The Impact of Expanding Organizations on Educational

LeadershipHarvard Graduate School of Education | 2015 Student Research Conference

Accountability, Agency, and Quality in Organizational and Educational Settings

Taylor K. OdleM.Ed. Candidate in Higher Education

Peabody College of EducationVanderbilt University

Problem Statement

• This research seeks to better understand the impact of distance—physical and psychological—on college and university campuses with regard to leader-member exchange and task performance.

Theoretical Foundations

• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

• Graen (1976); Graen & Uhl-Bien (LQ, 1995)

• Distinguished from other leadership theories because of its dyadic orientation

• Blau (1964) – Social Identity Theory

• A different relationship exists between a leader and each of their followers

• Relational Quality – High- and Low-Quality

• In- and Out-Group Membership

• Predictive of individual, group, and organizational outcomes

• Group memberships form quickly and are relatively enduring

Theoretical Foundations

• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), continued

• High-Quality Relationships/In-Group Membership

• Trust, mutual respect, support, formal and informal rewards (Dienesch & Liden, AMR, 1986)

• Higher-tier, more responsible activities (Howell & Hall-Merenda, JAP,

1999)

• Subordinates play an increased role in team, group, and organizational outcomes (Sparrowe & Liden, AMR, 1997)

• Low-Quality Relationships/Out-Group Membership

• Contractual; formal, top-down authority

• Standard performance by subordinates (Deluga, JOOP, 1994)

Theoretical Foundations

• Distance

• Social or Psychological (Bass, 1990)

• Physical (Atonakis & Atwater, LQ, 2002; Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, LQ, 2005)

• Hierarchical or of Power (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Botero & Van Dyne, MCQ, 2009)

• “A multidimensional construct that describes the psychological, structural, and functional separation, disparity, or discord between a supervisor and a subordinate.” Napier & Ferris, HRMR, 1993

• Leadership Theories

• Conceptualization of Distance

• LPC (Fiedler, 1967), FRLT (Bass, 1998)

Theoretical Foundations

• Distance, continued

• Physical

• Facilitates the communication process, heightens quality of exchange (Bass, 1990)

• Inhibits personal and social engagement (Howell & Hall-Merenda, JAP,

1999)

• Decreased Follower Performance, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, JAP, 1996)

• Lower Follower Satisfaction (Burrows, Munday, Tunnell, & Seay, JIP, 1996)

Theoretical Foundations

• Distance, continued

• Psychological

• “Leadership entails a certain degree of social or psychological distance between supervisors and their subordinates.” (Bogardus, SSR,

1927)

• Psychological Proximity: “…sensitive and individually-tailored confidence building communication.” (Yagil, LQ, 1998)

• Role Modeling (Yagil)

• Leader Weakness, Fallibility (Shamir, LQ, 1995)

Hypotheses

• H1: Physical distance and leader-member exchange are negatively related.

• H2: Psychological distance and leader-member exchange are negatively related.

• H3: Physical distance interacts to significantly predict leader-member exchange.

• H4: Psychological distance interacts to significantly predict leader-member exchange.

• H5: Psychological distance moderates the relationship between leader-member exchange and task performance.

Methods

• Procedure

• Online Qualtrics survey disseminated via email, listserv, and departmental/unit contacts

• Incentive, $5 Amazon gift credit

• Sample

• Leader-member dyads, n = 121

• Subordinate, n = 520; Supervisor, n = 121

• Faculty, staff, and administrators

• Response rates

• Subordinate, 16.7%; Supervisor, 41.2%

Methods

• Measures

• Leader-Member Exchange, Subordinate

• LMX-7 (Graen & Uhl-Bien, LQ, 1995)

• α = .92

• Physical Distance, Subordinate

• “Indicate how close your workspace is to your manager/supervisor.”

• Anchors: 1 (Very Distant) to 5 (Very Close)

• Psychological Distance

• Adapted from Napier & Ferris (1993)

• Sample: “I feel very similar to my supervisor.”

• α = .91

Methods

• Measures, continued

• Task Performance, Supervisor

• Van Dyne & LePine (AMJ, 1998)

• Sample: “S/he meets performance expectations.”

• Anchors: 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), Not Applicable, Unknown

• α = .98

• Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Supervisor

• Williams & Anderson (JM, 1991)

• Sample: “Goes out of his or her way to help new employees.”

• α = .84

Methods

• Measures, continued

• Controls

• Positive & Negative Affectivity (PANAS; Thompson, JC-CP, 2007)

• Communication Frequency

• Work Relationship Tenure

• Age

• Education

• Sex

• Ethnicity

Methods

• Analysis

• Correlation

• Linear Regression

• Predictor data standardized prior to analysis

• Hierarchical Multiple Regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1983)

• Constructs combined multiplicatively

• Main effects and controls entered in a step-wise fashion

Descriptive Statistics and Inter-Item Correlations

Construct M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

1. Subordinate Age. 44.87 12.89 1

2. Work Relationship Tenure 3.75 3.86 .18** 1

3. Subordinate Sex 1.62 .49 -.14** .03 1

4. Sub. Education 4.16 1.36 .16** -.03 -.27** 1

5. Sub. Positive Affectivity 4.10 .53 .17** .01 .03 .10* .82

6. Sub. Negative Affectivity 1.87 .59 -.18** -.03 -.03 .02 -.33** .82

7. Super. Positive Affectivity 4.09 .39 .16 -.02 .17 .06 .13 -.17 .73

8. Super. Negative Affectivity 1.95 .40 -.01 -.01 -.09 .01 -.14 .07 -.31** .75

9. Communication Frequency 5.81 1.36 -.06 .10* .12** -.41 .03 -.06 -.05 .11 1

10. Physical Distance 2.28 1.18 .09* -.14* -.16** .29 .09* .04 -.03 .12 -.49** 1

11. Psychological Distance 2.72 .90 -.04 -.09* .01 -.03 -.29** .23** -.07 .08 -.19** .09* .91

12. Leader-Member Exchange 4.07 .79 .10* .10* -.02 .01 .29** -.38** .16 -.06 .25** -.12** -.58** .92

13. Task Performance 6.45 1.20 -.01 .10 .09 -.08 .17 -.05 .14 -.05 .04 .07 -.08 .32** .98

14. OCBs 6.17 .91 .23* .22* -.09 .04 .05 .03 .05 .19* .42** -.08 -.20* .35** .30** .84

Notes: Supervisor n = 117; Subordinate n = 520; Sub. = Subordinate; Super = Supervisor; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; Cronbach alpha reliabilities on the diagonal, as applicable.

H1: Physical distance and leader-member exchange are negatively related. SUPPORTED

H2: Psychological distance and leader-member exchange are negatively related. SUPPORTED

Regression Models Predicting Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

1 2 3 4 5

Sub. Age .030

(.319)

.046

(.511)

-.025

(-.285)

-.021

(-.247)

.028

(.339)

Sub. Sex .034

(.342)

.030

(.306)

.098

(1.062)

.092

(.996)

.099

(1.157)

Sub. Ethnicity -.100

(-.888)

-.082

(-.754)

-.099

(-.976)

-.098

(-.962)

-.023

(-.238)

Sub. Education -.096

(-.874)

-.067

(-.623)

-.154

(-1.496)

-.150

(-1.456)

-.090

(-.931)

Sub. Positive Affectivity .293***

(3.056)

.242***

(2.555)

.240***

(2.719)

.242***

(2.738)

.085

(.942)

Sub. Negative Affectivity -.126

(-1.196)

-.148

(-1.453)

-.181*

(-1.895)

-.176*

(-1.839)

-.174*

(-1.957)

Super. Positive Affectivity .074

(.829

.042

(.486)

.006

(.069)

.004

(.052)

.003

(.034)

Super. Negative Affectivity -.013

(-.151)

-.017

(-.203)

-.116

(-1.357)

-.117

(-1.373)

-.098

(-1.239)

Work Relationship Tenure .068

(.664)

.046

(.464)

-.036

(-.376)

-.043

(-.450)

-.051

(-.571)

Communication Frequency -.012

(-1.25)

-.001

(-.007)

-.185*

(-1.851)

-.221**

(-1.996)

-.218**

(-2.121)

Task Performance .227***

(2.843)

.110

(1.378)

.117

(1.458)

.147*

(1.962)

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors .376***

(4.076)

.381***

(4.107)

.304***

(3.451)

Physical Distance .071

(.765)

.055

(.640)

Psychological Distance -.318***

(-4.099)

𝑅2 .239*** .296*** .397*** .401*** .490***

Note: β reported; t-statistics reported in parentheses; Sub. = Subordinate; Super. = Supervisor;

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01

H3: Physical distance significantly predicts leader-member exchange.

NOT SUPPORTED

H4: Psychological distance significantly predicts leader-member exchange.

SUPPORTED

H5: Psychological distance moderates the relationship between leader-member exchange and task performance.

Task Performance Leader-Member Exchange

Psychological Distance

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Predictor β t p-value β t p-value β t p-value β t p-value

Sub. Age .030 .319 .750 .046 .511 .610 .087 1.048 .297 .079 .985 .327

Sub. Sex .034 .342 .733 .030 .306 .760 .055 .626 .533 .056 .656 .513

Sub. Ethnicity -.100 -.888 .377 -.082 -.754 .453 .002 .024 .981 .023 .234 .815

Sub. Education -.096 -.874 .384 -.067 -.623 .535 -.012 -.125 .901 .002 .024 .981

Sub. Positive Affectivity .293 3.056 .003 .242 2.555 .012 .057 .601 .549 .106 1.132 .260

Sub. Negative Affectivity -.126 -1.196 .235 -.148 -1.453 .149 -.152 -1.644 .103 -.095 -1.026 .307

Super. Positive Affectivity .074 .829 .409 .042 .486 .6287 .031 .397 .692 .013 .166 .868

Super. Negative Affectivity -.013 -.151 .881 -.017 -.203 .840 -.015 -.196 .845 -.018 -.236 .814

Work Relationship Tenure .068 .664 .508 .046 .464 .644 .014 .160 .873 .013 .150 .881

Communication Frequency -.012 -.125 .901 -.001 -.007 .994 -.046 -.536 .593 .008 .094 .925

Task Performance --- --- --- .227 2.843 .005 .236 3.264 .002 .239 3.392 .001

Psychological Distance --- --- --- --- --- --- -.375 -4.748 .000 -.380 -4.947 .000

Psychological Distance X Task Performance --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .220 2.561 .012

R2 .239*** .296*** .427*** .463***

Note: Sub. = Subordinate; Super. = Supervisor; * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01

H5: Psychological distance moderates the relationship between leader-member exchange and task performance.SUPPORTED

Plot of interaction term (Task Performance X Psychological Distance) predicting Leader-Member Exchange

Implications for Research

• Findings

• Physical and psychological distance are significantly and negatively related to supervisor-subordinate relational quality

• Psychological distance moderates the relationship between leader-member exchange and task performance

• Future Explorations

• Impact on other variables (e.g., OCBs, justice, trust)

• Interesting interaction effect of psychological distance

• Relational performance instrumentality

• Relationship between physical and psychological distance

• Replication of findings across diverse institutions/organizations

Implications for Practice

• Physical and psychological distance are important

• Reductions in physical and psychological distance may improve relational quality and increase performance

• Recommendations

• Be strategic and purposeful when considering workspaces, job functions, procedures, interaction frequency…

• Increased social activities and informal meetings (Kim, O’Neill, & Jeong, JHRT, 2004)

• Build better-quality relationships with low-quality LMX subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, LQ, 1995)

Limitations

• Generalizability

• Cross-sectional survey

• Different sources

• Attrition

• Concerns of anonymity

• Disturbed by material

• Sensitive nature

• Dyadic measures

• Sophisticated mode of analysis

References

Antonakis, J. J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 763-704.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press.

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

Bogardus, E. S. (1927). Leadership and social distance. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 173-178.

Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of lmx and power distance in the United States and Columbia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84-104.

Burrows, L., Munday, R., Tunnell, J., & Seay, R. (1996). Leadership substitutes: Their effects on teacher organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23, 3-8.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 1983.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326.

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.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

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. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

References

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 680-694.

Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 273-285.

Kim, S., O’Neill, J. W., & Jeong, S. E. (2004). The relationship among leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, and trust in hotel organizations. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 3, 59–70.

Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 3(4), 321-357.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 380-399.

Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19-47.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.

Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (panas). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227-242.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.

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.

Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 161-176.

taylor.k.odle@Vanderbilt.edu