Development of Leader-Member Exchange: A Longitudinal Test Author(s): Tayla N. Bauer, Stephen G. Green, Talya N. Bauer Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 6 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1538-1567 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257068 Accessed: 29/07/2009 12:42 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

? Academy of Management Journal 1996, Vol. 39, No. 6, 1538-1567.

DEVELOPMENT OF LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE: A LONGITUDINAL TEST TAYLA N. BAUER Portland State University STEPHEN G. GREEN Purdue University This longitudinal study examines the development of leader-memberexchange (LMX) relationships via a model that extends and tests ideas presented but not yet fully tested in past theoretical models. New subordinates (n = 205) and their supervisors (n = 112) provided data that were used to test hypotheses stating that dyadic gender and personality similarity, member performance, and leader delegation would be incrementally and cumulatively related to LMX development. Support was found for relationships between the quality of leader-member exchange and positive affectivity similarity, performance, and delegation, but not for a relationship with gender similarity. In addition, it appears that good member performance may precede leader delegation.

Over 20 years ago, vertical dyad linkage (VDL) theory was presented by Graen and his colleagues (e.g., Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Since then, this theory has evolved into a dyadic approach to understanding supervisorsubordinate working relationships known as leader-member-exchange (LMX) theory. The dyad consists of a leader-usually a supervisor-and an organization member, usually a subordinate (Graen & Scandura, 1987). The theoretical basis of LMX is that dyadic relationships and work roles are developed or negotiated over time through a series of exchanges, or "interacts," between leader and member. It is argued that early in the relationshipbuilding process, factors other than behavior affect how the relationship develops (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Through their behavior, each member of the dyad invests resources in the development of the relationship. For example, the leader may offer increased job latitude or delegation to the member, and the member may offer strong commitment to work goals or high levels of effort and performance to the leader (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Graen, 1980; Scandura & Graen, 1984).

Special thanks go to Pamela Tierney, Robert Liden, Timothy Judge, George Graen, Mary Uhl-Bien, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions during the development of this article. This study was partially funded through grants provided to the first author by the Center for the Management of Manufacturing Enterprises at Purdue University and the Purdue Research Foundation. 1538

1996

Bauer and Green

1539

Consequently, a manager with ten subordinates will have ten distinct leader-member-exchange relationships. Because the time and resources of both parties are limited (Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996) some of these relationships will evolve into high-quality exchanges typified by high levels of mutual trust and respect, and others will be of lower quality and based primarily on the formal employment contract. A key component in building a high-quality leader-member exchange appears to be the development of interpersonal trust within the leader-member relationship that goes beyond the formal employment contract (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Thus, it follows that a key aspect of LMX development must be factors that would theoretically be linked to trust building within the leader-member relationship. High-quality leader-member-exchange relationships are seen as evidence of successful trust building over time. This study will help to unravel prediction of the quality of exchanges that develop in newly formed dyads by examining a set of variables that could be expected to contribute to trust and leader-member-exchange building over time. But first, it is important to trace some of the history of LMX research. Research shows that leader-member exchange is related to important organizational outcomes such as subordinate turnover (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982), subordinate satisfaction (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen, Orris, & Johnson, 1973; Scandura & Graen, 1984), promotions (Wakabayashi, Graen, Graen, & Graen, 1988), ratings of member performance (Graen et al., 1982; Liden & Graen, 1980; Scandura & Graen, 1984), and member extra-role performance (Wayne & Green, 1993). Even though many studies of the outcomes of leader-member exchange have been conducted, large strides toward understanding its development have not been made. And although two often-cited models of leader-member-exchange development have been presented (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987), almost a decade later no formal test of these models has been undertaken. Dienesch and Liden stated that "it is not known what takes place between a leader and subordinate that results in a particular type of exchange" (1986: 626). Since publication of that statement, a body of work has begun to address the issue of LMX development, or the idea of the quality of leadermember exchange as a dependent variable (e.g., Dockery & Steiner, 1990; Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Wakabayashi et al., 1988; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). It is still somewhat unclear, however, how or why relational characteristics, performance, and delegation contribute over time to the formation of LMX relationships. The purpose of this study was to fill four identified gaps in the literature while drawing upon the LMX and trust literatures. First, we focus on the role of delegation-performance interacts over time as a significant part of that trust-building process. Previous theory describes such interacts as a "reciprocal response pattern" (Graen & Scandura, 1987) or a set of "interlocked" behaviors (Weick, 1979). We tried to better understand these exchanges by examining several issues, such as the influence of individual

1540

Academy of Management Journal

December

differences on the components of an interact and how those components relate over time. Second, we provide the first test of delegation as an important leader behavior, viewing delegation as a key part of evaluations of trust and role taking during leader-member-exchange development. Only two other published studies could be found that addressed delegation and LMX (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986; Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura & Tepper, 1992). Scandura and colleagues (1986) studied delegation as part of a larger construct by looking at the decision influence granted to subordinates and its relationship to their performance and the quality of leader-member exchange. Interactions between exchange quality and subordinate performance were interpreted as indicating that either LMX or good performance was associated with higher decision influence for subordinates. Although these findings are consistent with arguments made here, Scandura and colleagues did not measure delegation as a separate construct (because it was not a specific focus), and the lack of a longitudinal design obscured the direction of the relationships between leader-member exchange and delegation. Schriesheim and coauthors (1992) found that in dyads characterized as having high-quality leader-member exchange, supervisors' decision making was typically less autocratic and more delegative than that of supervisors in lower-quality dyads. Both of these studies, however, investigated established leader-member dyads rather than newly formed ones. In the present study, we focused on delegation as a critical part of the LMX development process and examined it within a longitudinal design. Third, we further extend previous theory by drawing on bodies of research on trust, relational demography, and affectivity while proposing similarity in leaders' and members' gender and positive affectivity as potentially influential precursors of leader-member-exchange development. We link LMX research to work being conducted on affectivity (e.g., Judge, 1992) and on relational characteristics (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) by proposing that similarity on these variables will be a precursor of LMX quality. Only one other field study of personality and LMX development could be found (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). The overarching interpretation of LMX development as significantly influenced by trust building guided our choice of variables measuring relational demography and affectivity, which we saw as early influences that could shape the conditions for engaging in dyadic trust building over time. Finally, the cumulative effects of gender and personality similarity as well as delegation and performance are predicted to be related to trust building and ultimately to the quality of leader-member exchange that develops. This work addresses leader-member-exchange development over time, a notion addressed in previous models but never fully developed. From the previous models, it is unclear exactly how LMX relationships form and change over time and how early episodes in relationship development are related to later episodes. In this study, we propose that performance and delegation are related to each other within and across time periods. More-

1996

Bauer and Green

1541

over, drawing on the socialization literature, we argue that quality of leadermember exchange is the result of cumulative effects of a developmental process. So, in summary, the present study builds on previous work by proposing and testing a model that builds on past theorizing on leadermember exchange (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987) and trust (e.g., Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

MODEL OVERVIEW A few points should be noted before the predicted model is described. Methodologically, as well as theoretically, new organization members are especially desirable to study because they are new to both their organizations and relationships (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Further, because leadermember exchange is dyadic, we collected data from both sides of dyads. Since LMX formation is a temporal phenomenon, we tested the proposed model at three points in time, collecting the first data prior to member entry into the organization. According to both Dienesch and Liden's model and our own, early in relationships dyad characteristics should matter, but over time, exchange of resources and testing of competence will be more influential than similarity. Thus, similarity and behavior are not mutually exclusive but rather two components of the relationship development process. This study is not the first to discuss trust as integral to the leadermember-exchange formation process. In general, there is agreement that leader-member exchange is intertwined with the concept of mutual trust. For example, Dienesch and Liden (1986) proposed that trust and loyalty are critical to leader-member exchange and the development process, and Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argued that LMX is composed of the interrelated dimensions of respect, trust, and obligations. As these theorists have stated, early in relationship formation, the superior needs to have confidence in the ability and willingness of the subordinate to successfully complete tasks. Further, the subordinate needs to be confident that he or she will receive desired resources from the leader in exchange for commitments. If this trust is established, both parties can be more assured of benefiting from continuing the development of the relationship (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Given the uncertainty and complexity inherent in managerial work, trust is essential (McAllister, 1995). In their theoretical article, Lewis and Weigert (1985) proposed three levels of trust: The cognitive level consists of evaluating trustworthiness. The behavioral level involves taking the risk of acting on perceptions of trust. The affective level involves the emotional bond that forms between dyad members over time. These components are closely aligned with models of leader-member-exchange development as having three phases: role taking, when members are evaluated; role making, when member performance and leader delegation interacts begin to formal-

1542

Academy of Management Journal

December

ize relationships; and role routinization, when LMX relationships become affect-laden (Graen & Scandura, 1987). McAllister (1995) empirically found that for 194 workplace dyadic peer relationships, cognition-based trust preceded affect-based trust. This observation lends further support to our proposed model of leader-memberexchange development, in which evaluation of performance (role taking) is seen as preceding the later LMX relationship, which is an affective trust outcome. Mayer and colleagues (1995) also developed a model of trust that is consistent with the model proposed here; they posited that people use certain factors, such as ability and performance, to help determine another's trustworthiness. Perceived risk and risk taking then take place, and outcomes of the trusting behavior will ensue. Again, these three stages closely parallel the three stages proposed in our model (Figure 1). Given the wide acceptance of trust as an important aspect of leader-member exchange and the parallels between the trust and LMX literatures, it made sense to draw upon the former as a theoretical basis for our predictions. Thus, the model begins with leader and member characteristics expected to influence both a leader's summary judgments of a member's early performance and how the leader behaves toward the member in terms of delegation. Influences on perceptions of trust will play a large part in the leader's decision about delegating to the member. For example, perceived competence and responsibility are central to the development of trust (McAllister, 1995) as well as of leader-member exchange (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). We thus depict member performance and leader delegation as reciprocal influence interacts; the amount of delegation and the leader's perceptions of member performance tend to reinforce each other. Good performance is followed by more delegation and vice versa. Of course, an opposite pattern could develop, with delegation followed by poor performance, which in turn leads to less delegation. Over time, these performancedelegation interacts are expected to develop into patterns that will ultimately influence the trust levels in the relationship as seen in the quality of exchange that develops between leader and member. The summary model to be tested, however, contains no predictions of causality within single time periods, in which reciprocal effects cannot be disentangled. Causal predictions are made, however, across time periods.

Role Taking and Cognitive Evaluations of Trust Theorists (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Mayer et al., 1995) have proposed that leader and member characteristics will influence initial interactions between a leader and a member. For example, both members of a dyad bring unique demographic characteristics and personalities to the relationship. Early in the relationship, when the leader and member have limited information about one another, these characteristics will be salient and set

FIGURE 1 Model of Leader-Member-Exchange Development Role Making: Behavioral Trust

Role Taking: Cognitive Evaluations of Trust

H3,

Leader-Member Demographicand PersonalitySimilarity

H3

-

II II II

Hl

i i i i

1544

Academy of Management Journal

December

the stage for later interactions. As time goes on, however, leaders may begin to evaluate and test new members rather than simply relying on stereotypes and biases (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). This stage of the relationship corresponds to the role-taking phase in Graen and Scandura's model as well as to the early formation of cognitive evaluations of trust in Lewis and Weigert's (1985) model. According to Graen and Scandura's (1987) three-phase model of role taking, role making, and role routinization, the initial role-taking phase is really a sampling phase in which a leader evaluates the behavior and motivation of a member to decide how much time and energy to invest in the member in the future. The leader evaluates the behavior, often performance, and then makes a decision regarding responses to the member. In this phase, job latitude is a key resource exchanged for member resources. This phase can last anywhere from a few hours to a few months (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Following LMX and trust theorists, we propose that leader and member characteristics are important determinants of leader-member-exchange development through their influence on early member performance and leader delegation interacts. Demographic and personality similarities are proposed to increase affect and attraction (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989) and trust (Mayer et al., 1995), which in turn should influence perceptions of performance and the leader's tendency to delegate. These predictions are more fully developed in the following sections. Relational dyadic characteristics and leader delegation. Delegation can be a vital part of a manager's job. As Scandura and colleagues (1986) pointed out, decisions can range from being completely autocratic to completely delegated. At times, the limits of time and energy make delegation an attractive alternative to doing all one's work alone and to making every decision alone. Delegation involves risk, however, and is not always the most efficient way to get things done (Yukl, 1994). It is likely that to decrease that risk, managers will delegate when subordinates have characteristics that promote trust. Similarity may be such a characteristic (Mayer et al., 1995; Rosen & Jerdee, 1977). Dienesch and Liden (1986) proposed that leaders may test their early perceptions by offering delegation (cf. Kruglanski, 1970). Gender was chosen for study here because it has been shown to specifically predict out-group status in studies of superior-subordinate dyads (e.g., Duchon et al., 1986). Simple demographic characteristics do not seem to predict leader-member exchange, but relational demography-the extent to which individuals are similar-may (Gerstner & Day, 1995). For example, in their comprehensive study of relational demography, Tsui and O'Reilly (1989) found gender similarity to be the best predictor of member performance. Further, researchers who have not included gender similarity as a relational demography variable have often stated that it was omitted only because of little or no gender variation in a sample (e.g., Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Turban & Jones, 1988). Therefore, we considered gender similarity a powerful potential predictor of trust and leader-member exchange.

1996

Bauer and Green

1545

In addition, when dyad members have similar outlooks owing to similar personalities, leaders may be inclined to view members' performance more positively, to trust them more, and to delegate more to them. In her study of delegation behavior, Leana (1986) found that supervisor personality was not related to delegation. We predict that relational personality, or personality similarity, is a more appropriate focus and will make a difference. As was argued, the more similar the dyad is, the more trust and understanding should develop. In fact, Turban and Jones (1988) found that subordinates who perceived their supervisors as similar to themselves reported greater degrees of trust and confidence in their leaders. It follows that these feelings will be reciprocated and that part of the role-taking phase will involve greater delegation to subordinates who have the potential to evolve into in-group members. This pattern seems especially likely to occur because (1) trust takes the place of direct supervision and frees supervisors to attend to other matters (Mayer et al., 1995) and (2) trust takes less energy than distrust (Barber, 1983). Positive affectivity, which we chose as the personality variable of interest, represents an individual's disposition to feel enthusiastic, active, and alert (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This personality characteristic was chosen for four reasons. First, although many personality variables predicting job attitudes and behavior have yielded disappointing, nonpredictive results in the past, studies using affectivity have proved much more fruitful (see Judge [1992] for a review). Second, Gerstner and Day (1995) suggested that additional research investigating robust dispositional characteristics that may be associated with LMX development needs to be done before researchers can truly understand the role that personality plays in this process. Affective disposition can become evident early in the relationship and therefore is fairly salient. Third, no study to date has investigated the impact of affectivity or affectivity similarity on leader-member exchange, so this study was an opportunity to explore that relationship. In their study of personality and leader-member exchange, Phillips and Bedeian (1994) found support for a relationship between exchange quality and extraversion, which is very similar to positive affectivity (Block, 1995). Fourth, Kurdek (1993) found that extraversion dissimilarity, along with other personality dimensions, predicted the eventual dissolution of newlywed couples. Although this study focuses on a very different type of dyad, those results have implications for the present study, since marriage is also an exchange relationship. It is difference or similarity that is of interest here, rather than whether either dyad member is high or low on positive affectivity. Enthusiastic, energetic people should want to be around other enthusiastic, energetic people, and view them more favorably than those who differ from themselves. Dissimilarity in affectivity might well lead to differences of opinion about the work context that could create social distance between leader and member, lower trust, and increase misunderstandings. Misunderstandings

1546

Academy of Management Journal

December

on either side of the leader-member relationship can lower its quality, which is a mutually negotiated outcome. Relational dyadic characteristics and member performance. Liden and colleagues (1993) noted that when processing performance evaluation information, individuals may assign a different set of characteristics to someone who is similar to them than to someone who is dissimilar to them on the basis of categorizations rather than actual observations. This tendency may be especially pronounced early on, when performance ratings are based on relatively little information (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Supervisors may rate individuals they see as similar more favorably on performance dimensions, or perhaps the supervisors enhance the ratees' performance through increased support and encouragement. Several mechanisms may be working together to create this effect (Turban & Jones, 1988). The first mechanism is that similarity may enhance behavioral predictability (Meglino et al., 1991). This predictability would allow two individuals to anticipate each other and increase the ease and quality of their interactions. The second mechanism is similar interpretations of events and a common system of communication (Schein, 1985). Johnson-George and Swap (1982) found that men and women differ in what information they use in developing trust in others. Further, Kurdek (1993) noted that partners with large discrepancies on individual difference scores may have difficulties because they appraise events that take place within the relationship from incompatible vantage points. Another potential mechanism is supervisors' seeing similar subordinates having high potential because they are like themselves. Theoretically, these mechanisms are an important part of the leader-member-exchange development process because they can contribute to a growing sense of trust in the relationship (Dienesch & Liden, 1986), and they make for more stable interpersonal relationships in general (Blau, 1964; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Initial impressions of a subordinate's behavioral predictability and similar cognitive style are expected to increase the likelihood that a leader will initiate performance-delegation interacts. Past models of performance evaluation decisions have supported the positive influence of supervisor-subordinate demographic similarity via affect or perceived similarity. Studies of dyadic demographic similarity have investigated age and tenure (Ferris et al., 1994; Judge & Ferris, 1993; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989; Turban &Jones, 1988), race and education (Ferris et al., 1994; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989; Turban & Jones, 1988), and gender (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989; Wayne & Liden, 1995). It is unclear whether these findings represent rater error (i.e., halo error) or true differences in performance between similar and dissimilar ratees. What is clear, however, is that similarity is related to higher performance ratings. The bottom line seems to be that individuals tend to like (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) and trust (Mayer et al., 1995) people who are similar to themselves, and it has been suggested that affect (e.g., DeNisi & Williams, 1988) and trust (Turban & Jones, 1988) may influence the processing of performance information.

1996

Bauer and Green

1547

In regards to personality and leader-member exchange, Phillips and Bedeian (1994) found that leaders' perceptions of leader-follower attitude similarity were related to exchange quality, but Liden and colleagues (1993) found no such relationship. In Phillips and Bedeian's (1994) results, one member personality characteristic, extraversion, was related to exchange of control and growth need strength-were quality, but two others-locus not. Although their study did measure follower personality characteristics, it did not examine follower-leader personality similarity nor examine personality in the context of performance and delegation interactions over time. Other studies of personality, however, have suggested that relational personality does influence dyadic outcomes such as marital success (e.g., Kurdek, 1993) and that similar dyad-member work values are related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (e.g., Meglino et al., 1989). So, taking relational characteristics a step further in the context of leadermember-exchange development research, we examined personality similarity in this study. Hypothesis 1: Similarity between a leader and a member in gender and positive affectivity will be positively related to member performance ratings and leader delegation. Role Making and Behavioral Trust Role making is a continuation of the developmental process in which further exchanges are made. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) called this the acquaintance stage. If a dyad is developing a high-quality exchange relationship, the exchange becomes more social and less quid pro quo (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). At this point, one of the member's greatest assets will probably still be good performance. Conversely, if the relationship is not evolving to the next level, the relationship will remain based on the employment contract. This is the stage at which behavioral aspects of trust come into play. The leader is taking a risk by delegating work to the member. The leader might have thought before that he or she trusted the member, but it is not until this stage that these cognitions are put into action (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Performance-delegation interacts. Mayer and colleagues (1995) noted that in an increasingly diverse workforce, in which interpersonal similarity is lessening, the development of trust enables employees to work together more effectively. Thus, although early in relationship development, salient factors such as gender and personality may influence the role-taking process and increase the chances for trust to emerge, it is vital that judgments of competence, loyalty, and consistency be tested within the work context as well. As noted earlier, member performance and delegation have been depicted as combining in interacts that are integral parts of role making (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987). As a relationship develops,

1548

Academy of Management Journal

December

dyadic trust deepens or lessens. Thus, in Figure 1, we propose that delegation is reflexive with leader judgments about member performance. This concept of an interact dates back to Weick's (1979) early work on the social psychology of organizing. There, he argued that the interlocked behavior of two people is the fundamental unit of organizing. Graen and Scandura (1987) subsequently invoked this concept, in describing the development of leader-member exchange, where leader and member behavior are contingent upon each other. Communication theorists also have also adopted and expanded the concept of the interact as a basic unit in communication and relationships (Hawes, 1973). Moreover, the examination of interacts has been argued to be a fundamental approach to understanding relationships between two people (cf. Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987). The underlying notion of the interact is that the action of one person and then the reaction of the other person reveal the nature of their relationship. Understanding these interacts in a micro sense is complicated by the fact that a reaction becomes the action that initiates the next interact. Thus, in communications research, relationships are studied by examining chains of interacts during communication. As argued earlier, delegation and member performance appear to form one of the important types of interacts that contribute to and eventually define the quality of exchange in a leadership relationship. Previous research indicates that delegation requires trust and perceptions of competence on the part of a leader (Yukl, 1994), because delegation always involves risk for that individual (Mayer et al., 1995). Similarly, delegation provides a member with increased job challenge and autonomy; these may motivate the member to perform better than before and certainly are an opportunity for the member to distinguish him- or herself through good This formulation is consistent with the findings of performance. Schriesheim, Scandura, and Neider (1991), who found performance and delegation to be significantly and positively related. Taking this perspective suggests several hypotheses. First, if performance and delegation are a form of interact, then they should be related to each other at any given point in time. Better performance should provoke more delegation, which leads to more delegation that offers the opportunity for better performance, and so on. Also, given that interacts tend to exist within chains of behavior, one would expect an interact at one point in time to be related to interacts that occur later; for instance, early performance judgments should be related to later delegation. The idea of interacts is consistent with findings in the trust literature showing that the best predictor of a supervisor's trust in a subordinate is the trust that the subordinate has in the supervisor (Butler, 1983). This reciprocity of trust seems to drive the relationship. Similarly, when members perform well they are trusting that they will be rewarded in some way (e.g., more delegation, stronger leader-member-exchange relationship, etc.), and the leaders trust that tasks will be completed in an efficient manner. This pattern typifies the behavioral aspect of trust (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). These interacts of relationship testing are critical to the LMX process.

1996

Bauer and Green

1549

It is here that managers and subordinates begin to cement the relationship and move toward interlocked patterns of behaviors. Hypothesis 2: Within and across periods of time, member performance and leader delegation should be positively related. Role Routinization and Affective Trust After the development phase, the behaviors of a leader and a member are much more predictable (Graen & Scandura, 1987). If a dyad is developing a high-quality leader-member-exchange relationship, a social component augments the task-focused relationship in which only performance and delegation are exchanged. This stage can be thought of as the affective trust outcome of high-quality leader-member exchange, the establishment of an emotional bond (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). It is important to note that we are not saying that the relationship ends here. Obviously, relationships continue to evolve and change throughout their existence (Mayer et al., 1995). Those changes, however, are less an issue of LMX development and more an issue of relationship maintenance. We propose that the events that take place during the early stages combine to shape later leader-member-exchange relationship. The quality of leader-member exchange is expected to be the result of the cumulative effects of similarity, delegation, and performance judgments, the result of the history of the relationship. We make this argument for four reasons. First, although previous models do not contain unequivocal statements about the role of time in LMX development, they suggest that it emerges from a pattern of behavior over time (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987). A cumulative effect hypothesis is consistent with that view. Second, previous research indicates that each of the elements of the model in Figure 1 has been related to leader-member exchange or other dyadic relationships in other research settings (e.g., similarity, Turban & Jones, 1988; affect, Buunk, Doosje, Jans, & Hopstaken, 1993; delegation, Scandura et al., 1986; Schriesheim et al., 1991; performance, Dansereau et al., 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980; Liden et al., 1993; Scandura & Graen, 1984; Scandura et al., 1986; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Therefore, unique effects for each of these variables appear possible and are examined here. Third, as communication research and Graen and Scandura (1987) have suggested, the pattern of interacts over time defines leader-member-exchange relationships. Thus, one would expect leader-member exchange to be related to the cumulative effects of both delegation and performance judgments. It is not the most recent interact that defines the quality of exchange, but the cumulative effect. Finally, leader-member exchange is a developmental process, a process of leader and member learning about each other over time. The LMX process has much in common with socialization processes that have been studied on a larger scale. In that field, arguments and findings are suggesting

1550

Academy of Management Journal

December

that such learning processes tend to be cumulative (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1994). We expected a similar pattern here. Therefore, Hypothesis 3: The quality of a leader-member exchange should be related to the cumulative effects of gender and affectivity similarity, leader delegation, and member performance. METHODS Sample Graduating students were contacted approximately two months prior to their graduation and asked to participate in this longitudinal study if they had accepted new jobs that would begin within two months of graduation. Respondents represented 52 majors (e.g., engineering, business, and social sciences), and each took a job with a different organization. A total of 311 graduating students returned time 1 surveys approximately three months before their organizational entries. More information about the exact job titles and college majors is available upon request from the first author. At approximately 12 (time 2) and 34 (time 3) weeks after job entry, we collected data from both the graduates and their supervisors. At time 2, we received 223 member surveys (a 72 percent response rate) and 173 leader surveys (56 percent overall response rate, 78 percent of the leaders contacted). At time 3, 205 member surveys were returned (66 percent overall response rate, and 92 percent of the members contacted). At this time, 118 leader surveys were returned (38 percent overall response rate, 68 percent of the managers contacted). Only dyads that did not change between data collections were eligible for participation in this study. Complete, eligible dyadic data at time 2 were present for 165 dyads (53%) and at time 3 for 112 dyads (36%). Individuals in the final sample used for hypothesis testing had an average age of 23.47 years (s.d. = 2.90), and there were approximately equal numbers of women and men. In the original sample of 311, the mean age 23.52 (s.d. = 2.90), and 144 of the respondents were women, 167 men. Procedures and Measures The 311 graduates completed an initial survey at time 1 that assessed variables including demographic characteristics, starting salaries, job descriptions, prior work experience, and positive affectivity; they were also asked when and where they would start work. Time 1 surveys were returned through campus mail; each respondent also included a copy of his or her resume. About two months after the graduates began work (time 2), we sent them a second survey that assessed variables such as quality of leadermember exchange, leader delegation, and how long they had been on their jobs. In addition, we asked the graduates to provide their supervisors' addresses so a short survey could be sent directly to those individuals. Respondents who did not furnish addresses were sent supervisory surveys and

1996

Bauer and Green

1551

asked to give them directly to their supervisors. Supervisors were asked to provide member performance ratings. Finally, at time 3 (approximately 34 weeks after beginning their new jobs), the graduates rated their supervisors' delegation behavior and the quality of leader-member-exchange relationships with their supervisors. Supervisors were asked to complete a positive affectivity scale, to give personal demographic characteristics, and to again rate member performance. All surveys were returned directly to the first author in postage-paid, selfaddressed envelopes. At time 2, we collected 165 usable supervisor surveys (119 directly and 46 via the graduates). A total of 112 usable supervisor surveys were collected at time 3 (85 directly and 27 via the graduates). To check for data comparability, we conducted t-tests contrasting the researcher-solicited and membersolicited leader surveys and found no significant differences for leadermember exchange, performance, delegation, gender, or affect similarity. Additional t-tests were performed to test for differences between those who returned all three surveys and those who did not. The results of the t-tests revealed that for positive affectivity, age, gender, and number of job offers received, no differences existed. There were only significant differences in salary and full-time work experience: those who returned all surveys had one month less work experience and made $273 less per year than those who did not return all three surveys. Deciding which time frames were most appropriate for data collection was challenging. Graen and Scandura (1987) considered around three months from job initiation to demarcate the first phase of leader-memberexchange development, role taking. Liden and colleagues (1993) found evidence to support the idea that relationships form very quickly. Unfortunately, no empirical evidence has been offered regarding the demarcation of one phase from another. We chose between two and three months for the first postentry data collection and approximately nine months for the last data collection. Although we do not yet know the exact relevant time frames for LMX development, these time periods have been used in studies of new employee adjustment (Morrison, 1993). All correlations, means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas for measures appear in Table 1. We used established measures with known psychometric properties and factor-analyzed all measures individually by source and time period using principal factors components analysis with varimax rotation. Each measure represented one factor when analyzed individually. In addition, we factor-analyzed leader-member exchange and delegation together by time period. At time 2, leader-member exchange and delegation did not produce clean solutions. Although two factors did emerge, items cross-loaded and were not loading cleanly on any particular factor, even after rotation. When leader-member exchange and delegation were analyzed separately, the solutions were clean, single factors. When analyzed together at time 3, a clean, two-factor solution emerged, with delegation items loading on one factor and leader-member-exchange items load-

TABLE 1 and Correlationsa Statistics Descriptive Variable 1. Gender similarity 2. Positive affectivity similarity 3. Performance, time 2 4. Delegation, time 2 5. Leader-member exchange, time 2 6. Performance, time 3 7. Delegation, time 3 8. Leader-member exchange, time 3 9. Salary, time lb 10. DOT data rating, time lb 11. DOT people rating, time 1I 12. DOT things rating, time Ib 13. Contact hours, time 2C 14. Tenure, time 2b 15. Tenure, time 3c 16. Age, time Ib 17. Grade point average, time Ib 18. Work experience, time Ib

Mean

s.d.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.35

0.40

0.76 5.50 3.65

0.56 1.32 1.09

.11 .06 .08

.40 .05

(.96) .31

(.80)

4.82 5.60 3.70

1.23 1.26 1.08

.07 .05 .08

.28 .27 .11

.48 .61 .36

.36 .23 .38

(.93) .46 .21

(.95) .40

(.77)

4.81 35.6

1.23 9.5

.00 .03

.23 .00

.35 .09

.18 .03

.54 .07

.57 .05

.38 .12

(.94) .08

1.17

0.90

.05

.07

-.09

5.65

1.22

.12

.11

4.39

2.74

.09

12.34 11.83 34.42 23.47

13.87 4.29 5.71 2.90

3.45 10.65

.04

-.08

.05

.03

.00

.10

-.09

.14

.04

.11

.08

.04

.06

-.11

.04 .09 .15 .01

.03 .04 .12 .12

.08 .09 -.05 .11

.05 -.04 -.12 .02

.18 -.03 -.05 .13

0.22

.07

.11

.11

.09

15.23

.05

.04

.06

.04

-.05

9

10

1

.04

.04

-.13

-.01

-.09

-.15

-.09 .09 -.24 .06

.00 .09 -.12 .07

-.03 .01 -.05 .10

-.02

.07

.05

.05

.04

.04

-.02 .27

-.

-.19 -.11 -.15 .31

.01 -.02 -.14 .10

-.

-.07

.18

-.08

-.

-.03

.16

-.08

-.

a Correlations greater than .14 are significant at p < .05. Correlations greater than .24 are significant at p < Alphas are in parentheses along the diagonal. Salary is in thousands of dollars. b Control variable. c Control variable used in regression equations.

1996

Bauer and Green

1553

ing on the other factor. We determined factors using a combination of decision rules: eigenvalues greater than one, scree plot, high factor loadings, and theoretical rationale (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). On the basis of theoretical rationale and the complete picture of factor solutions across time, we decided to retain leader-member exchange and delegation as separate factors. Gender similarity. Gender was dummy-coded for each member and for each leader with 1 representing men and 0 representing women. Following Liden and colleagues (1993), Turban and Jones (1988), and Kurdek (1993), we derived relational scores by using the absolute difference between leaders' and members' scores. The mean gender similarity score was .35 (s.d. = .40). Affectivity similarity. Positive affectivity was measured using the ten items from the Positive Affect Negative Affect (PANAS) scale (Watson et al., 1988). The PANAS scale consists of two subscales, negative and positive affect, but only positive affect was used here. The PANAS is internally consistent and has been shown to be stable over a two-month time period (Watson et al., 1988). Both members and leaders were asked to note how often they felt the PANAS items described how they had felt, on average, over the past year. We chose the longer time frame to capture the more stable, personality-based type of affectivity rather than mood or state affectivity (Watson et al., 1988). Response categories ranged from 1, very slightly or not at all, to 5, very much. An absolute difference score was created. The mean difference for positive affectivity was .76 (s.d. = .56). Because the reliability of a difference score is a function of the reliability of its components, it is important that the component reliabilities be relatively high (Johns, 1981). Coefficient alphas for positive affectivity were .95 for supervisors and .87 for members. These reliabilities lessen the possibility of the potential problems associated with difference scores (e.g., Edwards, 1994; Johns, 1981). This is discussed in further detail in the Results section. Member performance. Member performance was rated by the leaders at times 2 and 3 using the five positively worded items from a scale developed by Katz (1964). Supervisory ratings of performance are desirable because it is the leader's perception of performance that is theorized to drive the rolemaking process (Graen & Scandura, 1987) and because subordinate performance is often proposed as a dominant variable in subordinate-leader relationship development (e.g., Graen & Scandura, 1987). A sample item is "This employee performs essential duties effectively." Responses ranged from 1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree. This scale has shown good reliability and a single factor loading in the past (Basu, 1991). The mean for early (time 2) performance for this sample was 5.50 (s.d. = 1.32), and for later (time 3) performance, the mean was 5.60 (s.d. = 1.26). The coefficient alpha for subordinate performance was .96 at time 2 and .95 at time 3. Leader delegation. This variable was based on members' assessments. The delegation items were taken from the long form of Yukl's (1990) Management Practices Survey (MPS). We chose this instrument for several rea-

1554

Academy of Management Journal

December

sons. The behaviors it assesses are generic ones applicable to many types of managers and organizations. Moreover, nearly 20 years have been spent on developing and validating the MPS, and several studies have shown that it has sound psychometric properties, displaying evidence of content validity, alphas above .80, high interrater reliabilities, stability across time, and criterion-related validity when non-method-bound measures of performance are used for assessment (Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990). Subordinates rated their supervisors by reporting how often they engaged in two delegation behaviors. "My manager asks me to assume the responsibility for carrying out some activity or task, and let's me handle it his/her own way without interfering" is a representative item from the MPS. Responses ranged from 1, never, not at all, to 5, always. The mean for early (time 2) delegation was 3.65 (s.d. = 1.09). The mean for later (time 3) delegation was 3.70 (s.d. = 1.08). The coefficient alpha for delegation at time 2 was .80, and at time 3 it was .77. Quality of leader-member exchange. This variable was also based on members' assessments. We revised the seven-item scale by Scandura and Graen (1984) following the seven-point "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree" options and word changes made by Liden and colleagues (1993). In addition, we split one item ("Do you usually feel that you know where you stand ... do you usually know how satisfied your immediate supervisor is with what you do?") into two separate items ("I usually know where I stand with my manager" and "I usually know how satisfied my manager is with me"). The resulting eight-item measure is extremely similar to the sevenitem scale, which has shown adequate variance, a single factor structure, a high coefficient alpha (.92), and low correlations with scales of social desirability and acquiescence (Liden & Maslyn, in press). Examples of items are "My manager recognizes my potential well" and "I would characterize the working relationship I have with my manager as extremely effective." The mean for this scale at time 3 was 4.81 (s.d. = 1.23). The coefficient alpha for this scale was .94. Control variables. Several control variables were used. To control for the amount of time that subordinates had been on the job, we measured tenure in weeks. For time 2, the mean was 11.83 (s.d. = 4.29); for time 3, the mean was 34.42 (s.d. = 5.71). This control was important because each graduate started his or her job at a different time. To control for varying amounts of responsibility on the job as well as job design differences, we used initial salary levels as a surrogate for responsibility (mean = $35,613, (s.d. = $9,517) as well as the Dictionary of Occupational Titles codes for the extent to which a job involves dealing with people, data, and things (e.g., machinery). The DOT codes are widely used as a standard for occupational description and classification (Rousseau, 1982) and have been shown to have good reliability (Geyer, Hice, Hawk, Boese, & Brannan, 1989). The codes for data (range = 0 to 6), people (range = 0 to 8), and things (range = 0 to 7) describe the complexity of skills associated with job-related activities; lower values represent greater specialization. We based DOT ratings on the job title and job description given by each member. A rater then reevaluated

1996

Bauer and Green

1555

a random sample of 50 job titles (of the potential 311 job titles) on these three dimensions; the result was 94 percent agreement for data and people ratings, and 96 percent agreement for things. For the sample, the mean for data was 1.17 (s.d. = .90); for people, it was 5.65 (s.d. = 1.22); and for things it was 4.39 (s.d. = 2.74). Further control variables were work experience, age, and ability, all previously hypothesized to matter in the leader-member-exchange developmental process (Dienesch & Liden, 1986), although more recent studies discount these predictions (e.g., Liden et al., 1993). To be conservative, we measured full-time work experience (mean = 10.65 months, s.d. = 15.23), age (mean = 23.47, s.d. = 2.90), and college grade point average (mean = 3.45, s.d. = .22) on a four-point scale coded from the resumes. Finally, dyadic contact hours have been shown to be related to performance evaluation decisions (Judge & Ferris, 1993) and affective trust (McAllister, 1995). The graduates provided data for this control variable; the mean was 12.34 hours per week (s.d. = 13.87). RESULTS All hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis. Tables 2-4 contain the regression results, including standardized coefficients and the overall F, R2, and adjusted R2 for each equation. We examined potential control variables at the bivariate correlation level. Tenure at time 2, salary, ratings on the DOT dimensions data and things, grade point average, age, and work experience were not systematically related to any of the independent or dependent variables, so they were dropped from further consideration. Initial analyses revealed that tenure at time 3 was significantly related to member performance at time 3; we therefore included it in all time 3 analyses as a control. Dyadic contact hours were significantly related to the quality of leader-member exchange at time 2 and were therefore included in all subsequent analyses as a control variable. And finally, the DOT variable for people was significantly related to time 3 performance and was therefore included in all subsequent analyses as a control variable. Hypothesis 1 predicts that members in same-gender dyads and members with personalities similar to their leaders' in terms of positive affectivity will have higher supervisor performance ratings than those in mixed-gender dyads and those with dissimilar personalities. Hypothesis 1 further predicts that these similarity indexes will be related to higher levels of delegation. To test this hypothesis, we conducted four separate regression analyses (generated by the two outcome variables measured at two points in time). The first equation predicts time 2 performance. As Table 2 shows gender similarity was unrelated to time 2 performance, but affectivity similarity was significantly related to it (3 = .40, p < .01). For time 3, gender similarity was again unrelated to performance and positive affectivity similarity was significantly related (1 = .25, p < .01). Gender and affectivity similarity were unrelated to

1556

Academy of Management Journal

December

TABLE 2 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Member Performancea Variables Delegation, time 2 Delegation, time 3 Performance, time 2 Gender similarity Positive affectivity similarity Dyadic contact hours, time 2b DOT people rating, time Ib Tenure, time 3b F n R2 Adjusted R2

Performance, Time 2 .30**

.07 .40** .02 -.08 7.58** 112 .26 .23

Performance, Time 3 -.01 .11 .52** .02 .25** -.07 .12 -.11 12.18** 112 .48 .45

a Standardized b

regression weights are reported; their significance is based on F-tests. Control variable. p < .05 * p < .01

delegation at times 2 and 3 both (Table 3). Therefore, there was only partial support for the hypothesis. In addition, because this is one of the first studies to examine affectivity in leader-member-exchange context, we tested the change in R2 resulting from the addition of positive affectivity. Prediction of performance at time 2 saw an increase of .08 with the addition of the affectivity variable; prediction of performance at time 3 saw an increase of .04; and no changes occurred for delegation at times 2 or 3. Hypothesis 2 states that member performance and leader delegation will be related to each other both within and across time periods. Correlations between time 2 performance and delegation are significant at time 2 (r = .31, p < .01) and at time 3 (r = .40, p < .01). Hypothesis 2 is supported within time frames. To evaluate across-time relationships, we used the regression results for time 3 delegation and performance predictions (see Tables 2 and 3). Time 2 performance predicted time 3 delegation (p = .27, p < .01), but time 2 delegation did not predict time 3 performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported. Hypothesis 3 states that leader-member-exchange quality should be related to the cumulative effects of performance, delegation, and gender and affectivity similarity. We tested the cumulative effects of the development process by entering all of the variables measured over time into two regression equations. Thus, early levels of the variables were examined for their potential direct influences on the later quality of leader-member exchange. LMX was predicted by the variables within the model (time 1, 2, and 3 variables). Both time 3 performance (P = .40, p < .01) and delegation (3 = .34, p < .01) were significantly related to the quality of leader-member exchange at time 3 (see Table 4). Neither the gender and positive affectivity similarity

1557

Bauer and Green

1996

TABLE 3 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Leader Delegationa Variables Delegation, time 2 Performance, time 2 Performance, time 3 Gender similarity Positive affectivity similarity Dyadic contact hours, time 2b DOT people rating, time ib Tenure, time 3b F n R2 Adjusted R2 a

b

Delegation, Time 2 .35** .06 .08 .01 .11 2.97** 112 .12 .08

Delegation, Time 3 .37** .27** .11 .06 .09 -.10 .02 -.15 8.24** 112 .40 .35

Betas with significance based on F are shown. Control variable. p < .05 * p < .01

TABLE 4 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Time 3 Leader-Member Exchangea

Variables

Quality of Leader-Member Exchange, Time 3

Change in Leader-Member-Exchange Qualityb

Leader-member exchange, time 2 Performance, time 3 Delegation, time 3 Performance, time 2 Delegation, time 2 Gender similarity Personal affectivity similarity DOT people rating, time 16 Dyadic contact hours, time 2c Tenure, time 3c F n R2 Adjusted R2

.40** .34** .07 -.11 .01 .05 -.04 .01 -.07 8.51** 112 .43 .38

.48** .25** .29** .02 -.19* .03 .02 .01 -.11 -.07 13.73** 112 .58 .54

a

Betas with significance based on F are shown. From time 2 to time 3. c Control variable. p < .05 p < .01

b

1558

Academy of Management Journal

December

nor time 2 performance and delegation were related to time 3 leadermember-exchange quality after the other predictors were taken into account. The next test was to see whether the cumulative effects predicted the change in leader-member exchange from time 2 to time 3 by controlling for the level of time 2 exchange quality when predicting it at time 3. Again, time 3 performance (3 = .25, p < .01) and time 3 delegation (,3 = .29, p < .01) were significant predictors. In addition, time 2 delegation was a significant predictor of the change in leader-member exchange (3 = -.19, p < .05). Also as expected, time 2 exchange quality was a significant predictor of time 3 exchange quality (3 = .48, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is partially supported. Affectivity was related to the change in R2 resulting from the prediction of leader-member exchange (but not the change in LMX) of only .01. The reliabilities of the difference scores created to assess similarity were relatively high, so it seemed simpler and more understandable to keep the analysis as it was rather than to apply more complicated alternatives (e.g., Edwards, 1994). We employed Johns's (1981) procedure to see if entering the components of the difference score radically changed the findings. In summary, the different analyses did not reveal significantly different results. In most cases, the R2 and adjusted R2 for regression equations went up, but significant predictors did not differ. For example, when predicting time 2 performance, delegation was still significant, along with subordinate and supervisor positive affectivity and the interaction term for these two variables. When predicting time 3 performance, time 2 performance was still significant, as was the positive affectivity interaction term. Predictions of delegation at times 2 and 3 were the same as were those for leader-memberexchange quality. So, because the reliabilities of the component scores were so high and because adding four additional variables made the analyses more complicated, but not more effective at predicting the dependent variables of interest, we retained our original data analysis strategy. DISCUSSION Summary of Findings In this study, we found general support for the leader-member-exchange developmental model proposed and made a number of theoretical contributions. The findings generally confirm a dynamic process theory that is consistent with viewing LMX development as a trust-building process. Personal characteristics and behaviors that would be expected to be related to trust between leaders and members were related to each other and the quality of leader-member exchange experienced. Although such arguments have existed for some time, they have not been drawn together into a model or widely tested. Moreover, this work also demonstrates that performancedelegation interacts can be an integral part of LMX development. Delegation proved to be a very useful predictor of exchange quality in this work. These

1996

Bauer and Green

1559

findings, coupled with past findings (e.g., Scandura et al., 1986), suggest that delegation should be considered as a pivotal variable in understanding leader-member interacts and leader-member-exchange development. In addition, a new relational personality variable was introduced and proved to be a potentially useful addition to understanding of LMX development. The longitudinal analyses, however, revealed what appears to be some particular dynamics in the way these exchanges unfold over time. An examination of specific findings is needed to see clearly some of the nuances of this apparent trust-building process. Personality similarity between leader and member, measured in terms of positive affectivity, was related to later developmental processes, which in turn were related to the quality of leader-member exchange and changes in it over time. Gender similarity showed disappointing predictive power, failing to predict any of the variables of interest. This finding stands in stark contrast to other studies of demographic similarity (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). It is, however, consistent with other previous research findings. Orbell, Dawes, and Schwartz-Shea (1994) found that neither men nor women used gender as a criterion to predict who could be trusted to cooperate, and McAllister (1995) found that dyadic similarity on gender was not related to trust development. The lack of support for gender similarity may also be a result of sample composition. All of the dyads in the current study were newly formed. It may be that, contrary to past theorizing, gender similarity plays a greater role late in relationships than it does early in them. Future research is needed, however, before firm conclusions regarding gender similarity and leader-member-exchange development can be made. In contrast, similarity in a leader's and a member's positive affectivity was consistently related to early and later performance judgments levied by the leader. This finding held over two time periods, indicating that affectivity similarity was related to early judgments about the member's performance as well as subsequent changes in those performance judgments by the leader. The more similar the leader and member were on this variable, the higher the leader's performance rating of the member at time 2 and the greater the increase in that performance rating between time 2 and time 3. Given the myriad of factors that might affect performance ratings, this appears to be a fairly robust finding. It should also be noted that affectivity similarity showed zero-order relationships to leader-member-exchange quality (r = .23, p < .05). That relationship disappeared, however, when we controlled for the performance and delegation variables. Thus, personality similarity in this study appears to be related to leader-member-exchange development, but indirectly so. Personality affects early interaction patterns, which in turn are related to quality of exchange. This work, therefore, supports the theoretical proposition that leader and member characteristics (at least relational personality), can be significant initial influences on the development of leader-member exchange but appear to be mediated by behavioral processes. It may be that this type of similarity matters early on, as Dienesch and Liden (1986) pro-

1560

Academy of Management Journal

December

posed, but that other factors, such as member performance, matter more later in relationships. Interacts of member performance and leader delegation also appeared to be related as predicted, but again, the pattern departed from the hypotheses. Within both time periods, performance and delegation showed significant zero-order relationships, but the magnitude of those relationships diminished over time. Furthermore, when we considered other variables in a multivariate model over time, the pattern of the performance-delegation relationships became more complex and suggested a particular sequence of interacts between leader judgments about member performance and the amount of delegation leaders used. Early in the leader-member-exchange development process-at three months (time 2)-performance and delegation are significantly related. At nine months (time 3), with earlier levels of performance and delegation controlled, there is no significant relationship between the time 3 performance ratings and leader delegation. In addition, at time 3, time 2 performance ratings positively predict time 3 delegation levels, but time 2 delegation does not predict time 3 performance. This pattern between performance and delegation across time appears consistent with the trust-building and testing model of LMX development that Graen and Scandura (1987) depicted. It also may suggest something about how early LMX developmental processes affect later development. It appears that leaders may use increased levels of delegation as a reward for performance already delivered by a member. From this perspective, the leader is not delegating to enhance member performance, although he or she may certainly hope for that outcome. Rather, the leader provides increased responsibility and latitude for a member after that member is seen as performing well. This pattern is also consistent with the trust-building logic used here. Delegation is more likely to occur after a leader is assured, or trusts, that the subordinate can perform at a high level. It is also noteworthy that early ventures into this exchange process affect later interacts. Once we controlled for time 2 levels of performance and delegation, time 3 performance and delegation were no longer related. This finding suggests that for this time frame, the meaningful variance in the relationship between performance and delegation has already been explained by interactions at time 2. between the performanceFinally, the predicted relationships were strongly supported. interacts and leader-member exchange delegation Member performance and delegation predicted both the quality of exchange at time 3 and increases in the quality of exchange between time 2 and time 3. Thus, it appears that a leader's judgment about a member's performance is an important predictor of leader-member exchange. In addition, the increased responsibility and latitude the leader grants to the member through delegation is strongly associated with a better quality of exchange, regardless of member performance levels. This finding is consistent with the two major theoretical models of LMX development (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987) and empirically establishes for the first time the important

1996

Bauer and Green

1561

role delegation can play in the development of leader-member exchange. Leaders who want good relationships with their subordinates might consider going out of their way to delegate to new employees both early and late in their relationships. The negative relationship between time 2 delegation and changes in leader-member exchange from time 2 to time 3 is also consistent with the temporal nature of the leader-member-exchange development process. In essence, this coefficient means that the more delegation that is reported at time 2, the smaller the change in exchange quality over time. This pattern may indicate that LMX relationships appear to develop quickly and that the earlier use of delegation has already strengthened the quality of exchange. Thus, more delegation at time 2 is associated with less LMX development after that time. Nevertheless, as can be seen in the same equation, greater amounts of delegation at time 3 were still positively related to increases in exchange quality between times 2 and 3. Thus, early exchange processes don't seem to limit the development of exchanges, but they do provide a basis for later exchange processes. A pattern emerges from the findings as a whole that may offer a glimpse into the dynamics of LMX development. Personality similarity is positively related to leaders' performance evaluations of members. These performance evaluations in turn are associated with leaders' decisions to delegate more to good performers. Over time, then, both member performance and amount of delegation are strongly associated with the quality of exchange and increases in that quality. In fact, these interacts of performance and delegation now displace personality similarity as a predictor of leader-member exchange. Thus, it appears personality similarity may predispose a leader to see a member in a positive light, or it may be that personality similarity actually facilitates member performance. Thus, personality similarity gives the development process a nudge in the right direction. Later, the interacts between performance judgments and delegation become the dominant variable related to the quality of the exchange that develops between leader and member. In addition, the temporal findings suggest that early interacts can set the tone for the leader-member-exchange process and, the better the development process is early on-that is, the more delegation occurs-the less development there is later. As one anonymous reviewer pointed out, these results suggest that leaders may encourage sameness or homogeneity but, by implication, not diversity and heterogeneity. This observation is disturbing since homogeneity is not consistent with the realities of the increasingly diverse workforce. The influence of personality similarity begs the question of whether this similarity "causes" better performance or simply leads to higher halo performance ratings from the supervisor, which can be a source of bias. As noted earlier, Turban and Jones (1988) suggested that interpersonal similarity may influence dyadic interactions and therefore contribute to mutual liking and trust. Results of their study "suggest that similarity affects evaluations not only through bias, but also partly because of differences in supervisorsubordinate interactions" (Turban & Jones, 1988: 228). Kingstrom and Main-

1562

Academy of Management Journal

December

stone (1985) found that supervisors' ratings of personal acquaintance with their subordinates were significantly related to the performance ratings they gave the subordinates as well as to the objective performance measure of actual sales performance. This finding suggests that both mechanisms are probably operating. Organizations and supervisors should take care to base performance decisions on objective criteria rather than solely on more potentially biased subjective criteria. This is easier said than done, however, since much of the similarity-attraction paradigm may operate on a subconscious level. Study Strengths and Limitations A correlation between two measures can be inflated if both are obtained from the same person at the same time using the same data collection technique. We took three steps to decrease this threat to validity: First, the collection of independent and dependent variables was separated in time when possible. Podsakoff and Organ wrote that separating measures in time "mitigate[s] the problem of transient mood state and common stimulus cues, and perhaps reduces the effect of respondents' strain toward consistency" (1986: 540). Second, we collected data from members as well as leaders, eliminating the concern of common method bias for some measures. And third, tests were conservative in that we controlled for additional variables that might covarying with predictors and criteria. Unfortunately, these three steps caused the sample size to go down to a low of 112 rather than the 205 possible for tests based on member data only. So although we could be somewhat confident that method variance was not inflating the observed relationships, statistical power was decreased. Another weakness of this study is the use of the MPS delegation items. As mentioned previously, over 20 years have been spent validating and testing the scale from which this subscale comes. Unfortunately, our measure of delegation only contains two items. It would have been more desirable to use a greater number of items or an objective approach to measuring delegation such as that used by Leana (1986). Unfortunately, it was not possible to collect objective, observational data here. Each member was in a different job and therefore, a more general measure of leader delegation was needed. Given the potential weakness of the delegation measure we employed, future studies should try to replicate these findings using objective, measures of delegation and perhaps of other leader behaviors as well, or multifaceted measures, or both. Another measurement issue concerns our use of an 8-item version of the original leader-member-exchange 7-item scale from Scandura and Graen (1984). Theorists (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Gerstner & Day, 1995; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) have pointed out that prior work has used many different measures of leader-member exchange; these include a 2-item measure (Dansereau et al., 1975), a 4-item measure (Liden & Graen, 1980), a 7-item scale (Scandura & Graen, 1984), and an up-to-12-item measure (Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984). These differences hinder direct comparisons of LMX studies.

1996

Bauer and Green

1563

In a comprehensive metaanalytic study of 88 independent LMX samples, Gerstner and Day (1995) found that exchange quality was measured using over 16 different instruments. Although several of the scales varied considerably more from the leader-member-exchange 7-item measure than our modified 8-item measure did, the type of scale used did not seem to influence the finding of a strong positive relationship between LMX quality and performance. Further, the results indicated that internal consistency estimates were generally acceptable regardless of the type of measurement instrument used. And finally, when we conducted the LMX analyses using a 7-item measure (by combining the two split items into one), results did not change. In summary, although debate still continues (e.g., Liden & Maslyn, in press) regarding which measure or measures are the most appropriate for systematic use in studies, we acknowledge that our use of the modified leader-member-exchange 7-item scale may decrease the comparability of our findings to studies using different scales. Therefore, we encourage other studies of the LMX development process to see if these findings can be replicated using the same and other measures of exchange. And finally, although we believe we addressed core issues in leadermember-exchange development, we acknowledge that other factors, such as liking, expectations, and contexts, have also been argued to affect LMX development (cf. Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Green et al., 1996; Liden et al., 1993). Unfortunately, such considerations were beyond the scope of this study. Future Directions Researchers have argued that trust is a key component of the quality of leader-member exchange. Drawing on that argument, we found evidence that variables that should contribute to trust building were useful predictors of leader-member exchange over time. Future work, however, should look to distinguish the roles of trust and trust building in LMX development. For some time, leader-member exchange has been criticized as an underdeveloped construct (e.g., Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, in press). Research that explicitly measures degrees of trust between leader and member and quality of exchange should be conducted to clearly test the importance of trust as part of LMX quality. The role of personality in leader-member-exchange development also appears to be a fruitful direction to pursue. Positive affectivity was a contributor here, but other measures need to be explored. Studying the "Big Five" measures of personality1 would be a good place to start. For example, conscientiousness has consistently predicted performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991) and would seem likely to be related to the trust building we posit here. Finally, much more attention needs to be directed at 1 The Big Five are extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience.

and

1564

Academy of Management Journal

December

the role of delegation in developing leader-member relationships. Better measurement, longitudinal designs, and more complete theorizing are needed to more fully understand the role delegation plays in leader-member exchange. REFERENCES Barber, B. 1983. The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26. Basu, R. 1991. An empirical examination of leader-member exchange and transformational leadership as predictors of innovative behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1994. Effect of newcomer involvement in work-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 211-223. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Block, J. 1995. A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 187-215. Butler, J. K. 1983. Reciprocity of trust between professionals and their secretaries. Psychological Reports, 53: 411-416. Buunk, B. P., Doosje, B. J., Jans, L. G., & Hopstaken, L. E. 1993. Perceived reciprocity, social support, and stress at work: The role of exchange and communal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 801-811. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. 1975. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78. DeNisi, A. S., & Williams, K. J. 1988. Cognitive approaches to performance appraisal. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland, Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 6: 109-155. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634. Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. 1990. The role of initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group and Organization Studies, 15: 395-413. Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. 1986. Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 56-60. Edwards, J. R. 1994. The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 51-100. Fairhurst, G., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. A. 1987. Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgments about the relationship. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook, vol. 10: 395-415. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. 1994. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 101-135. Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. 1986. The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology 39: 291-314. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1995. Puffing leadership

back into leader-member

exchange: A

1996

Bauer and Green

1565

meta-analytic review and extension. Paper presented at the tenth annual conference of the Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Geyer, P. D., Hice, J., Hawk, J., Boese, R., & Brannon, Y. 1989. Reliabilities of ratings available from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Personnel Psychology, 42: 547-560. Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. 1982. Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 868-872. Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. 1982. The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30: 109-131. Graen, G. B., Orris, J. B., & Johnson, T. W. 1973. Role assimilation processes in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3: 395-420. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 9: 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Development of LMX Theory of Leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level-multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 210-247. Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. 1996. An examination of organizational constraints on leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66: 203-214. Hawes, L. C. 1973. Elements of a model for communication processes. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59: 11-12. Johns, G. 1981. Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27: 443-463. Johnson, C., & Swap, W. C. 1982. Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 1306-1317. Judge, T. A. 1992. The dispositional perspective in human resources research. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland, Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 10: 3172. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 80-105. Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral 133.

Science, 9: 131-

Kingstrom, P. O., & Mainstone, L. E. 1985. An investigation of rater-ratee acquaintance and bias. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 641-465. Kruglanski, A. W. 1970. Attributing trustworthiness in supervisor-worker relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6: 214-232. Kurdek, L. A. 1993. Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 221-242. Leana, C. R. 1986. Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 754-774. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as social reality. Social Forces, 63: 967-985. 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. In press. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management.

1566

Academy of Management Journal

December

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. In press. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland, Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 15. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. 1993. A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 662-674. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734. McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24-59. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. 1989. A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 424-432. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. 1991. Value congruence and satisfaction with a leader: An examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44: 481-495. Morrison, E. W. 1993. Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 173-183. Orbell, J., Dawes, R., & Schwartz-Shea, P. 1994. Trust, social categories, and individuals: The case of gender. Motivation and Emotion, 18: 109-128. Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. 1994. Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 990-1001. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12: 531-544. Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. 1977. Influence of subordinate characteristics on trust and use of participative decision strategies in a management simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62: 628-631. Rousseau, D. M. 1982. Job perceptions when working with data, people, and things. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55: 43-52. Scandura, T. 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. Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. 1986. When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 579-584. Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational

culture and leadership.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., & Tepper, B. J. 1992. Development and preliminary validation of a new scale (LMX-6) to measure leader-member exchange in organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52: 135-147. Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Neider, L. L. 1991. Leader-member exchange as a predictor and moderator of delegation. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Miami Beach. Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 402-423. Turban, D. B., &Jones, A. P. 1988. Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 228-234. Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. 1984. The Japanese career progress study: A seven-year follow up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 603-614.

1996

Bauer and Green

1567

Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G. B., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. 1988. Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 217-227. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisorsubordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 487-499. Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. 1993. The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46: 1431-1440. Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. 1995. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 232-260. Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. New York: Addison-Wesley. Yukl, G. P. 1990. Managerial Practices Survey. Manus Associates. Yukl, G. P. 1994. Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. P., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. 1990. Preliminary report on the validation of the MPS. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership: 223-238. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Talya N. Bauer is an assistant professor of management at Portland State University. She earned her Ph.D. degree at Purdue University. Her current research interests include leadership, mentoring, new employee socialization, recruiting, and selection fairness. Stephen G. Green is a professor of management at Purdue University. He earned his Ph.D. degree at the University of Washington. He is currently the director of the professional M.S. programs in management at the Krannert School. His current research interests include leadership, socialization, and the management of innovation.

1996 Bauer & Green LMX AMJ.pdf

There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more ... 1996 Bauer & Green LMX AMJ.pdf. 1996 Bauer & Green LMX AMJ.pdf.

573KB Sizes 4 Downloads 201 Views

Recommend Documents

1996 Bauer & Aiman-Smith Green Career JB&P.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. 1996 Bauer ...

2004 Liden, Bauer, & Erdogan LMX in Employment Relationship ...
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. 2004 Liden, Bauer, & Erdogan LMX in Employment Relationship Combined.pdf. 2004 Liden, Bauer, & Erdogan LMX i

2006 Bauer et al. LMX and Extraversion JAP.pdf
School of Business, Portland State University; Robert C. Liden and Sandy. J. Wayne, Department of Managerial Studies, University of Illinois at. Chicago.

1994 Bauer & Green Socialization JAP .pdf
1994 Bauer & Green Socialization JAP .pdf. 1994 Bauer & Green Socialization JAP .pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying 1994 Bauer ...

1998 Bauer & Green Soc Tactics JAP.pdf
1998 Bauer & Green Soc Tactics JAP.pdf. 1998 Bauer & Green Soc Tactics JAP.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu.

Raissued May18, 1915. Oscar Bauer
zen of the United States, and a resident of the city of New York, borough of ..... support for sald arm adjustable perpendicu larly of the bed but maintaining the ...

1996-1998Biennial.pdf
Our efforts toward providing statewide access to commercial databases resulted. in a proposal called The Tennessee Electronic Library. It has taken several ...

1994 Williams & Bauer Diversity GOM.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. 1994 Williams ...Missing:

green green
protected areas (MD green infrastructure network, Coastal Bays critical ... made when updating the model to search for the most recent data that may be newly .... elements, but buffers around the core and corridors should be open to human ...

1996
Items 1 - 10 - The course improved my attitudes & values. 10. Course increased my skills or abilities. Items 1 - 10. 4. EXO. 18. OU. o o o ooooo o o. o o 1 5 184.7.

1996.pdf
PC users, who buy Intel's PC enhancements, business communications. products and ... modem-and-phone-line Internet con- nections. .... Displaying 1996.pdf.

Shagsites by Charlie Bauer PhD.pdf
SEX APP-EAL. The age of virtual sex is upon us. Well, real sex but accessed virtually if. you will. There's nothing I like more than logging onto Grindr and the.

Shagsites by Charlie Bauer PhD.pdf
SEX APP-EAL. The age of virtual sex is upon us. Well, real sex but accessed virtually if. you will. There's nothing I like more than logging onto Grindr and the. like on a Saturday night ... cruising areas but even this is a bit too 'coals to Newcast

Benson-1996-PostPotomocDelaware.pdf
12. Jarosite and Alunite. Tall- Santonian. Campanian . Maastrirhtian. Paleocene. Danian. Thanetian.. Eocene. Yprcsian . Lutctian '. Miocene. Potomac FOfnMtion.

CAT 1996 Solutions.pdf
Loading… Whoops! There was a problem loading more pages. Retrying... Whoops! There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Main menu. Whoops! There was

bilderberg 1996.pdf
Page 3 of 79. EVENT SCHEDULE - TRACK & FIELD. TUESDAY, AUGUST 1. RUNNING EVENT SCHEDULE. TIME EVENT/AGE GROUP RACE. 8:00 AM ...

CAT 1996 Questions.pdf
Page 1 of 36. CAT 1996 Actual Paper Page 1. Direction for questions 1 to 10: In each of the following questions, four sentences are given between the. sentences numbered 1 and 6. You are required to arrange the four sentences so that all six together

Chaahat 1996 hindi
Windows 10 first.The Patriot 2000 EXTENDED720P.Chaahat 1996 hindi.368979672981.Alvin lee disco.Ortho 2015 pdf.The pjs. complete.Principle ofsurgery.The Unauthorized VersionTruth and Fiction in the Bible. NewYork ... Windows 8 xp 32.Chaahat 1996 hindi

1996 mrs. winterbourne ...
... gratis_________________________________________.pdf. 1996 mrs. winterbourne gratis_________________________________________.pdf. Open.