International Journal on Leadership

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Organisational Commitment and Ingratiatory Behaviour as Predictors of Leader-Member Exchange Among Software Professionals


Affiliations
1 Madras School of Social Work, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


This study reports about the influence of organisational commitment and ingratiatory behaviour on leader-member exchange. Data were collected randomly from 150 software professionals in Chennai city. Among others, the key findings indicate that select dimensions of organisational commitment (namely, normative commitment and continuance commitment) and one dimension of ingratiatory behaviour (namely, other enhancement) served to significantly predict leader-member exchange.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Ansari, M. A., Bhal, K. T., & Aafaqi, R. (2008). Goals of Infl uence Attempt and Ingratiatory Behavior in Organizations: The Moderating Effect of Leader- Member Exchange. Retrieved from http://people.uleth. ca/~mahfooz.ansari/ASAC%202008%20Ingratiationleader- member exchange-Halifax.pdf .

  • Bhal, K. T., & Atri, S. S. (1999). Ingratation and competence as determinants of leader-member exchanges. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 34 (4), 434-461.

  • Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: new look at individuallevel negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 202-212.

  • Colella, A., & Varma, A. (2001). The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 305-315.

  • Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group Organization Management, 23, 189–216.

  • Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and integration in leader-member exchanges. Group Organization Management, 19(1), 67-86.

  • Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership. A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.

  • Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader-member exchange and the subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, 59-76.

  • Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1-17.

  • Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1201-1246. New York: Rand McNally.

  • Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (leader-member exchange) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

  • Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.

  • Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In James G. Hunt and Lars L. Larson (Eds.). Leadership frontiers, 143–165. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

  • Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

  • Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2005). Easing the strain: The buffer role of supervisors in the perceptions of politics– strain relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 337–354.

  • Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leadermember exchange and citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269-277.

  • Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational infl uence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

  • Kumar, K., and Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument measuring ingratiatory behaviours in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619-627.

  • Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 655 – 672.

  • Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leadermember exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.

  • Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

  • Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

  • Northouse, P. G. (1991). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Rai, H. (2009). Gender differences: Ingratiation and leader member exchange quality. Singapore Management Review, 31(1), 63-72.

  • Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide automatically: An investigation of leader–member exchange and decision infl uence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 579-584.

  • Soldner, J. L., & Crimando, W. (2010). Relationships among leader-member exchange, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, Dyadic gender and Dyadic duration in a rehabilitation center. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 34(1), 25-34.

  • Stringer, L. (2006). The link between the quality of the supervisor- employee relationship and the level of the employee’s job satisfaction. Public Organizational Review, 6, 125-142.

  • Tagar, S., & Sharih, S. (2008). An leader-member exchangebased model of affective organizational commitment. Retrieved from http://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/ASAC/ article/viewFile/781/678

  • Torka, N., Schyns, B., & Looise, J. K. (2010). Direct participation quality and organisational commitment: the role of leader-member exchange. Employee Relations, 32(4), 418-434

  • Varma, A., Toh, S. M., & Pichler, S. (2006). Ingratiation in job applications: Impact on selection decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3), 200–210.

  • Vecchio, R. P. (1998). Leader-Member Exchange, Objective Performance, Employment Duration, and Supervision Ratings: Testing For Moderation and Mediation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(3), 327-341.

  • Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader- member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431–1440.


Abstract Views: 459

PDF Views: 0




  • Organisational Commitment and Ingratiatory Behaviour as Predictors of Leader-Member Exchange Among Software Professionals

Abstract Views: 459  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

J. S. Gunavathy
Madras School of Social Work, India
D. Jacquline Marie Longina
Madras School of Social Work, India

Abstract


This study reports about the influence of organisational commitment and ingratiatory behaviour on leader-member exchange. Data were collected randomly from 150 software professionals in Chennai city. Among others, the key findings indicate that select dimensions of organisational commitment (namely, normative commitment and continuance commitment) and one dimension of ingratiatory behaviour (namely, other enhancement) served to significantly predict leader-member exchange.

References