Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Joint Fluctuations of LMX and Relative LMX Predict Follower Work Effort: A Dual-Dynamic Perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The extant leader-member exchange (LMX) literature holds that LMX and LMX differentiation have various consequences on the focal employees’ work-related outcomes. Since the levels of LMX might change as a result of exchanges in work interactions, scholars recently have raised the importance of adopting a more dynamic view in this literature. With the present research, we aim to examine the relationship between the change of LMX, the change of relative LMX (RLMX), and work-related effort. In particular, we focus on the concurrent effects of LMX-and-RLMX changes on the focal employees’ work-related efforts. Drawing on self-regulation theories, we propose that LMX trajectories and RLMX trajectories serve as two independent feedback loop forms regarding the attainability of achieving favorable LMX within teams, which jointly affect the focal employee work efforts. We collected multi-wave and multisource data from 328 employees in 42 workgroups and archival records from an insurance call center. The results indicated that negative LMX change was correlated with higher effort (i.e., the number of calls). Moreover, polynomial regression and response surface analyses revealed a positive relationship between follower LMX–RLMX change incompatibility and work effort. Our dual-dynamic model indicates the importance of considering concurrent changes in both LMX and RLMX to understand better the dynamic processes and outcomes of LMX in work teams.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, C., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Implications of goal theories for the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour. Current Psychology, 22(3), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-003-1021-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afshan, G., Serrano-Archimi, C., & Akram, Z. (2022). My LMX standing with my leader as compared to my coworkers: Conditional indirect effect of LMX social comparison. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2020-0371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 970–988. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. W. (1958). Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies, and incentives. In: J. W. Atkinson (Ed.). Motives in fantasy, action and society. Van Nostrand

  • Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567. https://doi.org/10.2307/257068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 362–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442802237116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buengeler, C., Piccolo, R. F., & Locklear, L. R. (2021). LMX differentiation and group outcomes: A framework and review drawing on group diversity insights. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320930813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. Springer Verlag.

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. H., Johnson, R. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Moving beyond discrepancies: The importance of velocity as a predictor of satisfaction and motivation. Human Performance, 23(1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280903400226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, A., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., et al. (2021). Two to tango? Implications of alignment and misalignment in leader and follower perceptions of LMX. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(3), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09690-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, J. S., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cogliser, C. C., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5%3c487::AID-JOB57%3e3.0.CO;2-P

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

  • Cropanzano. R., Dasborough. M. T., & Weiss. H. M. (2017). Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42, 233–258. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0384

  • Diel, K., Grelle, S., & Hofmann, W. (2021). A motivational framework of social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1415–1430. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/258314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/256782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenseer, V., Schulte, E.-M., Spurk, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2021). Brokers compensate for leader–member exchange differentiation: Behavioral observations in innovation meetings. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 20(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000265

  • Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence The role of relative leader–member exchanges (rlmx) and perceived organizational support (pos). Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 299–315 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.007

  • Epitropaki, O., Kapoutsis, I., Ellen, B. P., III., Ferris, G. R., Drivas, K., & Ntotsi, A. (2016). Navigating uneven terrain: The roles of political skill and LMX differentiation in prediction of work relationship quality and work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 1078–1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchange in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader–member exchange theory. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65–114). Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 777–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.4.777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firebaugh, G. (1980). Groups as contexts and frog ponds. In K. H. Roberts & L. Burstein (Eds.), Issues in aggregation (pp. 43–52). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulford, D., Johnson, S. L., Llabre, M. M., & Carver, C. S. (2010). Pushing and coasting in dynamic goal pursuit: Coasting is attenuated in bipolar disorder. Psychological Science, 21(7), 1021–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610373372

  • Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–208). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, K. A., Dust, S. B., & Ziegert, J. C. (2017). Supervisor-employee power distance incompatibility, gender similarity, and relationship conflict: A test of interpersonal interaction theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 334-346 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000265

  • Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208–1219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer?. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22(C), 93–136 https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652601(08)603068

  • Hofmann D. A., Griffin M. A., & Gavin M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467–511). Jossey-Bass.

  • Hsee, C. K., & Abelson, R. P. (1991). Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.3.341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 127–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, T. L. (2015). The varieties of momentum-like experience. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1081–1119. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349

  • Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Dotson, C. O. (2014). Psychological momentum: Why success breeds success. Review of General Psychology, 18(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Lord, R. G. (2006). Moving from cognition to behavior: What the research says. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 381–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Howe, M., & Chang, C. H. (2013). The importance of velocity, or why speed may matter more than distance. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386612463836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauppila, O. (2016). When and how does LMX differentiation influence followers’ work outcomes? The interactive roles of one’s own LMX status and organizational context. Personnel Psychology, 69(2), 357–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influence on the quality of supervisor-subordinate relations: The role of time pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030-150108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/258414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, E. L., & Mehta, P. H. (2017). Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 114(1), 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609811114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 414–435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0262

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–91). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe, É., Vandenberghe, C., Ben Ayed, A. K., et al. (2020). Social comparisons, self-conceptions, and attributions: Assessing the self-related contingencies in leader-member exchange relationships. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09628-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., Fay, D., Frese, M., Harms, P. D., & Gao, X. Y. (2014). Reciprocal relationship between proactive personality and work characteristics A latent change score approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 948–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/255511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 15, pp. 47–119). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance Prentice-Hall, Inc

  • Markman, K. D., & Guenther, C. L. (2007). Psychological momentum: Intuitive physics and naive beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 800–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Dello Russo, S., Legood, A., & Thomas, G. (2015). LMX differentiation and work‐related outcomes: The Role of LMX comparison processes. In: Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 18698). Academy of Management

  • Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Thomas, G., Legood, A., & Dello Russo, S (2018) Leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2202

  • Matta, F. K., & Van Dyne, L. (2020). Understanding the disparate behavioral consequences of LMX differentiation: The role of social comparison emotions. The Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 154–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686–1708. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcardle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 577–605. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pacquiao, M. (2010). Pacman: My story of hope, resilience, and never-say-never determination. Dunham Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, N. C., Sivanathan, N., Gladstone, E., & Marr, J. C. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1579–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612473120

  • Pettit, N. C., Doyle, S. P., Lount, R. B., & To, C. (2016). Cheating to get ahead or to avoid falling behind? The effect of potential negative versus positive status change on unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reh, S., Tröster, C., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2017). Keeping (future) rivals down: temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 399–415 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000281

  • Reh, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Tröster, C., & Giessner, S. R. (2022). When and why does status threat at work bring out the best and the worst in us? A temporal social comparison theoryOrganizational Psychology Review, 12(3), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221100200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein, A. L., Allen, D. G., & Bosco, F. A. (2019). What’s past (and present) is prologue: Interactions between justice levels and trajectories predicting behavioral reciprocity. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1569–1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317728107

  • 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(3), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., & Sintemaartensdijk, N. (2009). Suffering from the possibility of status loss Physiological responses to social identity threat in high status groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-member exchange using traditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 659–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/256909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9317-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, M., Gaudet, M., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2021). How and when relative Leader-Member exchange (RLMX) invigorates attendance at work within a context of LMX differentiation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051821989289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, M., Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Sajadi, P. (2022). Are leaders and followers receiving what they give? A long-term examination of the reciprocal relationship between relative LMX and relative OCB-helping. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211041629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tse, H. H. M., Lam, C. K., Lawrence, S. A., & Huang, X. (2013). When my supervisor dislikes you more than me: The effect of dissimilarity in leader–member exchange on coworkers’ interpersonal emotion and perceived help. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 974–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tse, H. M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2012). Relative leader–member exchange, negative affectivity and social identification: A moderated-mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbrigghe, J. (2014). Do frogs in small ponds feel big? Examining how and when rlmx impacts employee performance (withdrawn). Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2014(1), 14112–14112. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.20-14.14112abstract

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader–member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849–861. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2011). How leader–member exchange influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal-external efficacy perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 739–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01224.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader- member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/257021

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work is supported by NSFC grants 91724102 and 31971013 and Beijing Well-being Foundation grant #0020344.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Li Lu

    Present address: School of Journalism, Communication University of China, Beijing, China

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behaviour and Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Li Lu & Lei Wang

  2. Gallup-Peking University Positive Psychology Center, Beijing, China

    Lei Wang

  3. Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

    Russell E. Johnson

Authors
  1. Li Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Russell E. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, L., Wang, L. & Johnson, R.E. The Joint Fluctuations of LMX and Relative LMX Predict Follower Work Effort: A Dual-Dynamic Perspective. J Bus Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09940-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09940-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation