INTRODUCTION:

LMX theory, a contemporary thought in Leadership literature believes that leaders don’t follow general approach of managing their subordinates by giving them equal treatment. Rather, LMX is of the opinion that leaders develop different relationships with different followers based on their perception of competence, skill, personality, ethnicity possessed by subordinates. Leaders develop high quality relations with in-group members and low quality with out-group members. High quality relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect, and confidence and are social in nature while as low quality relationships are bound to adhere job contract norms, procedures, assignments, and are economical in nature.

Leaders establish in-group relationships with limited number of subordinates due to scarcity of time, resources; personality, education, gender, ethnicity etc. Out-group members represent the majority of work force who lack access, interaction, resources, responsibility, and autonomy. LMX influence various job attitudes like employee satisfaction, engagement, involvement, commitment and work outcomes like employee performance, productivity, profitability, customer satisfaction, retention, etc. LMX has received moderate attention of scholars in recent past across different sectors like hospitality, health, education. However, least research has been carried out in service sectors like insurance, banking and postal. The current study would be an Endeavour to explore LMX, POS, OCB and Service Performance relationship across these sectors of service economy from the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Impact of LMX on Job attitudes and Service Performance Model:

Note: LMX-Leader Member Exchange, POS-Perceived Organizational Support, OCB-Organizational Citizenship Behavior, SP-Service Performance.

RATIONALE:

Leader Member Exchange has been a well-established construct in fields like psychology, organizational behavior, human resources. However, LMX in marketing field of management is rare kind of combination. The current study would explore LMX, relationship of LMX with job attitudes like POS and OCB, relationship of LMX with service performance of employees, relationship of POS and OCB with service performance, across service sectors like insurance, banking and postal. The findings from the current study would be of immense help for marketing managers, academicians, scholars, practioners etc while understanding subjective or qualitative elements like relationship quality and their impact on objective or quantitative forms like employee performance, productivity, profitability. Employee attitudes had been the centre of focus for stakeholders of an organization like leadership, management, executives while formulating and executing strategies. However, qualitative aspect like relationships had never been given significance; instead economic aspect dominates like formulating reward systems, incentives, pay hike etc. The current study would bring in new insights and perceptions regarding antecedents and consequences of employee work attitudes and outcomes. The findings would help in overhauling the existing frameworks used for formulating strategies especially in marketing management field. Also, sectors like insurance, banking and postal services were least represented in past LMX studies. Therefore, current study would be an Endeavour to conduct LMX in these sectors.

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE:

Leader member exchange refers to the relationship between immediate supervisor and subordinate in an organization^1.LMX relationship could be of high quality and low quality. High quality relationships are characterized by more responsibility, trust, respect, confidence between leader and member^2.Low quality relationships are economical and formal in nature. High quality relationships are formed with in-group members while as out-group members are involved in low quality relationships. In-group members are less in number and are perceived as competent, able, skilled, and responsible by the supervisors while as out-group members represent majority who were deprived in-group status due to scarcity of time, resources, personality clash, etc.LMX is a multidimensional construct having dimensions like affect, contribution, loyalty and professional respect. Affect represents mutual liking of leader and member based on similar interests. Loyalty represents the support for each other by leader and member while defending each other’s point of view in public. Contribution deals with individuals who are seen more capable and are given difficult tasks to complete. Professional respect represents the repute that an employee or supervisor has about performing his job with excellence. LMX is enhanced by enhancing performance on perceived organizational support, psychological empowerment of employees, fair organizational practices and procedures ³for rewards, promotion, growth etc.LMX influence employee satisfaction ⁴, engagement, commitment ⁵and other job attitudes. LMX has been in positive relationship with various favorable work outcomes like employee performance, productivity, profitability, customer satisfaction, service quality ⁶etc

Perceived Organizational Support:

Perceived Organizational Support refers to the perception of employees about their organization’s efforts to understand and value contribution, hard work of their employees by recognition, care, and concern, for their employees ⁷. Organizational support theory believes that in response to high level of support received from an organization, employees tend to reciprocate by putting in more efforts, hard work and commitment ⁸.POS is enhanced by following organizational practices like fairness (procedural justice) in rewarding and promoting employees. Organizational rewards and job conditions leads to the development of POS. Participation in decision making, information sharing, recognition of employees, self-management teams, extensive training etc enhances POS. POS influence employee satisfaction, commitment, performance, organizational citizenship behavior, loyalty⁹.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

OCB refers to role behaviors that are not mentioned in job contract, but are being performed by an employee voluntarily ¹⁰. OCB is a multi-dimensional construct that include altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, civic virtue and courtesy. Altruism involves helping co-workers with job related or personal problem. Conscientiousness involve adherence to rules, norms and procedures of an organization like punctuality, commitment to deadlines, meeting goals or objectives etc. Sportsmanship involves tolerance to inconveniences at job without complaining. Civic virtue involves active involvement in the affairs of an organization safeguarding organizational interests, governance, promoting growth. Courtesy involve behaviors that prevent suffering of co-workers and could be formal as well as informal in nature.

OCB is influenced by employee satisfaction, commitment, perception of organizational justice. Personality trait like conscientiousness showed positive relationship with all five dimensions of OCB. OCB enhances productivity of employees. OCB increases employee performance by 19% in quantity and 18% in quality; financial performance by 25% and customer service by 38% ¹¹. OCB positively influence organizational effectiveness in terms of better coordination among work teams, better utilization of resources, more productivity of employees, better adaptability of employees to organizational changes etc. OCB has been linked with empathy (concern for others) and helpfulness (reducing distress of other people) ¹². Employees who are satisfied, committed and have high levels of organizational justice perception perform more altruistic and compliance behaviors. OCB shows significant relationships with locus of control, collectivism, personal initiative etc.

Service Performance:

Employee performance can be categorized as task performance, contextual performance .Task performance refers to performance on tasks mentioned in formal job contracts. Contextual performance represents performance on tasks outside job contracts that influence co-workers, organization goals, employee growth etc¹³. Employee performance has been influenced by employee friendly practices like support from co-workers, supervisors, management, and organization. Employees performing tasks like helping co-workers, adapting to flexible working schedule, taking more responsibility, turning of lights after use etc, represent contextual tasks that have an impact on individual employees as well as on organizations.

LMX and Perceived Organizational Support:

Employees perceive their organizations as supportive when given support from management, co-workers, resources, open communication, feedback, decision making participation etc^14. Organizations not only create action oriented supportive policies and procedures but also create channels to communicate the same like through meetings, emails, circulars etc. LMX believe in delegation of autonomy, information sharing, feedback, rewards, resources, etc. Since, having commonality of features between perceptions of organizational support and LMX, we, therefore propose that LMX would be helpful in creating and enhancing of perception of organizational support among subordinates.

H1: LMX have a positive impact on perceived organizational support.

LMX and Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Employees feel motivated and perform extra-role tasks like helping co-workers, showing courtesy, when receive positive feedback, recognition, rewards, etc. LMX inculcate attributes like mutual recognition of effort, deliberations on goal achievement, reinforcement of positive behavior through rewards, in high quality relationships. Taking, note of the relationship of attributes like extra-role tasks or OCB’S and feedback, recognition, rewards. We, therefore propose that LMX that consist such attributes in addition to others, would influence organizational citizenship behavior of employees or subordinates.

H2: LMX have a positive impact on organizational citizenship behavior of employees.

LMX and Service Performance:

Employees perform their tasks with more concentration, motivation, when given responsibility, confidence; support¹⁵. A sense of recognition, repute, enhances morale and self esteem of employees that have an effect on employee performance, productivity. Since, LMX culminate in a relationship based on features like recognition, encouragement, and confidence. Therefore, we propose that LMX have a positive impact on employee service performance.

H3: LMX have a positive impact on employee service performance.

Perceived Organizational Support and Service Performance

Principle of reciprocity believe that whenever an individual receive favor from any quarter, such an individual feel sense of obligation to reciprocate the favor back in some or the other way¹⁶. Organizational support theory is of the opinion that organizations should provide all kinds of support whether moral, intellectual, physical etc to their employees to achieve the desired results. Taking, principle of reciprocity and organizational support theory, into consideration. We, therefore, propose that perception of organizational support among employees would enhance their service performance.

H4: POS have a positive impact on employee service performance

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Service Performance

Employees when given autonomy, flexible work culture, put more effort while performing routine tasks. Such employees crave for more creative opportunities; deliver innovative breakthroughs that lead to more performance and productivity). Since, OCB’S involve performing extra role tasks in addition to in-role. Therefore, we, propose that OCB’S would lead to enhancement of employee service performance.

H5: OCB have a positive impact on employee service performance.

METHODOLOGY:

The methodology includes exploring the relationships between LMX and job attitudes, LMX and service performance and job attitudes and service performance. The procedures adopted are discussed as:

Data Collection Method and Sample Size:

Survey method was used as data collection method where in techniques like structured questionnaires and interviews were used for data collection purposes. A sample size of 100 respondents includes employees from different hierarchies like middle management, frontline and lower level staff, customers.

Research Instruments and Their Purification

LMX was measured using ², 7-item scale to ascertain the quality of LMX between subordinates and supervisors. Responses were recorded on Likert 5 point scale, ranging from 1- rarely to 5- very often. Cronbach’s alpha as reliability estimate was at 0.67 for current study. Also, the standardized estimate of its constituent items ranged from 0.41 to 0.82. POS was measured by using ^17, (1990), 9-item scale. Likert 5- point scale was used to measure responses ranging from 1- strongly disagree to 5- strongly agree. Cronbach alpha for current study is 0.66. All the items provided for a one-dimensional scale (x²= 18.06, df = 5, p = 0.02, RMR = 0.02, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.92).The factor loadings of the items POS were statistically significant. All dimensions of OCB were measured by using ¹², 10 item scales. Each dimension was measured by using two items. Likert 5- point scale was used to measure responses ranging from 1- strongly disagree to 5- strongly agree. Cronbach alpha for current study is .68.Its factor loading ranged from 0.54 to 0.79. Employee Service Performance is measured by using a composite of scales blending empathy and excellent job performance scales with 3 items each from Servqual ¹⁸. Its Cronbatch alpha was estimated at 0.72.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:

Using, varimax rotation, the principal component factor analysis was administered for reduction of the data. The KMO value of 0.67 and significance of Bartlett’s test was at 0.05 levels indicating the sampling adequacy for conducting factor analysis Items those indicated low factor loadings (< 0.40), high cross-loadings (> 0.40), or low communalities (< 0.30) were eliminated for further analysis. All factors exhibited satisfactory alpha reliability coefficients, ranging between0.56 and 0.91.

Table 1: Factor Extraction Results.

S.No	Variable	Items.	Factor Loadings.	% Age of Variance.
1.	LMX.	Do you know where you stand with your supervisor…do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?	0.65 0.57 0.66 0.47 0.49 0.63 0.68 0.67	0.21 0.19 0.24 0.23 0.16 0.26 0.2
		How well does your supervisor understand your job problems and needs?
		How well does your supervisor recognize your potential?
		Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, what are the chances that your supervisor would use his/her power to help you solve problems at work
		Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your supervisor has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out,” at his/her expense?
		I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so?
		How would you characterize your working relationship with your supervisor?
		Cronbach alpha

Note: LMX- Leader Member Exchange; Source: Data collected by Scholars for the study.

Table 2: Factor Extraction Results

S.No.	Variable.	Items.	Factor Loadings.	% Age of Variance.
1.	POS	My organization is supportive of my goals and values.	0.78 0.83 0.79 0.82 0.79 0.66 0.61 0.86 0.84 0.66	0.23 0.21 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.29 0.31 0.22 0.27
		Help is available from my organization when I have a problem.
		My organization really cares about my wellbeing.
		My organization is willing to offer assistance to help me perform my job to the best of my ability.
		Even if I did the best job possible, my organization would fail to notice.
		My organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. I consider my job to be very central to my life.
		My organization shows very little concern for me.
		My organization cares about my opinions.
		My organization is complimentary of my accomplishments at work. Cronbach alpha

Note: POS- Perceived Organizational Support; Source: Data collected by Scholars for the study.

Table 3: Factor Extraction Results.

S.No.	Variable.	Items.	Factor Loadings.	% Age of Variance.
1.	OCB	I help others who have been absent.	0.76 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.79 0.71 0.74 0.84 0.81	0.26 0.21 0.28 0.27 0.19 0.26 0.225 0.23 0.26
		I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me.
		I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers.
		I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.
		I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.
		I do not take extra breaks.
		I keep abreast of changes in the organization or institution.
		I read and keep up with organization or institution announcements, memos, etc.
		I help others who have heavy workloads.
		I help orient new people even though it is not required. Cronbach alpha	0.78 0.68	0.29

Note: OCB- Organizational Citizenship Behavior; Source: Data collected by Scholars for the study.

Table 4: Factor Extraction Results.

S. No.	Variable.	Items.	Factor Loadings.	% Age of Variance.
1.	SP.	Employees understand specific needs of customers.	0.65 0.57 0.66 0.47 0.49 0.63 0.72	0.21 0.19 0.24 0.23 0.16 0.26
		Employees are able to put themselves in customer’s place.
		Employees are able to tune in to each specific customer.
		Employees surprise customers with their excellent service.
		Employees do more than usual for customers.
		Employees deliver an excellent service quality that is difficult to find in other organizations.
		Cronbach alpha

Note: SP- Service Performance; Source: Data collected by Scholars for the study.

Table 6: Regression Coefficients from Multiple Regressions between LMX and POS.

S. No.	Independent Variable.	Dependent Variable.
S. No.	LMX (Subordinate Version Items).	POS.
1.	Do you know where you stand with your supervisor…do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?	0.27*.
2.	How well does your supervisor understand your job problems and needs?	0.29*.
3.	How well does your supervisor recognize your potential?	0.28*.
4.	Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, what are the chances that your supervisor would use his/her power to help you solve problems at work.	0.31*.
5.	Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your supervisor has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out,” at his/her expense?	0.35*.
6.	I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so?	0.33*.
7.	How would you characterize your working relationship with your supervisor?	0.29*.
	R²	0.33

Note: LMX-Leader Member Exchange, POS- Perceived Organizational Support.

*All Significant from < .01 to < .05; Source: Data collected by Scholars for the study.

Table 6: Regression Coefficients from Multiple Regressions between LMX and POS.

S. No.	Independent Variable.	Dependent Variable.
S. No.	LMX (Subordinate Version Items).	POS.
1.	Do you know where you stand with your supervisor…do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?	0.27*.
2.	How well does your supervisor understand your job problems and needs?	0.29*.
3.	How well does your supervisor recognize your potential?	0.28*.
4.	Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, what are the chances that your supervisor would use his/her power to help you solve problems at work.	0.31*.
5.	Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your supervisor has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out,” at his/her expense?	0.35*.
6.	I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so?	0.33*.
7.	How would you characterize your working relationship with your supervisor?	0.29*.
	R²	0.33

Note: LMX-Leader Member Exchange, POS- Perceived Organizational Support.

*All Significant from < .01 to < .05; Source: Data collected by Scholars for the study.

FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS:

LMX has been found having high correlation with job attitudes like perceived organizational support with correlation coefficients of (r=0.32) and significance of (p <0.01 to 0.05); organizational citizenship behavior with (r=0.31) and significance of (p<0.01 to 0.05). Regression coefficients also represents a positive (R²=0.33 and 0.32), and significant (p < 0.01 to 0.05)impact of LMX on perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior, respectively. Therefore, signifying that LMX can act as an antecedent for job attitudes of employees in the service industry. LMX also, represent positive (r = 0.34) and significant (p< 0.01 to 0.05) correlation with employee service performance. Regression coefficient of (R²= 0.35), reveal positive and significant (p < 0.01 to .05) impact of LMX on employee service performance.

Job attitudes like perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior represent a positive (r=0.32, 0.31) and significant (P < 0.01 to 0.05) correlation with employee service performance, respectively. Further, Regression coefficients of (R²=0.33 and 0.32), reveal a positive and significant (P < 0.01 to 0.05)impact of perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior on service performance, respectively. Therefore, we conclude that job related attitudes help in achieving excellent employee service performance.

Leaders should increase communication frequency with their subordinates to identify problematic areas, concern, progress, achievement etc and lend necessary support to overcome challenges, threats etc. Employee friendly policies need to be formulated as well as communicated by having visibility in communication, promotion. So, that the target audience like employees could be reached and benefitted. Extra-ordinary performances or effort need to be recognized as well as encouraged to reinforce such behavior. Practices that ensure openness, fairness, trust must be followed to create and sustain favorable perception among employees.LMX has shown significant relationship with job attitudes like employee engagement, involvement etc as well as with work outcomes like employee, performance, productivity etc. LMX not only influence individual employee work behavior but help in meeting organizational objectives, goals. LMX creates favorable perception among employees regarding organizational support, image, and policies. Employees having high quality LMX relationships with their supervisors perform beyond their formalized tasks and enhance organizational effectiveness, productivity and profitability. Organizations should encourage practices that strengthen the bonds of interpersonal as well as organizational trust. Leadership behaviors like infusing enthusiasm, excitement, among subordinates enhances their self-esteem, confidence that results in more accomplishment of challenging tasks, goal achievement, higher confidence level. Organizations should ensure development of their leaders through development programmers. Also, practices like recognition and rewarding of employees for their achievements in front of their co-workers, management, top leadership would enhance POS and in turn performance.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH:

The present study incorporated sample size of 150 respondents from banking, insurance and postal service sectors of Kashmir region only. Also, data analysis techniques were restricted to descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis. The future researchers could explore LMX across other vital sectors like health, hospitality, etc with more sophisticated techniques of data analysis like factor analysis, path analysis etc. Exploration of LMX relationship with other job attitudes like organizational commitment, satisfaction etc would be an add on to the LMX study. Also, qualitative techniques of data collection like observations, focus groups etc in combination with quantitative techniques like structured questionnaires, interviews etc could bring in new insights to LMX literature. Also, large sample size, more geographic reach, ethnicity etc would of interest for future researchers to explore.

REFERENCES;

1. Graen GB and Cashman J. A role- making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds), 1975.

2. Graen GB, et al. The Effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human performance, 30; 1982: 109 -131.

3. Tansky JW. Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Right Journal, 6,(3); 1993:195-207.

4. Golden TD, and Veiga JF. The impact of superior–subordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. Leadership Quarterly, 19; 2008:77–88.

5. Aycan, Z . Paternalism: Towards a conceptual refinement and operationalization. In K.S. Yang, K.K. Hwang and U. Kim (Eds).Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: Empirical, philosophical and cultural contributions, Cambridge University Press, London, 1996;pp445-466.Ibrahim R, et al. Elevating Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Local Government Employees: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Asian Social Science, 9 (13); 2013: 92-104.

6. Lapierre L M and Hackett RD. Trait conscientiousness, leader member exchange, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior: A test of an integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, (5); 2007: 539-554.

7. Rhodes L and Eisenberger R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87; 2002: 698-714.

8. Aselage J and Eisenberger R. “Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration”. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 24 (5); 2003: 491-509.

9. Wayne SJ, et al. Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40; 1997:82–111.

10. Organ D. Organizational citizenship behaviors: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, 1988, MA: Lexington Books.

11. Organ DW and Ryan K. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48; 1995: 775-802.

12. Podsakoff PM and MacKenzie SB. Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research. Human Performance, 10(2); 1997: 133–151.

13. Borman WC and Motowidlo SJ. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Schmitt N and BormanWC (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations , San Francisco Jossey-Bass, 1996, pp71-98.

14. Eisenberger R, et al. Perceived Organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3); 1986: 200-507.

15. Chiang CF and Hsieh TS. The Impacts of Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Empowerment on Job Performance: The Mediating Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 3; 2012: 180–190

16. Randall ML, et al. “Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (2); 1999: 159-174.

17. EisenbergerR, Fasolo P and Davis LV. Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1); 1990: 51–59.

18. Parasuraman A, et al. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64; 1988:12–40.syllabus

Received on 31.12.2015 Modified on 10.01.2016

Asian J. Management; 7(1): Jan. –March, 2016 page 27-35

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2016.00005.6

S. No.	Variables.	Mean.	Standard Deviation.	1.	2.	3.	4.
1.	LMX.	3.36	0.65	1
2.	POS.	3.18	0.59	0.32	1.0
3.	OCB.	3.21	0.57	0.31	0.29	1.0
4.	SP.	3.28	0.62	0.34	0.32	0.31	1.0
	Cronbach’s alpha.			0.67	0.66	0.68	0.72

S. NO.	Independent Variable. LMX.	Dependent Variable. SP.
1.	Do you know where you stand with your supervisor…do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?	0.30*.
2.	How well does your supervisor understand your job problems and needs?	0.28*.
3.	How well does your supervisor recognize your potential?	0.33*.
4.	Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, what are the chances that your supervisor would use his/her power to help you solve problems at work	0.35*.
5.	Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your supervisor has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out,” at his/her expense?	0.33*.
6.	I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so?	0.36*.
7.	How would you characterize your working relationship with your supervisor?	0.32*.
	R²	0.35