Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Measurement: Evidence for Consensus, Construct Breadth, and Discriminant Validity

Abstract

Purpose – This chapter (a) summarizes leader–member exchange (LMX) measurement practices since the influential reviews by Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999) and Gerstner and Day (1997), (b) clarifies the status of LMX as a broad construct from a hierarchical factor model, (c) conducts multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analyses on leader and follower reports of multidimensional LMX, and (d) investigates discriminant validity between Member LMX and satisfaction with supervisor.

Methodology/Approach – We used (a) a literature search of LMX measurement practices, (b) a combination of meta-analysis and factor analysis to specify the broad LMX construct underlying Liden and Maslyn's (1998) (LMX-MDM) multidimensional instrument, (c) MTMM analyses of leader and member ratings of the LMX-MDM, and (d) a combination of meta-analysis and multiple regression to assess incremental validity of Member LMX beyond satisfaction with supervisor.

Findings – Since 1999, 85% of LMX studies now use one of two dominant LMX scales (LMX-7, Scandura, & Graen, 1984; LMX-MDM, Liden & Maslyn, 1998). These two measures are correlated (rcorrected=.9), suggesting the LMX-7 and the LMX-MDM are alternate forms of the same instrument. 94% of studies that used these two measures treat LMX as a single, broad construct rather than as a multidimensional set of constructs. MTMM analyses suggest Leader LMX and Member LMX are two, separate-but-related constructs (i.e., confirming two source factors and no lower-order trait factors). Last, Member LMX meta-analytically correlates with satisfaction with supervisor at rcorrected=.8. There is some incremental validity of LMX, but the pattern is inconsistent across samples.

Social Implications – We point out that LMX researchers have now moved toward standard measurement of LMX – as a broad, higher-order factor that varies between leader and follower. By doing so, we reveal that the stage is set for cumulative and replicable research on leadership as a dyadic, follower-specific phenomenon.

Originality/Value of Paper – Our chapter is the first to reveal consensus in LMX measurement across studies; to summarize the standard treatment of LMX as a single, broad factor; and to apply MTMM analyses to demonstrate separate Leader LMX and Member LMX source factors.

Citation

Joseph, D.L., Newman, D.A. and Sin, H.-P. (2011), "Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Measurement: Evidence for Consensus, Construct Breadth, and Discriminant Validity", Bergh, D.D. and Ketchen, D.J. (Ed.) Building Methodological Bridges (Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Vol. 6), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 89-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006012