Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-06T13:00:15.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leader’s feelings of violation and high LMX relationships: A multilevel approach to examine a contextual boundary condition in LMX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2024

Marcus A. Valenzuela Open the ORCID record for Marcus A. Valenzuela [Opens in a new window] ,
John Ross ,
Wayne Crawford ,
Mortaza Zare ,
Rylee M. Linhardt ,
Jamal T. Maalouf  and
Amine Abi Aad
Marcus A. Valenzuela*
Affiliation:
Rinker School of Business, Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, FL, USA
John Ross
Affiliation:
Sykes College of Business, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
Wayne Crawford
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlignton, TX, USA
Mortaza Zare
Affiliation:
College of Business, The University of Texas Permian Basin, Odessa, TX, USA
Rylee M. Linhardt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
Jamal T. Maalouf
Affiliation:
School of Business, American University of Sharjah-AUS, Sharjah, UAE
Amine Abi Aad
Affiliation:
Suliman S. Olayan School of Business, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
*
Corresponding author: Marcus A. Valenzuela; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leader–member exchange (LMX), a well-researched leadership theory that focuses on the dyadic relationships between leaders and subordinates, is associated with positive subordinates’ outcomes. However, the contexts outside the LMX dyadic relationship might influence those favorable outcomes. In this study, we investigate the cross-level moderating effect of leader’s feelings of violation, as a contextual boundary, on LMX outcomes. Based on social exchange theory, crossover model, and the psychological contract literature, we discuss how the relationship between a subordinate’s perceived LMX and favorable subordinate attitudes and behaviors, such as performance, task-focused citizenship behaviors, and organizational commitment, is reduced when the leader experiences feelings of violation toward the organization. Using a three-wave time-lagged multilevel design with a sample of 226 subordinates and 39 leaders, we find that leader’s feelings of violation mitigate the positive association of perceived LMX on citizenship behavior and commitment but have no effect on performance. Research and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

leader–member exchangeleader’s feelings of violationcitizenship behaviorcommitmentperformance
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 2025 , pp. 173 - 194
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1490–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications in Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2015). The oxford handbook of leader-member exchange. Oxford University Press Oxford, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F. P., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In Carroll, J. S. (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings ( 45–75). Psychology Press Hillsdade, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Brouer, R. L., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The moderating effects of political skill on the perceived politics–outcome relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 869–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P., & Uhl‐Bien, M. (2017). Leading to stimulate employees’ ideas: A quantitative review of leader–member exchange, employee voice, creativity, and innovative behavior. Applied Psychology, 66(4), 517–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernyak-Hai, L., & Rabenu, E. (2018). The new era workplace relationships: Is social exchange theory still relevant? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 456–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, J. U., Choi, B. K., & Moon, H. K. (2014). Subordinates’ feedback-seeking behavior in supervisory relationships: A moderated mediation model of supervisor, subordinate, and dyadic characteristics. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(4), 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Clercq, D., Sun, W., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2021). When is job control most useful for idea championing? Role conflict and psychological contract violation effects. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(2), 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Geus, C. J., Ingrams, A., Tummers, L., & Pandey, S. K. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior in the public sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M. K., Karagonlar, G., Gonzalez‐Morales, M. G., Wickham, R. E., & Buffardi, L. C. (2014). The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5), 635–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffin, R. D., & Gellatly, I. R. (2001). A multi‐rater assessment of organizational commitment: Are self‐report measures biased? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, TransformationalGoogle Scholar
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, R. W., Wlesh, A., & Moorhead, G. (1981). Perceived task characteristics and employee performance: A literature review. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harari, M. B., Reaves, A. C., & Viswesvaran, C. (2016). Creative and innovative performance: A meta-analysis of relationships with task, citizenship, and counterproductive job performance dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harter, J. (2023, September 19 ). Percent who feel employer cares about their wellbeing plummets. Gallup.com. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/390776/percent-feel-employer-cares-wellbeing-plummets.aspxGoogle Scholar
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, J., Zheng, X., Tepper, B. J., Li, N., Liu, X., & Yu, J. (2022). The dark side of leader–member exchange: Observers’ reactions when leaders target their teammates for abuse. Human Resource Management, 61(2), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Javadizadeh, B., Ross, J., Valenzuela, M. A., Adler, T. R., & Wu, B. (2022). What’s the point in even trying? Women’s perception of glass ceiling drains hope. The Journal of Social Psychology, 164(4), 488–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, P. O., & Fay, L. C. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika, 15(4), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.Google Scholar
Joo, B. K. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The roles of perceived organizational learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press New York City, USA.Google Scholar
Kwak, W. J., & Jackson, C. L. (2015). Relationship building in empowering leadership processes: A test of mediation and moderation. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(4), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A., Gerbasi, A., Schwarz, G., & Newman, A. (2019a). Leader–member exchange social comparisons and follower outcomes: The roles of felt obligation and psychological entitlement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(3), 593–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: A meta‐analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A., Thomas, G., Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., & Marstand, A. F. (2019b). Beyond relationshipquality: The role of leader–member exchange importance in leader–follower dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(4), 736–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices: A source of career premiums or penalties? Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1407–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In Ferris, G. R. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (47–119). Elsevier Science/JAI Press Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Lin, C. S., Xiao, R., Huang, P. C., Huang, L. C., & Jin, M. (2022). The more the better? How and when can high-performance work systems fuel the proactive fire. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–18. doi:10.1017/jmo.2022.78Google Scholar
Loi, R., Chan, K. W., & Lam, L. W. (2014). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: A social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loi, R., Ngo, H. Y., Zhang, L., & Lau, V. P. (2011). The interaction between leader–member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorinkova, N. M., & Perry, S. J. (2017). When is empowerment effective? The role of leader-leader exchange in empowering leadership, cynicism, and time theft. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1631–1654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, B. D., Moorman, R. H., & Mercado, B. K. (2019). Normalizing mistreatment? Investigating dark triad, LMX, and abuse. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(3), 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mao, J., Chiu, C. Y., Owens, B. P., Brown, J. A., & Liao, J. (2019). Growing followers: Exploring the effects of leader humility on follower self‐expansion, self‐efficacy, and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56(2), 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Erdogan, B., & Thomas, G. (2019). Relationship based leadership: Current trends and future prospects. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(3), 465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R., Thomas, G., Charles, K., Epitropaki, O., & McNamara, R. (2005). The role of leader‐ member exchanges in mediating the relationship between locus of control and work reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(1), 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G. (2012). Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), .Google ScholarPubMed
McKay, P. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: More data, more moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 538–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 14(4), 389–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., & Litano, M. L. (2017). A multilevel examination of the relationship between leader–member exchange and work–family outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed. ed.). Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Pan, W., Sun, L. Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2012). Leader-member exchange and employee creativity: Test of a multilevel moderated mediation model. Human Performance, 25(5), 432–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, E. L., Davis-Blake, A., & Kulik, C. T. (1994). Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 786–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). The mismeasure of man (agement) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 615–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525–546.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(S1), 679–695.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human Performance, 19(4), 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2016). The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shacklock, K., Brunetto, Y., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2012). The impact of supervisor-nurse relationships, patient role clarity, and autonomy upon job satisfaction: Public and private sector nurses. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(5), 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shore, L., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1593–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, T. H., Bommer, W. H., & Shore, L. M. (2008). An integrative model of managerial perceptions of employee commitment: Antecedents and influences on employee treatment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 635–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SHRM. (2020, August 12 ). Survey: 84 percent of U.S. workers blame bad managers for creating unnecessary stress. Author. https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/press-room/press-releases/pages/survey-84-percent-of-us-workers-blame-bad-managers-for-creating-unnecessary-stress-.aspxGoogle Scholar
Sin, H. P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: An examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1048–1057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (2004). Broadening our understanding of organizational retaliatory behavior. In Griffin, R. W., and O’LearyKelly, A. M. (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. ). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2005). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A justice perspective. In Staw, B. M. & Kramer, R. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews ( 183–229). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.Google Scholar
Skarlicki, D. P., & Rupp, D. E. (2010). Dual processing and organizational justice: The role of rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 944–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Soares, A. E., Lopes, M. P., Geremias, R. L., & Glińska-Neweś, A. (2020). A leader–network exchange theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(6), 995–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: It’s also the nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(6), 621–634.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturman, M. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of Management, 29(5), 609–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss’s boss: Effects of supervisors’ upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tein, J. Y., Sandler, I. N., MacKinnon, D. P., & Wolchik, S. A. (2004). How did it work? Who did it work for? Mediation in the context of a moderated prevention effect for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(4), 617–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wee, E. X., Liao, H., Liu, D., & Liu, J. (2017). Moving from abuse to reconciliation: A power-dependence perspective on when and how a follower can break the spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2352–2380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54(6), 717–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, A., Xu, W., & Pichler, S. (2022). A social hierarchy perspective on the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) and interpersonal citizenship. Journal of Management & Organization, 28, 1–18.Google Scholar
Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 745–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader–member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L., Wang, M., Chen, G., & Shi, J. (2012). Supervisors’ upward exchange relationships and subordinate outcomes: Testing the multilevel mediation role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 668–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed