Does the feeling of obligation for reciprocation reallyexplain a LMX-Performance relationship?

Since first proposed by Graen and his colleagues, LMX has been suggested to have a positive effect on an individual’s performance because of the added support, feedback, resources, and opportunities (Feldman, 1986). The behind rationale for this expectation is that when a subordinate gets the supervisor’s physical and emotional support through the high quality of LMX relationship, s/he may feel an obligation to reciprocate the leader’s support (Deluga, 1994). And, such a sense of obligation to reciprocate would motivate the subordinate to perform better (Wayne & Green, 1993). Although this rationale sounds intuitive, it has never been tested; it has simply been assumed. As a result, some inconsistencies, especially in studies linking LMX and subordinates’ performance (e.g., Vecchio, 1982), have not been appropriately addressed (Gerstner & Day, 1997). To test the alleged rationale, the current study proposes a model that incorporates perceived accountability capturing the sense of obligation to reciprocate as a mediator that carries the effect of LMX onto specified performance behaviors. In this model, the concept of perceived accountability is defined in a phenomenological way and operationalized in terms of its source and objective. While the source of perceived accountability is limited to respondents’ supervisors, the objectives of perceived accountability encompass both traditional and non-traditional performance elements, which are often referred as contextual performance or OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behaviors). A series of hierarchical regression analyses and structural equation modeling analysis of the data collected from 409 supervisor-subordinate dyads rendered evidence supporting the proposed model. That is, it is shown that perceived accountability acts as a mediator between LMX and the performance elements. Not only does this result add more direct empirical evidence for the rationale behind the allegedly positive LMX-performance relationship, it also provides an explanation for the inconsistent findings on the LMXperformance relationship. That is, in the case of the studies (e.g., Scandura, 1999; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Schriesheim, Neider, & Scandura, 1998; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) that reported a positive relationship, the respondents might feel accountable for the performance elements measured, whereas the participants of the studies (e.g., Vecchio, 1982; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984) that reported an insignificant relationship might not for some reasons. The current findings also provide an important managerial implication for supervisors to manage subordinates’ performance. To utilize a good relationship maximally for fostering an employee’s performance behaviors, a supervisor needs to make his/her support through the relationship specific enough so that they can be clearly perceived by the subordinate as related to one of the three linkages (i.e., identity -event, event-prescription, identity-prescription) of the accountability model. Otherwise, a good relationship would not lead a subordinate to experience a high level of perceived accountability, and no effect on the subordinate’s performance would take place. This means that supervisors need to be careful in communicating what they think and expect on subordinates’ job-dedicated behaviors and task performance.