Skip to main content
Log in

Mutual Recognition Respect Between Leaders and Followers: Its Relationship to Follower Job Performance and Well-Being

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been limited research investigating the effects of the recognition form of respect between leaders and their followers within the organisation literature. We investigated whether mutual recognition respect was associated with follower job performance and well-being after controlling for measures of liking and appraisal respect. Based on data we collected from 203 matched leader–follower dyads in the Insurance industry in Malaysia, we found mutual recognition respect predicted both follower job performance and well-being. Significantly, appraisal respect was only found to be positively associated with job performance. Our findings suggest mutual recognition respect is an important form of respect in workplace relationships that can bring benefits to both the individual and the organisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Augsberger, A., Shudrich, W., McGowan, B. G., & Auerbach, C. (2012). Respect in the workplace: A mixed methods study of retention and turnover in the voluntary child welfare sector. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7), 1222–1229. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.02.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, M. W., Carrell, S. E., & Lopez, D. E. (1990). Priming relationship schemas: My advisor and the Pope are watching me from the back of my mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Self-esteem and “if…then” contingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1130–1141. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand: Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees. Organization Science, 23, 743–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, J. R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. E., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benditt, T. M. (2008). Why respect matters. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 42, 487–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG (J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 66–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and Analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeckmann, R. J., & Tyler, T. R. (2002). Trust, respect and the psychology of political engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2067–2088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doojse, B. (2002). Intra-group and intergroup evaluation effects on group behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753. doi:10.1177/0146167202289004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25, 82–101. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 712–722. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2010). Not all leader-member exchanges are created equal: Importance of leader relational identity. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 796–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, N. (2011). An integrated conceptual model of respect in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 316–327. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coan, J. A., Kasle, S., Jackson, A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2013). Mutuality and the social regulation of neural threat responding. Attachment and Human Development, 15, 303–315. doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.782656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Schocken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, J. C., & Bolger, N. (1990). Doing without social support as an explanatory concept. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 148–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranor, C. (1975). Toward a theory of respect for persons. American Philosophical Quarterly, 12, 309–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 52–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Is more discussion about levels of analysis really necessary? When is such discussion sufficient? Leadership Quarterly, 17, 537–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, S. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88, 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1335–1341. doi:10.1177/014616702236830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D. (2003). Noneconomic motives predicting cooperation in public good dilemmas: The effect of received respect on contributions. Social Justice Research, 16, 367–377. doi:10.1023/A:1026361632114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human agency: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–50). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., Doojse, B., & Spears, R. (2004). Sources of respect: The effects of being liked by ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 155–172. doi:10.1002/ejsp.196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmott, M., & Worman, D. (2008). The steady rise of CSR and Diversity in the workplace. Strategic HR Review, 7(5), 28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, J., & Laschinger, H. (2008). The effects of structural and psychological empowerment on perceived respect in acute care nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 214–221. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00781.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. London: Verso. doi:10.3366/per.2005.1.2.215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genero, N. P., Miller, J. B., Surrey, J., & Baldwin, L. M. (1992). Measuring perceived mutuality in close relationships: Validation of the mutual psychological development questionnaire. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 36–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., & Fallot, R. D. (1974). Information salience as a weighting factor in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 444–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). An examination of temporal variables and relationship quality on promotability ratings. Group and Organization Management, 31, 677–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., & Molina, I. E. (2010). Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 200–212. doi:10.1177/0146167209356787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huo, Y. J., & Molina, I. E. (2006). Is pluralism a viable model of diversity? The benefits and limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, R. L., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. (1986). The meaning of mutuality (Work in Progress, No. 23). Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Wellesley College.

  • Jordan, P. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and Organization, 15, 452–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, (H.J. Paton, Ed., Translated and analysed). New York: Harper.

  • Kaplan, K., Mestel, P., & Feldman, D. L. (2010). Creating a culture of respect. Association of Periperative Registered Nurses Journal, 91, 495–510. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2009.09.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasle, S., Wilhelm, M. S., & Zautra, A. J. (2008). Rheumatoid arthritis patients’ perceptions of mutuality in conversations with spouses/partners and their links with psychological and physical health. Arthritis and Rhuematology, 59, 921–928. doi:10.1002/art.23821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellenberger, J. (1995). Relationship morality. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laham, S. M., Tam, T., Lalljee, T. M., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2010). Respect for persons in the intergroup context: Self-other overlap and intergroup emotions are mediators of the impact of respect on action tendencies. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, H., & Calapez, T. (2012). The relational dimension of identity: Theoretical and empirical exploration. Review of Social Economy, 70, 81–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutgen-Sandrik, P., Tracy, J. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 839–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyugomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham, S. E., & Halverson, R. R. (2002). Within- and between-entity analyses in multilevel research:: A leadership example using single level analyses and boundary conditions (MRA). The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 35–52.

  • Markham, S. E., Yammarino, F. J., Murry, W. D., & Palanski, M. E. (2010). Leader-member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martini, C., Sprenger, J., & Colyvan, M. (2013). Resolving disagreement through mutual respect. Erkenntnis, 78, 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2005). Subordinate-manager gender combination and perceived leadership style influence on emotions, self-esteem, and organizational commitment. Journal of Business Research, 58, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116, 908–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oore, D. G., LeBlanc, D., Day, A., Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Price, S. I., & Latimer, M. (2010). When respect deteriorates: incivility as a moderator of the stressor–strain relationship among hospital workers. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 878–888. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01139.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prestwich, A., & Lalljee, M. (2009). The determinants and consequences of intragroup respect: An examination within a sporting context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1229–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renger, D., & Simon, B. (2011). Social recognition as an equal: The role of equality-based respect in group life. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 501–507. doi:10.1002/ejsp.814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: a study of a science, vol III. Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184–256). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safran, J. D. (1990). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of interpersonal theory: I. Theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Work values: A theoretical overview and a model of their effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 503–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sallquist, J., DiDonato, M. D., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2012). The importance of mutual positive expressivity in social adjustment: Understanding the role of peers and gender. Emotion, 12(2), 304–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanftner, J. L., Tantillo, M., & Seidlitz, C. S. L. (2004). A pilot investigation of the relation of perceived mutuality to eating disorders in women. Women and Health, 39, 85–100. doi:10.1300/j013v39n0105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, K. L., Stewart, B. J., Archbold, P. G., Caparro, M., Mutale, F., & Agrawal, S. (2008). Effects of caregiving demand, mutuality and preparedness on family caregiver outcomes during cancer treatment. Oncology Nursing Forum, 35, 49–56. doi:10.1188/08.onf.49-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. L. (2010). Relational identity theory: A systematic approach for transforming the emotional dimension of conflict. American Psychologist, 65(7), 634–645. doi:10.1037/a0020004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1989). Texts of identity. Inquiries in social construction series, vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.23463672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2003). Interpersonal treatment, social identity and organizational behaviour. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 155–171). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1988). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model. Group membership, self-worth and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470–493. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., Ellemers, N., Doojse, B., & Branscombe, N. (2006). The individual within the group: Respect!. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior’. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tantillo, M., & Sanfter, J. (2003). The relationship between perceived mutuality and bulimic symptoms, depression and therapeutic change in groups. Eating Behaviors, 3, 349–364. doi:10.1016/s1471-0153(02)00077-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects and Mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. E. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45, 575–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205–222.

  • Zayas, L. H., Hausmann-Stabile, C., & Kuhlberg, J. (2011). Can better mother-daughter relationships reduce the chance of suicide attempt among Latinas? Depression Research and Treatment, 201, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2011/403602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas Clarke.

Appendix 1: Mutual Recognition Respect

Appendix 1: Mutual Recognition Respect

  1. 1.

    We demonstrate sensitivity to each others’ personal or moral beliefs.

  2. 2.

    We value each other simply because as people we deserve it.

  3. 3.

    We accept each other’s right to have differing opinions even if we do not agree with them.

  4. 4.

    We respect each others’ differences.

  5. 5.

    We treat each other with fairness in this relationship.

  6. 6.

    Our working relationship has integrity and dignity.

  7. 7.

    We treat each other with consideration.

  8. 8.

    Individuals have a basic right to be respected.

Appraisal Respect

  1. 1.

    We are impressed with each other’s knowledge of our jobs.

  2. 2.

    We respect each other’s knowledge and competence on the job.

  3. 3.

    We admire each other’s professional skills.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clarke, N., Mahadi, N. Mutual Recognition Respect Between Leaders and Followers: Its Relationship to Follower Job Performance and Well-Being. J Bus Ethics 141, 163–178 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2724-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2724-z

Keywords

Navigation