect a co-worker? 11. how would you describe change with regard to the transfer of a co-worker? 12. how would you characterize change with respect to established work schedule that are compatible with demands outside the job? 13. how well do you describe a change that advocates regular rotation of supervisors? 14. again, how do you characterize change that advocates a reward system (salaries), which is compatible with productivity (output)? 15. how well do you respond to a cash induced means (this is huge money given to employee to retire prematurely to workforce reduction? Add items 1-15 ( )

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

cx

APPENDIX III ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONAIRE INSTRUCTIONS: The Organizational Effectiveness questionnaire consists of a number of s that describes the effectiveness of organizations as contained in the 9 dimensions of the “Competing values” framework. When completing the questionnaire respondents should please observe the following the following instructions: 1) Questions are segmented into 9 dimensions (Productivity, Quality, Cohesion, Adaptability-Readiness, Information management-Communication, Growth, Planning-Goal setting, Human resource development, and stability-control). 2) Each dimension has series of generated questions that represent the behavior under consideration. 3) Respondents are requested to Circle the option (Very Low – Very High) that best describes effectiveness in their organization. 4) Respondents are to rate each question on a Seven point scale, where: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Represent Very Low Represent Low Represent Below Average Represent Average Represent Above Average Represent High Represent Very High

DIMENSION ONE (A) Productivity: 1. How well do you describe the volume or quantity of goods produced? 1 2 2 3 4 3 4 5 5 6 7 6 7

2.

How do you characterize your organizations production cost? 1

cxi

Add items 1-2 ( DIMENSION TWO (B) Quality: 3. 4. 5. Which of the options best describe your organization’s quality control unit performance? In allotting any of the options, how will you describe the quality of your organization’s product (s) To what extent do you consider consumer concerns in product manufacturing? 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 5 5

)

6 7 6 7 6 7 )

Add items 3-5 ( DIMENSION THREE (C) Cohesion: 6. How well are members of staff loyal to the organization? 7. How well is staff motivated intrinsically with regards to their job? 8. What is the extent of interpersonal relationships in your organization? 9. How well do staff in group/team get along on their work (Cooperative behavior)? 10. How well do you describe staff sense of belongingness? DIMENSION FOUR (D) Adaptability-Readiness: 11. Could you describe your organization’s ability to readily alter its structure in response to changing demands? 12. How well do you characterize your organization’s readiness to adapt to change regarding its programmes? cxii 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 5

6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 )

Add items 6-10 (

6 7

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

Add items 11-12 ( DIMENSION FIVE (E) Information Management-Communication 13. How well do you describe your organization’s ability to accurately distribute information needed by your staff in the conduct of their duties? 14. What is the extent of your organization’s ability to timely distribute information needed by staff in the conduct jobs? DIMENSION SIX (F) Growth: 15. How well do you describe your organization’s ability to secure external support? 16. What is the extent of the organization’s ability to resource acquisition? 17. How well have you been able to increase the capabilities of your organization? DIMESNION SEVEN (G) Planning-Goal setting: 18. What is the extent of the organization’s ability to set its goals 19. What is the extent of the organization’s ability to s systematically plan for the future? 1 1 2 2 3 4 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5

)

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

1

2

3 4

5

6 7 )

Add items 13-14 (

6 7

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

1

2

3 4

5

6 7 )

Add items 15-17 (

6 7 6 7 )

Add items 18-19 ( Total for all seven dimensions ( cxiii )

cxiv

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful