1. Leader Benefits: Exploring how Leaders Benefit from LMX Jeffrey Muldoon Dissertation Proposal Defense Louisiana State University

2. Overview Leader Member Exchange --Social Exchange Statement of the Problem Hypotheses & Model Proposed Methods Contributions

3. Terms LMX - social exchange relationship between a subordinate and his or her supervisor (Liden et al., 1997; Erdogan & Liden, 2002) Social exchange - the “general expectation of some future return, [although] its exact nature is definitely not stipulated in advance” (Blau, 1964, p. 93)

4. Statement of the Problem Scholars assume, but have not yet empirically demonstrated, supervisors gain personal benefits from LMX relationships (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; van Brekuelen et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2010). Understanding how those benefits are acquired, such as behaviors and how moderators influence those behaviors

5. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Supervisor-rated LMX is positively related to subordinate-rated social support. Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and subordinate-rated social support is moderated by the managerial span of control. The relationship will be strongest when span of control is smaller.

6. Hypotheses Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and subordinate-rated social support is moderated by the supervisor-rated LLX. Such that the relationship will be stronger when LLX is higher (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Wilson et al., 2010).

7. Hypotheses Hypothesis 4: Subordinate-rated social support partially mediates the relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and the supervisor-rated performance of organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the supervisor (OCBIs) (Emerson, 1981; Foa & Foa, 1976, 1980).

8. Hypotheses Hypothesis 5: Subordinate-rated social support will mediate the relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and supervisor-rated OCBs. The first step of this relationship will be moderated by (a) supervisor-rated span of control and (b) supervisor-rated LLX.

9. Hypotheses Hypothesis 6: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor- rated level of satisfaction with their subordinate. Hypothesis 7: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor- rated level of managerial self-efficacy (MSE).

10. Hypotheses Hypothesis 8: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor-rated level of organizational- based self-esteem (OBSE) (Lawler, 2001; Homans, 1950; Weiner, 1985, 1986).

11. How Supervisors Accrue Benefits in LMX Supervisor Social Support (EE) Subordinate Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (SR) Moderators: Span of Control (SR) LLX (SR) LMX (From the supervisor’s perspective) (SR) Key:SR = Supervisor RatedEE = Employee Rated Supervisor Benefits Job Satisfaction with Subordinate (SR) Managerial Self- Efficacy (SR) Organizational- Based Self- Esteem (SR) Model

12. Proposed Methods Sample The sample will consist of full-time working adults from multiple organizations and their immediate supervisors. Procedure: Sample Supervisor at Time 1, collect LMX, LLX, span of control and gain contact information Sample Subordinate at Time 2 for social support Sample Supervisor at Time 2 for Subordinate OCBs, MSE, OBSE, and satisfaction

13. Measures Leader Member Exchange and LLX (Bernerth et al., 2007- adopted)—supervisor rated Span of Control (Hill & Hoskisson, 1987)—supervisor rated Social Support (Abbey et al., 1985)—employee rated OCBs (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002)—supervisor rated OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989)—supervisor rated MSE (Robertson & Sadri, 1993)—supervisor rated Subordinate Satisfaction (Spector, 1985)—supervisor rated

14. Data Analysis Tests of Model Fit and Construct Distinctiveness Confirmatory factor analyses Standardized factor loadings above.50 Reliability coefficients above.70 (Cronbach, 1951; Raykov, 1997) AVEs above.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) Tests of Hypotheses Path Analysis Mediation analyses with bootstrapping Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007)

15. Thank you! Questions? Comments? Concerns?

16. Why Social Support? Blau, 1964—social support as a means of creating a cohesive, stable relationship Foa & Foa, 1976, 1980—on the importance of resource types Graen & Scandura, 1987—discretionary resources Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004—cost

17. Why LLX & Span of Control? Barnard, 1938—cooperation through dyads Blau, 1964—social structures Emerson, 1972a,b—exchange networks and nodes

18. Why OCBs? Similar resources Emerson & path dependence Successful exchange value

19. Why Satisfaction, OBSE, & MSE? Homans, 1961—propositions in that people look for whether their actions will lead to positive outcomes Lawler, 2001 & Homans, 1950—these positive outcomes could be affective or cognitive Predictors of other variables