How can a complicated, ambivalent relationship with a boss be both draining and generative? This paper challenges the view that leader–member exchange (LMX) ambivalence is solely harmful. Using the Challenge–Hindrance Stressor Framework, we examine how conflicting feelings toward a leader can be experienced as both constraining and motivating. We focus on epistemic motivation—the tendency to seek deeper understanding—as a key factor that shapes how followers process such ambiguity. Across three studies, LMX ambivalence was linked to two distinct outcomes: emotional exhaustion and voice. These associations operated through different ruminative pathways: affective rumination, characterized by intrusive negative thoughts, and problem-solving pondering, involving reflective sense-making. Followers higher in epistemic motivation were less inclined toward affective rumination and more inclined toward problem-solving pondering, thereby strengthening the link between ambivalence and constructive voice while softening its association with exhaustion. Our findings highlight the hybrid nature of LMX ambivalence and suggest that it does not uniformly undermine followers but can also be associated with adaptive engagement. By unpacking the interplay of ambivalence, rumination, and epistemic motivation, this research provides a more balanced account of the complexities of leader–follower relationships.

We integrate insights from attachment theory and relational leadership to develop a novel interpersonal explanation of why, how and when followers' attachment anxiety and avoidance impact performance. Drawing on the attachment system dynamics model, we posit that attachment avoidance will be negatively related to LMX quality, whereas attachment anxiety will be positively related to LMX ambivalence. Furthermore, we predict that followers' anxious (and avoidant) attachment styles will interact with leader neuroticism leading to a hyperactivation (deactivation) of the attachment system, manifesting in greater LMX ambivalence (and lower LMX quality). Across three studies, we found consistent evidence for a positive relationship between follower attachment anxiety and LMX ambivalence, as well as an indirect effect between attachment anxiety and job performance. Leader neuroticism was especially likely to induce LMX ambivalence and, in turn, undermine job performance in anxiously attached followers. Attachment avoidance, although unaffected by leader neuroticism, was negatively related to LMX quality across all three studies and demonstrated an indirect effect on job performance in Study 3. Overall, our findings shed light on the unique explanatory power of relational mechanisms, beyond previously examined intrapersonal mechanisms, for understanding the attachment style–performance relationship as well as the role that leader characteristics play in triggering the attachment system in anxious followers.

In this chapter, we provide a discussion of the typical way LMX is conceptualized and measured along a bipolar continuum from low- to high-quality. We contrast this approach with research outside of the workplace which views relationships in a more complex way. Specifically, such research demonstrates that alongside positive and negative relationships, a substantial portion of individuals’ social networks consists of ambivalent relationships that are simultaneously “good” and “bad” and indifferent relationships that are neither good nor bad. Our chapter aims to integrate this extended typology of relationships with LMX. We review research which suggests that indifferent and ambivalent relationship are valuable to consider. Based on this work, we posit the modelling of positivity and negativity as separate dimensions, in order to consider this wider typology of relationships, that includes indifference and ambivalence alongside positive and negative LMX relationships. We provide a roadmap for future research to achieve this by considering the way these can be measured.

We integrate insights from attachment theory and relational leadership to develop a novel interpersonal explanation of why, how and when followers' attachment anxiety and avoidance impact performance. Drawing on the attachment system dynamics model, we posit that attachment avoidance will be negatively related to LMX quality, whereas attachment anxiety will be positively related to LMX ambivalence. Furthermore, we predict that followers' anxious (and avoidant) attachment styles will interact with leader neuroticism leading to a hyperactivation (deactivation) of the attachment system, manifesting in greater LMX ambivalence (and lower LMX quality). Across three studies, we found consistent evidence for a positive relationship between follower attachment anxiety and LMX ambivalence, as well as an indirect effect between attachment anxiety and job performance. Leader neuroticism was especially likely to induce LMX ambivalence and, in turn, undermine job performance in anxiously attached followers. Attachment avoidance, although unaffected by leader neuroticism, was negatively related to LMX quality across all three studies and demonstrated an indirect effect on job performance in Study 3. Overall, our findings shed light on the unique explanatory power of relational mechanisms, beyond previously examined intrapersonal mechanisms, for understanding the attachment style–performance relationship as well as the role that leader characteristics play in triggering the attachment system in anxious followers.

Guided by self-determination and social exchange theories, we examine how leader-member exchange (LMX) quality impacts follower well-being. Despite LMX relationships being dynamic in nature, the way relationship quality varies over time and its impact on well-being has not been examined in detail. To address this important issue, a daily diary study is reported of employees from a variety of organizations. One hundred and fifty-eight participants completed a daily diary in the morning and evening for five consecutive workdays (k = 603 observations). Measures included hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and social and economic LMX exchanges. There was a significant variation of LMX quality over the diary days. Daily LMX quality predicted daily follower well-being (while controlling for morning well-being). Further, for those that interacted with their manager, social LMX exchanges but not economic LMX exchanges predicted daily well-being. Interaction characteristics (frequency, time, content) had a relatively small impact on daily well-being. As predicted, work engagement mediated the relation between daily LMX quality and social LMX exchanges (but not daily economic LMX exchanges) with well-being. The results show how LMX quality affects followers' well-being that varies daily, that is affected by leaders' behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Although research shows a reliable association between leadership training and positive organizational outcomes, a range of research design issues mean we do not know to what degree the former causes the later. Accordingly, the paper has two main aims. First, to describe the conditions necessary to determine causality in leadership training research and the ability of different research designs to achieve this. Six important, but often ignored, issues associated with determining causality are described (control conditions, sample representation, condition randomization, condition independence, temporal design, and author involvement). Second, to review the extent to which the leadership training literature is able to demonstrate causality. The review shows that the majority of studies do not meet many of the criteria, even the most basic criteria, required to establish causality. Finally, we provide guidelines for designing future research to improve causal identification and is capable of generating meaningful theory and policy recommendations.

Arieli, Sagiv, and Roccas's lead article provides a timely and important review of the role of individual values and their role in organisations. At the same time as identifying several key areas of progress, the review identifies significant gaps. In this commentary, we focus on additional gaps that merit attention. In particular, we highlight a need for greater theoretical clarity in the literature about the concrete ways in which values are instantiated in different organisational contexts, roles, and cultural settings. We argue that the growing importance of values in studies of organisational contexts would be well-served by more precision in how they are conceptualised and operationalised in studies of organisational behaviour.

Purpose This paper reviews literature on interim leadership and management through the lens of effective interim performance. The purpose of this review is to advance understanding of interim assignment performance and the antecedent individual psychological characteristics of effective interim leaders and managers, to improve the practice of managing interim leaders from a human resources (HR) perspective. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports a targeted review of the literature on interim leadership and management. Findings The main proposition from this review is that the influence of individual factors on interim performance operates within the stages and contexts of assignments. Accordingly, the authors propose a framework of the demands on interim assignments (the interim assignment cycle), comprising stages of preparation, entry, delivery and exit. The paper subsequently reviews evidence of the potential individual characteristics (focussing on individual differences in personality, leadership approach, motivation and competencies) of effective preparation and entry to an assignment, actions and performance during an assignment and exit/disengagement. Practical implications The findings of the review have implications for the selection and placement of interims into organizations and their management once appointed. Originality/value The main original contribution of the paper is to provide a framework around which interim assignments can be modelled and better understood. The paper discusses implications for future research, theory and human resource management practice and calls for a renewed research effort in this critical area of management and leadership.

A growing body of literature has focused on transgressions in the workplace and more recently, with respect to leader-follower relationships. Despite the important implications of leader and follower transgressions and relationship repair for work outcomes, there has not been a systematic review that examines the broad spectrum of leader and follower transgressions and most importantly adopts a dynamic relational process perspective. We view transgressions as key events in leader-follower relationships that trigger re-evaluation of the relationship, relationship repair processes and influence work outcomes. The purpose of this review is threefold. First, to provide a state-of-the-science review of the growing literature. Second, to offer a critical analysis of leader and follower transgressions in terms of conceptualization, methodological issues and theoretical underpinnings. Third, to outline a research agenda addressing leader-follower transgressions, relationship repair processes and outcomes based on relationship science.

Guided by the relationship science literature, we developed and tested a model of forgiveness in leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships across three independent studies. Study 1 utilized a sample of 254 employees from eight organizations located in four countries and showed that higher quality LMX led to higher job satisfaction and subjective well‐being via greater follower's forgiveness and subsequent follower's relational efforts. Building on Study 1, Study 2 (N = 95) adopted an experimental scenario design in order to examine the association between LMX and forgiveness as well as the moderating role of forgiveness climate. LMX was found to positively affect forgiveness, and forgiveness climate was found to be a significant moderator. Study 3 was a time‐lagged study that utilized a sample of 262 working professionals in the United States and provided support for our hypothesized model. Overall, our three studies cast light on forgiveness processes in LMX relationships and show that forgiveness can be used as a relationship maintenance strategy that yields positive outcomes.Practitioner points Managers and HR representatives should promote forgiveness via trainings and interventions in order to gain the positive outcomes of job satisfaction and subjective well‐being following interpersonal transgressions in organizations. Forgiveness climate can act as a contextual moderator that facilitates forgiveness in leader–follower relationships. Therefore, organizations should create environments that encourage forgiveness and relationship repair across all levels of their hierarchy.

Relationships are an essential feature of the workplace. This symposium focuses on recent research on one type of relationship: the one established between the leader and follower. The five papers in this symposium present new theoretical concepts and empirical evidence challenging and extending current Leader-Member Exchange (hereafter LMX) theory: (a) How do emotions shape the structure, content, and process of LMX relationships across different levels of analysis? (b) Does LMX Differentiation impair team-members’ psychological well-being? (c) Do LMX social comparison across-dyads (LMXAD), defining it as one’s perceived relative LMX standing compared to leader-member dyads composed of different leaders and other colleagues, impact employee performance and behaviors? (d) Are perceptions of LMX relative position a better predictor of work-related outcomes compared to actual LMX relative position? And (e) Is LMX agreement between a leader and a follower a driving force in influencing feelings of overall fair treatment? A State-Of-Art Review of Affect and Leader-Member Exchange in the New Millennium. Presenter: Herman Tse; Monash U. Presenter: Ashlea Troth; Griffith U. Does Leader-Member Exchange Differentiation Impair Individual Psychological Well-Being in Teams? Presenter: Jooyeon Son; U. of Melbourne Presenter: Daejeong Choi; U. of Melbourne Presenter: Eun Kyung Lee; La Trobe U. Examining the Effects of LMX Social Comparisons across Dyads on Employee Performance and Behaviors Presenter: Jungmin Seo; California State U., Fullerton Presenter: Jennifer Nahrgang; Arizona State U. LMX Relative Position and Work-related outcomes: The Role of LMX Comparison Processes Presenter: Robin Martin; U. of Manchester Presenter: Geoff Thomas; U. of Surrey Presenter: Silvia Dello Russo; TBS Business School Presenter: Alison Legood; Aston Business School Seeing “Eye to Eye” About Our Relationship Makes me Good at Being Fair Presenter: Fadel Khalil Matta; U. of Georgia Presenter: Emma Laier Frank; U. of Georgia Presenter: Cindy Zapata; U. of Notre Dame

In this paper, we introduce a novel construct, leader–member exchange (LMX) importance, which we position as a meta‐perception indicating whether followers view their LMX relationship as personally important or valuable to them. Based on social exchange theory, we examine the extent to which the obligation followers feel towards their leader depends jointly on the quality and the importance of the LMX relationship. We examine how LMX importance influences the process through which LMX quality affects employees’ level of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) by focusing on felt obligation (a measure of followers’ reciprocity obligation in the social exchange process) as a mediating variable. Across two studies, we found that high levels of both LMX quality and LMX importance interacted to engender a greater feeling of obligation in followers to repay the perceived favourable exchanges with their leader. Felt obligation predicted leader‐rated OCB, demonstrating support for our hypothesized moderated mediation model. However, psychological empowerment, when included alongside felt obligation (in Study 2), did not mediate the LMX‐OCB relationship. Overall, our findings extend the focus of LMX theory beyond the confines of LMX quality to incorporate the importance of the LMX relationship.Practitioner points Leaders should be aware that followers vary in the extent to which they perceive the leader–follower relationship to be personally important. As such, they may decide to invest heavily in helping followers understand that the relationship is instrumental for their success at work. Leaders should invest not only in trying to build positive relationships, but also in establishing the importance of these relationships. Doing so will maximize the benefits of developing a high‐quality relationship. Followers appear to be more willing to reciprocate when they perceive a high‐quality relationship with the leader and one when they perceive the relationship to be important. Thus, managers should be aware that the norm of reciprocity may vary depending on how important followers perceive the relationship to be and leaders may need to find other ways to motivate employees who do not see the relationship as important. When followers do not see the leader–follower relationship as important, managers should avoid trying to engage in reciprocity contingent influence tactics and/or try to change followers’ perceptions of the importance of the relationship.

Guided by the relationship science literature, we developed and tested a model of forgiveness in leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships across three independent studies. Study 1 utilized a sample of 254 employees from eight organizations located in four countries and showed that higher quality LMX led to higher job satisfaction and subjective well-being via greater follower's forgiveness and subsequent follower's relational efforts. Building on Study 1, Study 2 ( N  = 95) adopted an experimental scenario design in order to examine the association between LMX and forgiveness as well as the moderating role of forgiveness climate. LMX was found to positively affect forgiveness, and forgiveness climate was found to be a significant moderator. Study 3 was a time-lagged study that utilized a sample of 262 working professionals in the United States and provided support for our hypothesized model. Overall, our three studies cast light on forgiveness processes in LMX relationships and show that forgiveness can be used as a relationship maintenance strategy that yields positive outcomes.

In this paper, we introduce a novel construct, leader–member exchange (LMX) importance, which we position as a meta-perception indicating whether followers view their LMX relationship as personally important or valuable to them. Based on social exchange theory, we examine the extent to which the obligation followers feel towards their leader depends jointly on the quality and the importance of the LMX relationship. We examine how LMX importance influences the process through which LMX quality affects employees’ level of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) by focusing on felt obligation (a measure of followers’ reciprocity obligation in the social exchange process) as a mediating variable. Across two studies, we found that high levels of both LMX quality and LMX importance interacted to engender a greater feeling of obligation in followers to repay the perceived favourable exchanges with their leader. Felt obligation predicted leader-rated OCB, demonstrating support for our hypothesized moderated mediation model. However, psychological empowerment, when included alongside felt obligation (in Study 2), did not mediate the LMX-OCB relationship. Overall, our findings extend the focus of LMX theory beyond the confines of LMX quality to incorporate the importance of the LMX relationship.

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory proposes that leaders develop different quality relationships with those they manage and this is predictive of work performance. While LMX quality has been viewed as univalent (ranging from low to high quality), this paper proposes that it can also be bivalent in nature (i.e., coexisting positive and negative thoughts towards the relationship), which we refer to as LMX ambivalence. A survey measure of LMX ambivalence is developed, and through three validation and two main studies, it is shown to have construct, discriminant, and incremental predictive validity beyond that of LMX quality. Hypotheses concerning LMX ambivalence and task performance are tested in two main studies and show that (1) LMX ambivalence is negatively related to performance regardless of LMX quality, (2) high levels of perceived support from the organization (Study 1) or coworkers (Study 2) nullify the negative association between LMX ambivalence and performance, and (3) high LMX ambivalence leads to more negative affect and in turn lower task performance, but only when coworker support is low (Study 2). These results show the importance of viewing LMX quality not only in terms of its absolute level (low vs. high quality) but also as a bivalent construct where both positive and negative cognitions can coexist. They also demonstrate the value of social support in buffering the negative effects of LMX ambivalence. Furthermore, our findings extend a central tenet of LMX theory by implying that LMX quality varies not only within groups (i.e., LMX differentiation) but also within leader-follower dyads.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational PsychologyVolume 92, Issue 3 p. 465-474 Editorial Relationship-based leadership: Current trends and future prospects Robin Martin, Corresponding Author Robin Martin robin.martin@manchester.ac.uk University of Manchester, UKCorrespondence should be addressed to Robin Martin, Alliance Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK (email: robin.martin@manchester.ac.uk).Search for more papers by this authorOlga Epitropaki, Olga Epitropaki Durham University, UKSearch for more papers by this authorBerrin Erdogan, Berrin Erdogan Portland State University, Oregon, USASearch for more papers by this authorGeoff Thomas, Geoff Thomas University of Surrey, Guildford, UKSearch for more papers by this author Robin Martin, Corresponding Author Robin Martin robin.martin@manchester.ac.uk University of Manchester, UKCorrespondence should be addressed to Robin Martin, Alliance Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK (email: robin.martin@manchester.ac.uk).Search for more papers by this authorOlga Epitropaki, Olga Epitropaki Durham University, UKSearch for more papers by this authorBerrin Erdogan, Berrin Erdogan Portland State University, Oregon, USASearch for more papers by this authorGeoff Thomas, Geoff Thomas University of Surrey, Guildford, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 August 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12286Citations: 7Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume92, Issue3Special Section: Relationship-based leadership: Current trends and future prospectsSeptember 2019Pages 465-474 RelatedInformation

Two experiments examined the effect a leader has when supported by a numerical majority or minority. In both experiments, participants read a team problem-solving scenario where a solution was supported by either a numerical majority or minority of the team. In some conditions, the team leader also supported the same solution as the majority or minority in other conditions the leader did not. When the leader was supported by the majority, its solution was rated as more favorable by participants than when supported by either the leader or majority on its own. When the leader was supported by the minority, its solution was rated as either less favorable or equally favorable than when supported by the leader or minority on its own. However, when the leader was supported by the minority participants rated an alternative (better) solution that was not discussed by the leader, as more favorable. These findings indicate that leadership endorsement results in greater compliance to a majority-endorsed position but to more elaboration, and better decision-making, to a minority-endorsed position. The policy implications of this research for the role of leaders in team decision-making are discussed.