Social Influence and Leader Perceptions: Multiplex Social Network Ties and Similarity in Leader–Member Exchange
Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory focuses on the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources between supervisor and subordinate. LMX research is criticized for failing to consider the role of the social context in the development of subordinates’ perceptions of LMX. We explore whether employees have similar LMX perceptions to those of multiplex social network ties.
We conducted a social network study of 61 employees working in a computing and information technology company in the southeastern United States.
Our results suggest that employees tend to have LMX perceptions similar to those of high-trust advice ties who work for the same supervisor and different from high-trust friendship ties who work for the same supervisor. Employees’ LMX perceptions were unrelated to the LMX perceptions of high-trust friend and advice ties who worked for different supervisors.
Our study contributes to research seeking to understand the role that the social context plays in shaping employees’ LMX perceptions by demonstrating that social network ties are important to this process. It also contributes to research exploring social influence and social networks by offering a potential explanation for why friendship and advice ties are socially influential. From a practical perspective, our results will help managers to understand why employees’ may have LMX perceptions which are inconsistent with the favorability of treatment that they receive.
We respond to calls for research on the effects of context on organizational phenomena in general and LMX specifically.
KeywordsLeader–member exchange Social influence Social networks Trust
This research was supported by Summer Research Grant from the Department of Management at Clemson University awarded to Russell L. Purvis.
- Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET 6 for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
- Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. Research in organizational behavior, 6, 51–93.Google Scholar
- Erickson, B. H. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 99–121). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, D. E. (2004). Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 238–262.Google Scholar
- Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–166). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
- Krackhardt, D., & Brass, D. J. (1994). Intra-organizational networks: The micro side. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in the social and behavioral sciences from social network analysis (pp. 209–230). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
- Krackhardt, D., & Kilduff, M. (1990). Friendship patterns and culture: The control of organizational diversity. American Anthropologist, 92, 142–154.Google Scholar
- Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader–member attribution process. Academy of Management Review, 12, 235–249.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.Google Scholar
- McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Commitment, trust, and worker effort expenditure in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: dilemmas and approaches (pp. 127–152). NY, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Murnighan, J. K., Malhotra, D., & Weber, J. M. (2004). Commitment, trust, and worker effort expenditure in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 127–152). NY, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Raider, H., & Krackhardt, D. J. (2001). Intraorganizational networks. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), Companion to organizations (pp. 58–74). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.Google Scholar
- Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader–member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505–535.Google Scholar
- Wicks, A., Berman, S., & Jones, T. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: moral and strategic implications. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 99–118.Google Scholar