MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787760829 · doi:10.1108/pr-05-2017-0152

Revisiting the “give and take” in LMX

2018· article· en· W2787760829 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Han, Greg J. Sears, Haiyan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonnel Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyModerationOrganizational citizenship behaviorSocial exchange theoryMultilevel modelModerated mediationEquity theoryOrganizational commitment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Drawing on principles of social exchange and equity theory, the purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between employee reports of leader-member exchange (LMX) and two types of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): affiliative and change-oriented OCB. Further, equity sensitivity, a dispositional variable reflecting one’s tendency to “give” or “take” in their interpersonal interactions, was tested as a moderator of these effects. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from a sample of 240 manufacturing employees in China and their respective supervisors. Multilevel analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized effects. Findings LMX was found to be positively associated with affiliative, but not change-oriented OCB. Equity sensitivity moderated these relationships, such that LMX was positively associated with both types of OCB when employees are benevolent, but not when they are entitled. Research limitations/implications Given the different pattern of relationships that were observed between LMX and affiliative vs change-oriented OCB, the results suggest that LMX may differentially influence these two types of OCB. Future studies should continue to explore the role of dispositional traits in moderating the effects of LMX, including less desirable (“negative”) traits. Originality/value Very few studies have examined the role of dispositional variables in moderating the effects of LMX. Consistent with principles of the social exchange and equity theory, the results suggest that LMX will only be associated with OCB when employees are benevolent (i.e. they are “givers”), and not when they are entitled (i.e. they are “getters”).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonnel ReviewSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207