Running head: LMX TO PERFORMANCE AND TURNOVER

In press, Journal of Applied Psychology

A Longitudinal Study of the Moderating Role of Extraversion:
LMX, Performance, and Turnover during e! Executive "evelo#ment
Talya N. Bauer
Berrin Erdogan
Portland State University
Robert C. Liden
Sandy J. Wayne
University of Illinois at Chicago
Author Notes
$e !ant to than% Murray &arric%, 'eanne Enders, (arl Maert), and "onald Truxillo for
their hel#ful comments on earlier drafts of this #a#er* An earlier version of this #a#er
!as #resented at the +,,- Academy of Management meeting in e! .rleans, LA* This
research !as funded /y a Research 0rant from the Society of 1uman Resource
Management 2S1RM3 4oundation and the 5niversity of 6llinois7s (enter for 1uman
Resource Management 2(1RM3*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 1
A Longitudinal Study of the Moderating Role of Extraversion:
LMX, Performance, and Turnover during e! Executive "evelo#ment
A/stract
6dentifying factors that hel# or hinder ne! executives to 8get u# to s#eed9 :uic%ly and
remain !ith the organi)ation is vital to maximi)ing the effectiveness of executive
develo#ment* The current study extends #ast research /y examining extraversion as a
moderator of leader;mem/er exchange 2LMX3 to #erformance, turnover intentions, and
actual turnover relationshi#s for an executive sam#le* The sam#le consisted of <<= ne!
executives !ho !ere surveyed #rior to starting their em#loyment as !ell as three months
#ost;entry* A total of => senior executives rated these ne! executives in terms of overall
#erformance at six months #ost;entry* Turnover data !ere gathered from com#any
records ? <@+ years later* 1ierarchical regression results sho!ed that LMX !as not
related to #erformance or turnover intentions for those high in extraversion, /ut for
individuals lo! in extraversion, there !as a relation /et!een LMX, #erformance, and
turnover intentions* 4urthermore, survival analyses sho!ed that LMX !as only related to
turnover ha)ard rate for individuals lo! in extraversion*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 2
A Longitudinal Study of the Moderating Role of Extraversion:
LMX, Performance, and Turnover during e! Executive "evelo#ment
Executives are among the highest #aid !or%ers in the 5nited States, and they
occu#y high;level Ao/s !ithin organi)ations !ith over ? million of them !or%ing at the
turn of the century 2&ureau of La/or Statistics, +,,,3* .rgani)ations s#end considera/le
time, money, and effort to transform executives into #roductive assets* Research has
sho!n that the cost of losing executive talent is high* 4or exam#le, .verton 2+,,<3
estimated that the direct and indirect costs of re#lacing an executive amount to more than
their annual salary, and has /een estimated to /e BC,,,,,, #er lost executive 2Mc(all,
Lom/ardo, D Morrison, <EFF3* 6n addition to re#lacement costs, losing to# talent can also
result in the loss of com#etitive industry secrets* This is es#ecially true for 4ortune C,,
organi)ations, !hich tend to hire em#loyees from com#eting 4ortune C,, firms
2$illiamson D (a/le, +,,?3*
Executives hold powerful and prestigious positions and are key organizational
members who have the ability to shape and influence decisions regarding a variety of
important factors. But coupled with these seemingly positive aspects of executive jobs is
the pressure put on them to perform well and to do so quickly (McCall et al., 1988).
Identifying factors such as personality characteristics and insider support that may help or
hinder new executives in getting up to speed is vital to maximizing the effectiveness of
new executives and retaining them (McCall et al., 1988).
The literature on ne! em#loyee sociali)ation may /e useful in understanding ho!
executives adAust to their ne! roles* Research on sociali)ation sho!s that esta/lishing
effective !or%ing relationshi#s !ith leaders early on is a %ey !ay that ne! em#loyees
LMX to Performance and Turnover 3
can successfully integrate into their organi)ations 2e*g*, &auer D 0reen, <EEFG
Hammeyer;Mueller D $an/erg, +,,?G MaAor, Ho)lo!s%i, (hao, D 0ardner, <EEC3*
Similarly, the executive develo#ment literature has esta/lished the im#ortance of
develo#ing relationshi#s 2Mainiero, <EE-3, finding mentors 2Lyness D Thom#son, +,,,G
Mc(all et al*, <EFF3, and receiving to# management su##ort 2Mc(auley, Ruderman,
.hlott, D Morro!, <EE-3 for executive success* Therefore, examining relationshi#
develo#ment !ith ne! executives and their su#eriors may increase our understanding of
ne! executive success in terms of enhancing #erformance and avoiding organi)ational
!ithdra!al*
.ne theory that examines the relationshi# :uality /et!een su#eriors and
su/ordinates is leader;mem/er exchange 2LMX3* A distinctive feature of this a##roach
to leadershi# is its focus on the dyadic level of leadershi#* Rather than thin%ing a/out a
leader as having one set style, LMX theory #ro#oses that leaders form uni:ue
relationshi#s !ith each of their su/ordinates so that high LMX em#loyees receive greater
gro!th o##ortunities 20raen D Scandura, <EF>3 and higher levels of su##ort 2Hraimer,
$ayne, D 'a!ors%i, +,,<3* Theorists #osit that social net!or%s are im#ortant to
organi)ational mem/ers 2&rass, &utterfield, D S%aggs, <EEF3* More s#ecifically to
LMX, S#arro!e and Liden contended 2<EE>3 and em#irically verified 2+,,?3 that high
LMX em#loyees are more readily integrated into the leader7s #ersonal net!or%* These
researchers discovered that /eing incor#orated into the leader7s set of trusted contacts
!as related to focal mem/ers /eing #erceived /y others as influential #layers in the
organi)ation* Paralleling these results, Sei/ert, Hraimer, and Liden 2+,,<3 found that
esta/lishing a social net!or% 2including contacts in different functional areas3 !as related
LMX to Performance and Turnover 4
to the #rocurement of resources and information and ultimately to career success* 0iven
that executives tend to /e charged !ith ma%ing high #rofile decisions that re:uire access
to a !ide variety of information as !ell as /eing charged !ith the res#onsi/ility of
executing tas%s that demand access to resources, esta/lishing oneself as an influential
mem/er of a far;reaching social net!or% may /e es#ecially critical for individuals
holding executive #ositions* Thus, !e ex#ect the relationshi# that ne! executives are a/le
to form !ith their su#eriors to /e a salient factor in the executive develo#ment #rocess*
To date, the executive develo#ment literature has not incor#orated the findings of
LMX theory* Similarly, the LMX literature has ty#ically not examined em#loyees !ho
hold high;level #ositions* Therefore, our main o/Aective in this study is to integrate these
literatures /y ex#loring the role of LMX in the ne! executive develo#ment #rocess as
measured /y executive #erformance and !ithdra!al* 4urthermore, !e contend that the
im#ortance of high;:uality LMXs !ill /e contingent on the #ersonality of ne!
executives* $e #ro#ose that introverted executives, individuals !ho are less inclined to
see% social attention 2Ashton, Lee, D Paunonen, +,,+3, !ill /enefit more from forming
high;:uality relationshi#s than their more extraverted counter#arts*
.ur study ma%es three contri/utions to the literature* 4irst, !e contri/ute to the
executive develo#ment literature /y examining ho! #erformance and !ithdra!al are
influenced /y the interaction /et!een executive #ersonality and the uni:ue relationshi#s
that form /et!een ne! executives and their immediate su#eriors* This is es#ecially
im#ortant as the executive develo#ment literature has #rimarily focused on gender as a
%ey individual difference 2e*g*, Lyness D Thom#son, +,,,G Mc(auley et al*, <EE-3, /ut
has not examined ho! executives !ith different #ersonalities adAust to their ne! roles*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 5
Second, !e ma%e a contri/ution to the LMX literature /y introducing a #otential
moderator of LMX to outcome relations* Several LMX researchers have ex#ressed
concern that LMX studies have ado#ted a universalistic #ers#ective that has resulted in a
dearth of %no!ledge on the circumstances that ma%e LMX more or less im#ortant for
executive success 2e*g*, Erdogan D Liden, +,,+G Schriesheim, (astro, D Iammarino,
+,,,G Jecchio, 0riffeth, D 1om,<EF=3*
4inally, our third contri/ution is a re;examination of the LMX to actual turnover
relationshi# !hile em#loying methodological advancements in the turnover literature*
Although a num/er of studies have revealed non;significant relationshi#s /et!een LMX
and turnover, researchers have called for additional studies that examine moderators
20erstner D "ay, <EE>3, are conducted !ith high;level em#loyees 2Jecchio, <EEC3, and
em#loy longitudinal designs 2Singer D $illett, <EE<3 to further test the relationshi#
/et!een LMX and actual turnover* $e address these calls for further examination /y
using survival analysis, examining a ne! moderator, extraversion, and studying a high;
level executive sam#le across time*
Hypotheses
Executive Performance
.ne of the main goals for ne! executives is to adAust to their ne! Ao/s in order to
#erform !ell* LMX is associated !ith /etter role adAustment in terms of #erformance, as
research has consistently found that LMX and #erformance are related across a !ide;
range of Ao/s 20erstner D "ay, <EE>3* 4or exam#le, in a cross;sectional study
Masterson, Le!is, 0oldman, and Taylor 2+,,,3 found that, in their sam#le of university
em#loyees !ith an average tenure of seven years, #erformance !as related to LMX*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 6
Similarly, $ayne, Shore, and Liden 2<EE>3 studied em#loyees !ith at least five years of
!or% ex#erience and found a #ositive relationshi# /et!een LMX and #erformance*
Settoon, &ennett, and Liden 2<EE=3 discovered that LMX and #erformance !ere related
in their sam#le of hos#ital em#loyees !ith a##roximately six years of tenure* 4or their
sam#le of ex#atriates, Hraimer et al* 2+,,<3 found a similar relationshi#* 6n one of the
fe! studies of ne! em#loyees that included #erformance as an outcome, &auer and
0reen 2<EE=3 studied ne! college graduates and found that LMX and #erformance !ere
related at t!o months on the Ao/ as !ell as nine months on the Ao/*
LMX researchers have #osited several mechanisms relating LMX to #erformance*
4or exam#le, ne! em#loyees need information to do their Ao/s and to gain clarity for role
ex#ectations 2&auer et al*, <EEF3* 6ndeed, the literature sho!s a strong relationshi#
/et!een LMX and role clarity, #erha#s /ecause individuals in high LMX relationshi#s
interact more fre:uently !ith their leaders 2Hramer, <EEC3* 4urther, high LMX mem/ers
often enAoy more challenging assignments, s#onsorshi#, and greater access to information
relevant to the Ao/ 20raen D Scandura, <EF>3*
$hile the existing literature sho!s a relationshi# /et!een LMX and Ao/
#erformance, to date, no study has examined this relationshi# in an executive sam#le
!here 8!ho you %no!9 can /e as im#ortant as 8!hat you %no!9 2&ur%e, <EF-3* 1aving a
strong LMX relationshi# should hel# !ith these dimensions of executive #erformance,
!hich are often am/iguous and high #rofile* Research sho!s that develo#ing
relationshi#s is %ey to advancing to executive #ositions 2Mainiero, <EE-G Ragins,
To!nsend, D Mattis, <EEF3* Lyness and Thom#son 2+,,,3 found that mentoring !as
related to executive success even after controlling for tenure, gender, age, education, and
LMX to Performance and Turnover 7
human ca#ital* 4urther, intervie!s !ith executives sho! that their su#eriors are %ey in
hel#ing them to understand management values and to navigate the #olitics of the
organi)ation 2Mc(all et al*, <EFF3* Mc(auley et al* 2<EE-3 found that maAor areas of
learning for executives ex#eriencing Ao/ transitions included having higher res#onsi/ility
and visi/ility, and dealing !ith nonauthority relationshi#s to get their Ao/s done*
4ollo!ing findings from the LMX and executive develo#ment literatures, forming
high LMX relationshi#s should hel# ne! executives deal !ith Ao/ transitions, garner
greater res#onsi/ility, learn insider information, and overcome o/stacles* All of these
factors should enhance ne! executive Ao/ #erformance* Therefore, !e first examine
!hether the #reviously esta/lished relationshi# holds true !ith this sam#le of ne!, high;
level executives*
Hypothesis 1: LMX is #ositively related to ne! executives7 Ao/ #erformance as
rated /y their su#ervisors*
Executive Turnover Intentions
.nly a handful of studies have examined LMX and turnover intentions* "es#ite the
small num/er of studies of this relationshi#, meta;analytic results have found an overall
negative relationshi# /et!een LMX and turnover intentions 20erstner D "ay, <EE>3* The
sociali)ation literature has also examined inter#ersonal interaction and turnover
intentions* 4or exam#le, relationshi# /uilding !as found to influence turnover intentions
across three;!aves of data collection 2Hammeyer;Mueller D $an/erg, +,,?3* This study
#rovides #reliminary evidence for the salience of leaders as %ey sociali)ing agents, /ut
none of these studies examined ne! executive em#loyees*
Executives !ho are a/le to form high LMX relationshi#s should /ecome more
LMX to Performance and Turnover 8
attached to their !or%#lace as they feel more su##orted 2Hacmar, (arlson, D &rymer,
<EEEG Liden, $ayne, D S#arro!e, +,,,G Schriesheim et al*, +,,,3, receive more
feed/ac% from their su#eriors 2Hramer, <EEC3, and /elong to a net!or% at !or%
2S#arro!e D Liden, +,,?3* .n;the;Ao/ em/eddedness refers to em#loyees /eing situated
or connected in a social !e/ at !or% that creates a disinclination to consider leaving as
the cost of turnover increases 2Lee et al*, +,,-3* 6f executives do not !ant to lose valued
relationshi#s !ith their su#eriors, they are more #sychologically attached to the
organi)ation and should have lo!er turnover intentions 2Maert) D (am#ion, <EFF3*
Hypothesis 2: LMX is negatively related to ne! executive turnover intentions*
Executive Turnover
Although it is clear that LMX is negatively related to turnover intentions, research
on LMX and actual turnover has tended to sho! mixed results, !ith results from a meta;
analysis indicating that no relationshi# exists 20erstner D "ay, <EE>3* 1o!ever, !e
#ro#ose that the same mechanisms that lin% turnover intentions !ith LMX !ill o#erate
for actual turnover as !ell*
$e revisited the relation /et!een LMX and actual turnover for several reasons*
4irst, relatively fe! studies of LMX have examined turnover, and none of these to our
%no!ledge have /een conducted !ith a sam#le of executives* 6ndeed, !e ex#ect that
factors that relate to executive turnover !ill /e related, at least #artially, to the a/ility of
ne! executives to learn from their leaders 2e*g*, Mc(all et al*, <EFFG Mc(auley et al*,
<EE-3* Although 4erris 2<EFC3 re#licated the findings of 0raen, Liden, and 1oel 2<EF+3
for LMX relating to actual turnover, Jecchio 2<EFC3 !as una/le to re#licate these results
in his sam#le of /an% tellers* 1e noted, ho!ever, that 8Kthe leader;mem/er exchange
LMX to Performance and Turnover 9
a##roach has #otentially greater #redictive utility for turnover among high;level
em#loyees than among lo!;level em#loyees9 2#* -F?3* (onsistent !ith this s#eculation,
the sam#le in the 0raen et al* 2<EF+3 research, !hich found a strong negative correlation
/et!een LMX and turnover, consisted of highly educated com#uter and systems analysts*
Second, there are characteristics associated !ith executives that #rovide su##ort for
the relation /et!een LMX and turnover* 6n a study of the #redictors of executive career
success, 'udge, (a/le, &oudreau, and &ret) 2<EEC3 found that higher;level executives
!ere more 8#romotion motivated9 than lo!er;level executives, des#ite the more limited
#ros#ective #romotion o##ortunities given their high level in the organi)ation*
4urthermore, they found Ao/ tenure negatively #redicted num/er of #romotions* These
findings suggest that high;level executives tend to /e very am/itious and desiring of
#romotions* As a result, they may /e less li%ely to tolerate a lo! LMX relationshi# !ith
their su#erior as this #erson ty#ically has a significant im#act on #romotion decisions*
4urthermore, it seems that executives may have many alternative Ao/ o##ortunities given
the 8!ar9 for executive talent 2Michaels, 1andfield;'ones, D Axelrod, +,,<3* Thus, the
LMX relationshi# /et!een ne! executives and their immediate su#eriors may /e
es#ecially salient !ith res#ect to turnover*
Additionally, 0erstner and "ay concluded that the relationshi# /et!een LMX and
actual turnover is !orthy of further examination and Jecchio et al* 2<EF=3 indicated that
the search for this relationshi# should not /e a/andoned* 4inally, research since 0erstner
and "ay7s meta;analysis has found some su##ort for the im#ortance of leadershi#* 4or
exam#le, Hammeyer;Mueller and $an/erg 2+,,?3 com#ared different sociali)ing
influences and found that across seven different organi)ations, leader influence !as the
LMX to Performance and Turnover 10
only sociali)ing agent that !as related to actual turnover*
6f ne! executives have lo! LMX relationshi#s, they may not fit into the
organi)ation and are li%ely to have an unfavora/le !or% situation that !ould motivate Ao/
search /ehaviors and cause them to leave more ra#idly* 1igh LMX may create a sense of
#atience not to 8rush out the door9 and an o/ligation to one7s manager that might
lengthen tenure* Thus, in /oth cases LMX !ould /e related to duration of stay as !ell as
turnover*
6n terms of the methods used !hen studying actual turnover, Singer and $illett
2<EE<3 note that turnover research should /e longitudinal, allo! sufficient time for
turnover to ta%e #lace, utili)e survival analysis to analy)e #redictors of turnover, and
ca#ture turnover in terms of days stayed rather than sim#ly as a dichotomous
8stayed@left9 varia/le* The use of survival analysis utili)es the information regarding
!hen turnover occurred in addition to !hether or not it occurred* Therefore, it #rovides a
richer understanding of the #rocess /y !hich em#loyees leave the organi)ation* 4or
exam#le, over a three;year #eriod, all su/Aects could have left the organi)ation* 1o!ever,
from the organi)ation7s #ers#ective as !ell as theoretically, there is a difference /et!een
an executive !ho leaves after staying for three months, and someone !ho leaves after
staying +*C years* Even if /oth individuals !ould have turned over /y the end of our
study, it ma%es theoretical sense to utili)e information regarding ho! long individuals
stayed* 6n fact, Morita, Lee, and Mo!day 2<EE?3 demonstrated that survival analysis and
logistic regression may give contradictory findings and the use of survival analysis
#rovides a more accurate method of estimating relations /et!een turnover and other
varia/les*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 11
All of the #u/lished studies of LMX and turnover utili)ed logistic regression
#rocedures 2e*g*, 4erris, <EFCG 0raen et al*, <EF+G Jecchio, <EFCG Jecchio et al*, <EF=3*
Logistic regression is a##ro#riate for examining #redictors of turnover* 1o!ever, it
discards information regarding ho! long individuals stayed /efore leaving* 5tili)ing this
information may reveal that even though LMX may not /e related to !hether individuals
left or stayed, those !ith high LMX may stay for longer #eriods of time /efore they
leave* .ne goal of this study !as to /uild on #ast research and to examine the LMX to
actual turnover relationshi# follo!ing the recommendations of Singer and $illett 2<EE<3*
Hypothesis 3: LMX is negatively related to ne! executive actual turnover*
The Moderating Effect of Extraversion
To this #oint !e have #osited main effects for LMX relating to #erformance and
!ithdra!al* 1o!ever, LMX researchers have consistently called for the examination of
moderators, and in #articular individual difference moderators, of the LMX to
#erformance and turnover relationshi#s 2e*g*, Erdogan D Liden, +,,+G 0erstner D "ay,
<EE>G Jecchio et al*, <EF=3* .ur search of the literature for #otential moderators
identified a %ey #ersonality varia/le, extraversion* Extraversion has surfaced as an
individual difference varia/le that is sta/le and exerts an influence on a !ide range of
em#loyee /ehaviors* Extraversion is #erha#s the dominant factor in the 4ive;4actor
Model 244M3 of #ersonality 2e*g*, (osta D Mc(rae, <EE+G "igman, <EE,G 'udge, &ono,
6lies, D 0erhardt, +,,+3, and of the five factors is the most theoretically and em#irically
related to the constructs of interest in the current investigation* Most maAor #ersonality
inventories include some form of extraversion 2$atson D (lar%, <EE>3* Research sho!s
that extraversion is a valid #redictor across criterion ty#es for managers 2!hich included
LMX to Performance and Turnover 12
foremen through to#;level executives3* And in their meta;analysis on the 44M, &arric%
and Mount 2<EE<3 concluded that /eing extraverted !as hel#ful for managerial Ao/s, /ut
less im#ortant for other occu#ations such as secretaries, accountants, #roduction !or%ers,
engineers, and architects* They also found that extraversion !as related to higher training
success* .f #articular im#ortance, given that our sam#le consisted of executives learning
ne! Ao/s, are the findings of &arric% and Mount indicating that extraversion is a %ey
#ersonality characteristic for managers* 6n fact, 'udge and his colleagues 2+,,+3 found
meta;analytic evidence that extraversion !as the most consistent correlate of leadershi#
across study settings and leadershi# criteria*
LMX is a theory of social interaction. Therefore, its effects should be contingent on
the extent to which employees interact effectively with others. Personality theory and
research show that people high on extraversion are characterized as seeking out
interaction opportunities with others, generally liking other people, being gregarious and
talkative (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and being high in reward sensitivity. "e#ue and
(ollins 2<EEE3 define re!ard sensitivity as the tendency to ex#erience 8an incentive
motivational state that facilitates and guides a##roach /ehavior to a goal9 2#* -EC3*
Research has identified reward sensitivity which included ascendance (social dominance,
enjoyment of leadership roles, assertiveness, and goal accomplishment) as a higher-order
factor underlying extraversion (e.g., Lucas et al., 2000). Subsequently, Ashton et al.
(2002) found that a central feature of extraversion is the drive to garner social attention
which they define as the tendency for people to behave in ways that attract and hold
social attention, and that these individuals enjoy engaging in these behaviors. Introverts,
on the other hand, tend to be reserved, independent and prefer their own company or that
LMX to Performance and Turnover 13
of habitual companions. In terms of job characteristics, extraverts seek out novel,
complex, challenging, and varied tasks, as well as intense stimuli, while introverts tend to
prefer predictable paths in their work (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Successful executives have re#orted develo#mental ex#eriences associated !ith
their success such as net!or%ing, having develo#mental Ao/ assignments, and
encountering novel situations 2Lyness D Thom#son, +,,,3* 6nterestingly, the /enefits of
high LMX relationshi#s and the #ersonality characteristics associated !ith /eing
extraverted are stri%ingly similar in terms of the extent to !hich they influence success as
an executive* &ecause extraverts are characteri)ed as see%ing situations !hich garner
social attention and interaction, they are li%ely to do !ell in these #ositions, !ithout the
necessity of forming high;:uality relations !ith their leader* Extraversion is a trait that
fits !ell !ith the demands of an executive #osition, and therefore ne! executives high on
extraversion see% information, engage in social net!or%ing 2&o)ionelos, +,,?3, and
/ehave in !ays that !ould lead to higher levels of adAustment in their ne! #ositions* 4or
exam#le, in their study of ne! em#loyees, $an/erg and Hammeyer;Mueller 2+,,,3
found that extraversion !as #ositively related to feed/ac% see%ing and interactions !ith
organi)ational insiders*
1igh LMX relationshi#s are characteri)ed /y fre:uent interaction 2e*g*, &auer D
0reen, <EE=G Hramer, <EEC3, and extraverts desire interaction* And !hile high LMX
relationshi#s are characteri)ed /y challenging assignments and a !ide range of Ao/
res#onsi/ilities 2e*g*, Liden et al*, +,,,3, extraverts enAoy Ao/ challenge and novel !or%*
6n essence, the #references and /ehavioral tendencies that characteri)e extraverts #arallel
the :ualities of /oth ty#ical high;:uality LMX relationshi#s as !ell as executive success
LMX to Performance and Turnover 14
2Lyness D Thom#son, +,,,3* Therefore, for extraverts, LMX and #erformance should /e
!ea%ly related, as extraverts should /e a/le to #erform !ell at executive Ao/s regardless
of the :uality of their LMX relationshi#s*
6ntroverts are in a seemingly #recarious situation !here/y their #ersonalities do not
fit the needs of ne! em#loyees to see% information to hel# them adAust to their ne! roles*
$ithout a high LMX relationshi#, introverts may find it difficult to access needed
information and resources as !ell as to navigate com#lex social net!or%s* Therefore, it is
#ossi/le that for introverts, LMX relationshi#s #lay a critical role in their adAustment*
$ithout the /enefits derived from esta/lishing high LMX relationshi#s, their tendency to
/e reserved and reclusive may ma%e it difficult for them to #erform at the level of their
extraverted counter#arts* $e #ro#ose that for an introvert, #erformance !ill /e related to
LMX, such that the higher their LMX, the higher their #erformance* Those introverts
!ho are a/le to successfully esta/lish and maintain high LMX relationshi#s should /e
a/le to accrue /enefits similar to their extraverted co!or%ers*
Hypothesis 4: Extraversion moderates the relationshi# /et!een LMX and Ao/
#erformance, such that there is a #ositive relationshi# for those lo! on extraversion
2introverts3 !hereas the relationshi# is not significant for individuals high on extraversion
2extraverts3*
Similarly, for introverts, !e #ro#ose that LMX !ill /e crucial for their integration
into the organi)ation, such that the higher their LMX, the lo!er their turnover intentions
and actual turnover* 6f introverts !or%ing as executives are una/le to esta/lish high LMX
relationshi#s and su/se:uently are una/le to /ecome successful in terms of social
integration and@or Ao/ #erformance, they should /e less em/edded into the organi)ation,
LMX to Performance and Turnover 15
and more li%ely to !ant to leave the organi)ation 2Lee et al*, +,,-3*
However, although a leader can be instrumental in supporting and motivating
employees (Eisenberger et al., 2002), subordinates are dependent upon such a leader only
to the extent that alternate forms of support, guidance, and feedback are lacking.
Extraverts are more inclined to see% out these alternative sources of su##ort as they tend
to /e more inde#endent and li%ely to engage in #roactive sociali)ation /ehaviors such as
relationshi# /uilding and feed/ac% see%ing than are introverts 2(rant, <EEC3* Related to
their tendency to /e #roactive, extraverts see% out information, o##ortunities for social
interaction, and ne! activities 2&o)ionelos, +,,?G 'udge, Martocchio, D Thoresen, <EE>3,
all /ehaviors that have /een lin%ed to sociali)ation success 2'a/lin, +,,,3* Although
introverts can garnish this information and develo# contacts !ith %ey individuals in the
organi)ation through a strong relationshi# !ith the leader 2S#arro!e D Liden, +,,?3, !e
contend that extraverts can do so !ithout relying on their leader* This argument is
consistent !ith su/stitutes for leadershi# 2Herr D 'ermier, <E>F3, !hich suggests that
su/ordinate inde#endence from others, characteristic of extraverts, serves as a su/stitute
for leadershi#*
Thus, we propose that for introverts, LMX is crucial for their successful attainment
of work-related goals, such that the higher their LMX, the lower their turnover intentions
and actual turnover. If introverts working as executives are unable to establish high
LMX relationships they will be less likely to become effectively socialized into the
organization and thus will be more likely to leave the organization. Because extraverts
are able to secure the resources and support needed to become successfully socialized
into the organization without the help of the immediate leader, for extraverts, LMX,
LMX to Performance and Turnover 16
turnover intentions, and actual turnover should be unrelated.
Hypothesis 5: Extraversion moderates the relationshi# /et!een LMX and turnover
intentions, such that there is a negative relationshi# for those lo! on extraversion
2introverts3 !hereas the relationshi# is not significant for individuals high on extraversion
2extraverts3*
Hypothesis 6: Extraversion moderates the relationshi# /et!een LMX and actual
turnover, such that there is a negative relationshi# for those lo! on extraversion
2introverts3 !hereas the relationshi# is not significant for individuals high on extraversion
2extraverts3*
Method
Participants and Procedure
Our sample consisted of new employees and transferees holding executive positions
in a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical organization. Two-hundred thirty-one new employees
(new hires and transferees to executive-level positions) and their respective superiors
were invited to participate in this study. Data were collected across four points in time via
three surveys and organizational records. Research on ne! em#loyee sociali)ation sho!s
that it ta%es em#loyees several months /efore they /egin to feel adAusted to /oth the
social and tas% as#ects of their Ao/ suggesting that entry is a %ey timeframe for
understanding su/se:uent #erformance and turnover 2&auer et al*, <EEF3* Therefore, the
timing on these included: prior to entry (Time 1) and three-months post-entry (Time 2)
for the new executives, a survey completed by senior executives about the new
executives at six-months post-entry (Time 3), and data obtained from organizational
records 3 1/2 years later (Time 4).
LMX to Performance and Turnover 17
The organi)ation sent the Time < #re;entry survey via #ostal mail to all ne! hires,
along !ith their official Ao/ offer* Transferees com#leted the same survey online, after
receiving the lin% from the second author* This survey assessed the extraversion level of
ne! executives, and #artici#ants returned their com#leted surveys directly to the
researchers via 5*S* mail in self;addressed, #ostage #aid envelo#es or online for
transferees* The Times + and ? surveys !ere !e/;/ased, and the second author for!arded
the lin%s for these surveys directly to ne! executives at three months follo!ing their start
dates and to the su#ervising senior executives at six months* The Time + em#loyee
survey assessed the relationshi# :uality /et!een ne! executives and their senior
executives and turnover intentions from the ne! executive7s #ers#ective, and the Time ?
su#erior survey assessed #erformance of ne! executives from the senior executives7
#ers#ective* Time - turnover data !ere gathered from com#any records ? <@+ years later*
A total of <=F ne! executives com#leted the #re;entry survey for a res#onse rate of
>?L* .ne hundred forty;six ne! executives com#leted the three;month survey for a
res#onse rate of =?L* .ne hundred and eleven senior executives #artici#ated in the six;
month senior executive survey for a res#onse rate of -FL* The num/er of em#loyees !ho
res#onded at /oth #re;entry and at three months !as <<=, !hich !as the sam#le si)e for
1y#otheses +, ?, C, and = 2overall res#onse rate M C,L3* The num/er of dyads 2ne!
executives #aired !ith su#ervising senior executives3 for !hich !e had com#lete data
across the first three time #eriods !as => 2!ith CF senior executives rating only one ne!
executive, three senior executives rating t!o ne! executives, and one senior executive
rating three ne! executives3, a res#onse rate of +EL* This !as the sam#le si)e availa/le
to test 1y#otheses < and -*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 18
Sixty;six #ercent of the ne! executives !ere ne! hires, !hereas ?-L !ere
em#loyees transferring !ithin the com#any* 1o!ever, as noted /elo!, !hether the
executive !as a ne! hire or transferee did not affect the results* According to com#any
records, the average age of ne! executives !as -< 2S" M >3* 4ifty;nine #ercent of the
res#ondents !ere male* Seventy;seven #ercent of the sam#le !as identified as (aucasian,
<<*CL as Asian@Pacific 6slander, C*?L as 1is#anic, <*FL as African American, and *EL
as Puerto Rican* The res#ondents had high levels of education, as ?>L of the sam#le
held a /achelor7s degree, ??L had a masters degree, and ?,L held a doctoral degree* The
Ao/ titles held /y the ne! executives included F< "irectors and Associate "irectors, +-
Senior Managers, and << Jice Presidents*
Senior executives who rated new executives were mostly male (75%), and
Caucasian (75%) with 8.8% of the superior sample identified as Asian/Pacific Islander,
4.4% as Hispanic, and 1.5% as African American. The average age of senior executives
was 45 (SD = 6.54). In terms of education level, 22% of the managers held a bachelors
degree, 30% had a masters degree, and 48% held a doctoral degree. The job titles held by
the senior executives included 5 Presidents, 34 Vice Presidents, and 44 Senior Directors.
Measures
Control Variables* $e identified several #otentially relevant control varia/les* 4or
exam#le, gender and age have /een sho!n to relate to executive relationshi# formation
2Lyness D Thom#son, +,,,3* Research has sho!n that transferees and ne! hires may
differ 2e*g*, Hramer, (allister, D Tur/an, <EEC3* Therefore, age, gender, and ne!
executive status 2i*e*, ne! hire or transferee3 !ere all gathered from com#any records*
e! hires !ere coded as 8<9 and transferees as 8,*9 0ender !as coded 8<9 for men and
LMX to Performance and Turnover 19
8,9 for !omen* 6n addition, research has sho!n that the amount of interaction /et!een
su/ordinates and su#eriors is sometimes related to LMX 2Schiemann, <E>>3* Therefore,
!e as%ed ne! executives to re#ort on the num/er of hours #er !ee% 2on average3 they
interacted !ith their su#erior at Time +*
Extraversion. At #re;entry, !e measured extraversion using F adAectives develo#ed
/y Saucier 2<EE-3 as #art of his measure of the five factor model of #ersonality* e!
executives re#orted the extent to !hich these adAectives !ere accurate in descri/ing their
#ersonality, using a E;#oint scale 2< M extremely inaccurate to EM extremely accurate3*
Exam#le adAectives include 8/old,9 8energetic,9 8extroverted,9 and 8tal%ative9 2 M *F+3*
Leadermember exchange! Three months 2Time +3 after the ne! executives started
their ne! #ositions, !e measured LMX from their #ers#ective, using the <+;item LMX;
M"M scale develo#ed /y Liden and Maslyn 2<EEF3* Although the LMX;M"M can /e
used as a multidimensional scale, Liden and Maslyn 2<EEF3 found su##ort for a higher;
order factor, allo!ing for a com#osite of all items to /e used as a measure of glo/al
LMX* e! executives re#orted their level of agreement using a >;#oint scale, ranging
/et!een < M strongly disagree and > M strongly agree* An exam#le item is 8My
su#ervisor !ould come to my defense if 6 !ere 8attac%ed9 /y others*9 $e averaged all
items to create the LMX score 2 M *E,3*
"ob Performance* At six months #ost;entry, !e measured Ao/ #erformance from the
su#erior7s #ers#ective, using four items develo#ed /y $el/ourne, 'ohnson, and Ere)
2<EEF3* Managers used a C;#oint scale 2< M needs much im#rovement to C M excellent3 to
rate ne! executive Ao/ #erformance 2 M *E<3* Sam#le items included ratings of ne!
executive 8:uality of !or% out#ut9 and 8:uantity of !or% out#ut*9
LMX to Performance and Turnover 20
Turnover intentions! Three months 2Time +3 after the ne! executives started their
ne! #ositions, they re#orted turnover intentions using a C;item scale used /y $ayne et al*
2<EE>3* Em#loyees re#orted their level of agreement using a >;#oint scale, ranging
/et!een < M strongly disagree to > M strongly agree* An exam#le item is 86 am seriously
thin%ing of :uitting my Ao/9 2 M *F>3*
Turnover* Three and one half years follo!ing organi)ational entry 2Time -3,
information regarding ne! executive turnover !as gathered from com#any records* .f
the <=F executives !ho #artici#ated in this study at Time <, =F left the organi)ation /y
Time - 2-,L3* 6n addition to turnover, !e gathered the dates of se#aration to examine
the length of stay in the organi)ation*
The methods relating to the measurement and analysis of turnover have garnered
considera/le attention 2e*g*, "ic%ter et al*, <EE=G 1uselid D "ay, <EE<G Morita et al*,
<EE?G Singer D $illett, <EE<3* The general consensus is that .LS regression is
ina##ro#riate !hen dealing !ith /inary de#endent varia/les 2e*g*, 1uselid D "ay, <EE<G
Morita et al*, <EE?3* As Morita et al* 2<EE?3 noted, examining !hen an event such as
turnover ha##ens as !ell as !hether it ha##ens is more informative than !hat logistic
and #ro/it regression can test* Therefore, researchers recommend using survival analysis
!hen examining actual turnover* Survival analysis examines /oth !hen and if turnover
occurs* Singer and $illett 2<EE<3 offer guidelines for survival analyses* .f these, !e
follo!ed several suggestions such as gathering longitudinal data, having a s#ecific 8start9
time such as entry, gathering data over a meaningful #eriod of time so that the event has a
chance to occur, com#aring res#ondents and non;res#ondents to ensure no maAor
differences exist, re#orting the survivor function, examining interactions, and examining
LMX to Performance and Turnover 21
the sha#e of the ha)ard #rofile*
$e calculated days stayed as the num/er of days /et!een the day each ne!
executive com#leted a Time + survey and the day they :uit or Time -. $e did not
o#erationali)e the num/er of days stayed starting from their date of entry, /ecause this
!ould involve using LMX 2a Time + varia/le3 to #redict survival /efore Time +*
1o!ever, /ecause Time + !as exactly three months after the start date for each
individual, calculating the days stayed starting from the day executives start their ne!
#ositions did not change the results* Those !ho eventually left the organi)ation had /een
!ith the organi)ation for an average of =-? days 2S" M ?C>3* The average num/er of
days remaining for the entire sam#le 2/oth leavers and those !ho remained3 !as <,,<>
2S" M -,?3* The earliest time anyone in our sam#le left !as +, days after com#leting the
Time + survey*
#eplication $ample* 6n addition to this executive sam#le, !e !anted to gather
additional data in order to address the concern that our interaction results might not
generali)e to other #o#ulations* Therefore, !e gathered data from <,+ !or%ing adults at a
5niversity located in the orth!est using a sno!/all sam#ling techni:ue* 'o/s of the
#artici#ants !ere diverse and included financial analysts, test engineers, and sales*
Partici#ants !ere an average of +F years old 2S" M =*F?3, had an average of <, years of
!or% ex#erience 2S" M =*,-3, and =,L of the res#ondents !ere male*
All of the measures collected !ere #arallel to the executive sam#le to examine
1y#othesis C 2LMX, extraversion, turnover intentions, and the control varia/les of
gender, age, and #art;time@full;time !or% status3* &ecause manager ratings and actual
turnover !ere not availa/le for this sam#le, !e did not test hy#otheses involving
LMX to Performance and Turnover 22
#erformance or actual turnover 21y#otheses - and =3*
Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are #resented in Ta/le <* &efore
testing our hy#otheses, !e examined the relationshi#s /et!een res#ondents and non;
res#ondents for the main sam#le as !ell as /et!een the varia/les of interest, and several
demogra#hic control varia/les to ma%e sure significant differences did not affect our
results* &ased on t;test results, ne! executives !ho res#onded at /oth Times < and + did
not differ from Time + non;res#ondents in terms of age, gender, ne! executive status,
hours of interaction, or extraversion* 4urther, ne! executives !ho had su#eriors
com#lete a Time ? #erformance survey did not differ from those !ho did not in terms of
age, gender, ne! executive status, hours of interaction, extraversion, LMX, or turnover
intentions* And finally, there !ere no differences among those !ho #artici#ated in our
study and those !ho did not in terms of num/er of days remaining on the Ao/ or actual
turnover rate*
6n order to examine the #otential influence of control varia/les, !e examined the
correlation matrix* As seen in Ta/le <, age and gender !ere correlated !ith extraversion*
6n addition, gender !as #ositively related to LMX :uality and negatively correlated !ith
turnover intentions* 4inally, num/er of hours of interaction !as #ositively correlated
!ith LMX* Therefore, !e controlled for age, gender, and hours of interaction in all
analyses /ut not for em#loyee status, as it !as unrelated to our varia/les of interest*
In order to test hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 5, we performed two separate moderated
hierarchical regression analyses. In the first step, we regressed job performance and
turnover intentions on employee age, gender, and hours of interaction, as well as
LMX to Performance and Turnover 23
extraversion after it was centered. In the second step, we entered LMX after it was
centered. The coefficient estimate at this step provided tests of Hypotheses 1 and 2. Then,
in the third step we entered the product of the centered LMX and extraversion to the
equation (Aiken & West, 1991), providing tests of Hypotheses 4 and 5.
We tested Hypotheses 3 and 6 via survival analysis. Because there were several
individuals who remained with the organization at the conclusion of the study, the
turnover data were right censored (meaning that a majority of the sample did not leave
the organization during our data collection). Therefore, following Singer and Willett
(1991) we utilized survival analysis via Coxs proportional hazard model. The dependent
variable in these analyses was the number of days before turnover occurred.
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Our analyses suggested that LMX was significantly related to both job performance ( = .
31, t = 2.64, p < .05) and turnover intentions ( = -.35, t = -4.01, p < .01), providing
support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. LMX explained 10% of the variance in job performance
and 11% of the variance in turnover intentions, after controlling for employee age,
gender, hours of interaction, and extraversion.
In order to test Hypothesis 3, we first plotted the sample survivor profile as
recommended by Singer and Willett (1991). Specifically, we examined the probability of
remaining with the organization (the survival function) for individuals high and low in
LMX. Figure 1 depicts the survival functions for low LMX (below mean) and high LMX
(above mean) levels. These curves suggest that the survival rate was higher for
individuals high in LMX.
Survival curves provide preliminary information about the differences between
LMX to Performance and Turnover 24
groups, but because our interest was in examining the more complex relationship of the
interaction between LMX and extraversion, this plot does not provide an actual test of
our hypotheses. Therefore, we used the results from the Cox proportional hazard model,
which is able to test more complex models (Singer & Willett, 1991). The results from the
second step of the Cox regression suggested that the coefficient for LMX was significant
( = -.44, Wald = 4.44, p < .05) and that the coefficient was in the expected direction. In
addition, the change in
2
when LMX was added to the equation was significant (
2
(1)
= 4.14, p < .05). LMX was negatively related to the hazard ratio such that, one standard
deviation increase in LMX was associated with a 36% decrease in the odds of leaving.
These results provided support for Hypothesis 3.
Hierarchical regression results presented in Tables 2 and 3 provided preliminary
support for Hypotheses 4 and 5, as the interaction terms of LMX and extraversion were
significantly related to performance and turnover intentions. In order to examine the
pattern of relationships, we plotted the significant interactions following the procedure
described by Cohen and Cohen (1983).
Figure 2 depicts the relation between LMX and performance at high and low values
of extraversion (one standard deviation above and below the mean). Post-hoc analyses
(Aiken & West, 1991) demonstrated that, as expected, there was a positive relationship
between LMX and job performance only for individuals low in extraversion (introverts)
( = .58, t = 4.12, p < .01), but the relationship was not significant for individuals high in
extraversion ( = -.01, t = -.06, p > .05). The interaction term explained 10% of the
variance in job performance and the entire model accounted for 19%. These results
provided support for Hypothesis 4.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 25
Figure 3 depicts the nature of the relationship between LMX and turnover
intentions at high and low levels of extraversion. Supporting Hypothesis 5, there was a
negative relationship between LMX and turnover intentions for individuals low in
extraversion (introverts) ( = -.53, t = -4.78, p < .01), but no relationship for individuals
high in extraversion ( = -.03, t = -.26, p > .05). The interaction term accounted for 5% of
the variance in turnover intentions and the entire model accounted for 24%.
Proportional hazard model results provided support for Hypothesis 6. As presented
in Table 4, the interaction term was significantly related to the hazard rate (= .47, Wald
= 7.24, p < .01). Following Aiken and Wests (1991) technique, we found that for
individuals high in extraversion, there was no relationship between LMX and the hazard
rate ( = .06, Wald = .04, p > .05). However, for individuals low in extraversion, LMX
was negatively related to the hazard rate ( = -1.02, Wald = 11.92, p < .01), meaning
that LMX was negatively related to the probability of turnover. We also calculated the D
statistic, which is similar to the R
2
used in regressions, following the formula reported in
Sheridan (1992). The interaction term explained 7% of the variance in hazard rates, and
the overall model explained 11%. These results provided support for Hypothesis 6.
We also tested the proportional hazards assumption inherent in Cox regression
(Singer & Willett, 1991). We plotted hazard functions for different levels of all
predictors, and found the hazard plots to be parallel in all cases. Furthermore, we entered
the interaction term of our variables of interest (LMX and extraversion) with time into the
equation, and found them to be nonsignificant. These analyses indicated that the
proportionality assumption was not violated.
#eplication of results* $e tested 1y#othesis C using the re#lication sam#le of
LMX to Performance and Turnover 26
!or%ing adults* $e ran a hierarchical moderated regression in !hich !e regressed
turnover intentions on the control varia/les, LMX, and extraversion in the first ste# and
the interaction term in the second ste#* The interaction term of extraversion and LMX
!as significantly related to turnover intentions 2 M *<E, t M +*+-, # N *,C3* The
interaction term ex#lained ?L of the variance in turnover intentions* The #lot of the
interaction in 4igure - sho!s that the relationshi# /et!een LMX and turnover intentions
!as stronger for introverts than for extraverts* These findings are consistent !ith the
findings from the executive sam#le* Thus, !e esta/lished that the results for 1y#othesis
C re#licated in our general adult !or%ing #o#ulation*
Discussion
At the outset of this article we argued that organizations that are able to maximize
the effectiveness of their new executives have a competitive advantage over those that do
not. Yet, few studies have examined the socialization of senior-level executives. We
proposed that extraversion moderates the relation between LMX quality, executive
performance, and withdrawal.
Strong support was found for all the hypothesized moderating relationships, as
evidenced by R
2
for the interaction terms ranging between 5% and 10% above the main
effects and control variables. We found support for the expectation that extraversion
would moderate the relationship between LMX, turnover intentions, and turnover. Our
findings also support the idea that performance is related to LMX, but that this
relationship must take into account the personality of the employee being rated such that
new executives low on extraversion need the support of organizational insiders, such as
their immediate superiors, to help them succeed and remain with the organization.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 27
At the multivariate level, the performance of extraverts appeared unrelated to LMX
with extraverts performing at the same level regardless of their LMX relationships.
Conversely, for introverts, having a high LMX relationship was critical to high
performance. Those individuals who were introverted and who were unable to establish a
high LMX relationship had lower ratings of performance.
Our results indicated that high LMX and high extraversion provided similar
advantages to new executives, such that only for relatively introverted executives was
LMX significantly related to performance, turnover intentions, and turnover. The job of
executive-level employees requires social interaction, networking, and dealing with novel
situations. Extraverts may manage these situations via their more attention seeking
personality whereas introverts seem to need the assistance of high LMX relationships.
Thus, for an introverted executive, a high LMX relationship seems essential for success,
but extraverts ability to seek social interaction, resources, and support suggests that
extraversion may serve as a substitute for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).
Even though we hypothesized that extraversion would act as a moderator of LMX,
it is also possible to interpret the results in a way in which LMX is the moderator. In
other words, our results could be interpreted such that high LMX acts as a substitute for
extraversion. Our results indicate that there would be a difference in performance and
turnover between introverts and extraverts for only those with low LMX. This is an
encouraging finding, given that personality is a fairly stable construct that is not likely to
change over short periods of time. Even though extraverts seem to be at an advantage as
new executives, introverts can deal with their limitations by seeking and forming high
LMXs with their immediate managers.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 28
Taken together, it seems apparent that personality matters to new employees, at
least at the executive level. It is interesting to note that this sample had a relatively high
level of extraversion (the average was 6.67 on a 9 point scale). Future research should be
conducted to see if these relationships hold in other samples of employees who hold
lower-level positions and/or have more variance in terms of personality, as research has
shown that different behaviors for success are needed for those above and below middle
management (e.g., McCauley et al., 1994).
Implications
In terms of turnover intentions and turnover, it is apparent that those who are
introverted and do not have high-quality LMX relationships are the most vulnerable
executives. This has important implications for organizations as they invest large sums
of money in new hires, especially at the executive level, and a loss of a high-level
employee can also cause potential problems for competitiveness. This study was
conducted in the pharmaceutical industry where industry secrets are closely held and
information is an important commodity. This underscores the need to work with new
executives, especially those who are more introverted, to enhance retention.
Extraverts were rated more highly in terms of performance at the bivariate level.
This implies that organizations may want to consider including some measures of
personality in their selection batteries. This is consistent with findings by Barrick and
Mount (1991) that show personality relating to job outcomes for managers. Conversely,
the negative effects of introversion on task performance can be ameliorated by building
effective relationships with managers. Organizations can maximize the effectiveness of
their human resources by reaching out to more introverted employees in terms of
LMX to Performance and Turnover 29
mentoring or even providing LMX training for superiors as described in Scandura and
Graen (1984) as a way to smooth the transition for introverted employees.
It is also possible that the observed lower performance for introverts in low LMX
relationships reflects an observation bias on the part of the senior executives who were
rating performance. For example, the true performance of introverts, who are less likely
to seek out interactions, may go unnoticed. Conversely, it may be that extraverts are
better able to communicate and clarify their ideas with their superiors even given a
relatively low-quality exchange. However, it is also possible that for executives, the
ability to communicate with others is a key job performance dimension, thus the ratings
may reflect a true difference in performance levels based on personality. Therefore, it
would be helpful to extend the present study with future research that includes objective
performance ratings and/or peer performance ratings.
Another set of interesting findings revolved around the demographics of new
executive age and gender that were unrelated to superior ratings of performance.
However, men, 59% of the new executive employee sample, reported having higher-
quality LMX relationships than women while women reported having higher turnover
intentions. This pattern of findings is consistent with previous research demonstrating a
subtle difference in how men and women perceive the environment at higher levels of the
organization (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). We would characterize this Fortune 500
organization as a traditional, hierarchical organization. The superiors who participated in
this sample were primarily male (75% of the sample) and previous research on executives
has found that women and younger employees may have a harder time forming strong
relationships (Lyness & Thompson, 2000) and receiving developmental job experiences
LMX to Performance and Turnover 30
(Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994). This may, in part, relate to the glass ceiling
that has been reported to exist in Fortune 500 organizations (Davies-Netzley, 1998;
Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Future research is encouraged that further examines the role
that gender and age play in the formation of strong LMX relationships for new executives
to ensure a level playing field and welcoming environment.
Potential Limitations
Although 168 new executives and 111 senior executives participated, the final
sample used for this study was 116 new executives (50% response rate) with 67 for the
performance analyses (29% response rate). While these response rates are consistent
with previous longitudinal, new employee studies (Bauer et al., 1998), a potential concern
exists that the lack of power somehow comprised our findings. The usual concern with
low power is typically one of inability to detect true differences (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
The concern for low power is even more evident in studies of interaction; where
problems such as small sample size, unreliability in predictor variables, and range
restriction in predictor variables are cited as some reasons interactions often go
undetected (Aguinis & Stone-Romero, 1997). These concerns are lessened here due to the
strong support garnered for all of the interaction hypotheses. Interaction effects are very
difficult to detect, and account for 1 to 3% of the variance (Aiken & West, 1991). The
interactions we examined accounted for 5-10% of the variance in our outcomes.
Therefore, the moderation effects detected seem strong in comparison, and our ability to
detect them with a modest sample size may be indicative of the magnitude of the effect
sizes in the overall population. In fact, for the R
2
found here for the interaction, our
power was .84 (Borenstein, Rothstein, & Cohen, 2001).
LMX to Performance and Turnover 31
Another potential concern regarding the sample size is generalizability. However,
our response and non-response analyses revealed no differences between respondents and
non-respondents at Times 2 or 3. Further, no differences were found between participants
and non-participants in terms of actual days on the job, or in their actual turnover rates.
This implies that our sample was not overly skewed in terms of the study variables.
Finally, we were able to replicate the interaction finding for turnover intentions with a
cross-section of lower-level jobs. This leads us to be less concerned about
generalizability. Nonetheless, future research that extends the generalizability of this
study is encouraged.
In addition, correlations between two measures may be inflated if both are obtained
from the same person at the same point in time using the same data collection technique.
We designed this study to minimize this potential limitation. Our data collection was
across three time periods over several months and then again after 3 1/2 years which
should mitigate common stimulus cues and consistent responding. Also, data were
collected from three sources: superiors, new executives, as well as from organizational
records. This eliminates the concern of common method bias for those measures. And
third, tests were run conservatively by controlling for any additional variables that were
theoretically related and which covaried with predictors and criteria (in this case age,
gender, and interaction hours). Therefore, we have confidence that the observed
relationships are not simply due to common method variance.
A final limitation is our inability to make causal inferences, a shortcoming that
plagues non-experimental research. It is difficult to address causality, even in a
longitudinal study, because we cannot know how respondent cognitions influence
LMX to Performance and Turnover 32
behaviors occurring between data collections. For example, when performance is
measured at a later time than LMX, leaders may be thinking about the performance of
subordinates prior to that measurement, and this could influence future interactions.
Liden, Wayne, and Stilwells (1993), finding that LMX relationships appear to form
within the first two weeks post-entry, largely based on perceived similarity and liking and
not performance, indicates an LMX to performance causal direction. In fact, researchers
(e.g., Bauer & Green, 1996) have argued that the relationship between LMX and
performance is probably reciprocal. It would be helpful to have future research
specifically address this issue of causality.
With respect to causality between LMX and turnover, it is important to note that
none of the executives in our sample left their jobs before three months. To the extent
that Liden et als (1993) finding that LMX relationships formed in two weeks generalizes
to other organizations, it is unlikely that turnover intentions would determine LMX
quality. We contend that newcomers who have exerted the effort associated with
searching for and transitioning into a new position would not have decided within the
first two weeks that they wanted to leave the organization. Therefore, although we
acknowledge that it is possible for turnover intentions to drive LMX, we feel that an
LMX to turnover causal direction is much more likely.
As noted earlier, executives are key organizational members who have the ability to
shape and influence the decisions made regarding a variety of important factors. We
identified key factors that may help or hinder new executives to get up to speed quickly
and to remain with the organization. This study illustrates the importance of personality
as a moderator of the LMX to outcome relationship for new executives. We found that
LMX to Performance and Turnover 33
high LMX is helpful in achieving new executive adjustment, but only for introverted
executives. Extraverted new executives are likely to be successful in their new positions,
but the same benefits can be achieved among introverts who succeed in forming high
LMX relationships with their superiors. Our results demonstrate the importance of paying
attention to both personality and relationships for executive development.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 34
References
Ai%en, L*S*, D $est, S*0* 2<EE<3* Multiple regression% Testing and interpreting interactions*
e!/ury Par%, (A: Sage*
Aguinis, 1*, D Stone;Romero, E* 4* 2<EE>3* Methodological artifacts in moderated multi#le
regression and their effects on statistical #o!er* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (), <E+;+,=*
Ashton, M* (*, Lee, H*, D Paunonen, S* J* 2+,,+3* $hat is the central feature of extraversionO
Social attention versus re!ard sensitivity* "ournal of Personality and $ocial Psychology' (*,
+-C;+C+*
&arric%, M* R*, D Mount, M* H* 2<EE<3* The /ig five #ersonality dimensions and Ao/ #erformance:
A meta;analysis* Personnel Psychology' ++' <;+=*
&auer, T* *, D 0reen, S* 0* 2<EE=3* "evelo#ment of leader;mem/er exchange: A longitudinal
test* &cademy of Management "ournal' *,, <C?F;<C=>*
&auer, T* *, D 0reen, S* 0* 2<EEF3* Testing the com/ined effects of ne!comer information
see%ing and manager /ehavior on sociali)ation* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (*, >+;F?*
&auer, T* *, Morrison, E* $*, D (allister, R* R* 2<EEF3* .rgani)ational sociali)ation: A revie!
and directions for future research* #esearch in Personnel and Human #esources Management'
-., <-E;+<-*
&orenstein, M*, Rothstein, 1*, D (ohen, '* 2+,,<3* Po/er and precision* Engle!ood, ': &iostat, 6nc*
&o)ionelos, * 2+,,?3* 6ntra;organi)ational net!or% resources: Relation to career success and
#ersonality* International "ournal of 0rgani1ational &nalysis, --, -<;==*
&rass, "*'*, &utterfield, H* "*, D S%aggs, &* (* 2<EEF3* Relationshi#s and unethical /ehavior: A
social net!or% #ers#ective* &cademy of Management #evie/' )*, 14-31.
&ureau of La/or Statistics, 2+,,,3* 5S "e#artment of La/or htt#:@@stats*/ls*gov@oco@ocos,<+*htm*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 35
&ur%e, R* '* 2<EF-3* Relationshi#s in and around organi)ations: 6t7s /oth !ho you %no! and !hat
you %no! that counts* Psychological #eports' 22, +EE;?,>*
(ohen, '*, D (ohen, P* 2<EF?3* &pplied multiple regression3correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences 2+
nd
Ed*3* 1illsdale, ': Erl/aum*
(osta, P* T*, 'r*, D Mc(rae, R* R* 2<EE+3* 4E0 PI#% Professional manual! #evised 4E0
Personality Inventory 4E0 P## and 4E0 5ive5actor Inventory 4E0##I! .dessa, 4L:
Psychological Assessment Resources, 6nc*
(rant, '* M* 2<EEC3* The #roactive #ersonality scale and o/Aective #erformance among real estate
agents* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (6, C?+;C?>*
Davies-Netzley, S. A. (1998). Women above the glass ceiling: Perceptions on corporate mobility
and strategies for success. Gender and Society, 12, 339-355.
"e#ue, R* A* D (ollins, P* 4* 2<EEE3* euro/iology of the structure of #ersonality: "o#amine
facilitation of incentive motivation and extraversion* 7ehavior and 7rain $ciences' )), -E<;
C=E*
"ic%ter, "* *, Ro)no!s%i, M*, D 1arrison, "* A* 2<EE=3* Tem#oral tem#ering: An event history
analysis of the #rocess of voluntary turnover* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (-, >,C;><=*
"igman, '* M* 2<EE,3* Personality structure: Emergence of the five;factor model* &nnual #evie/
of Psychology' +-' -<>P--,*
Eisen/erger, R*, Stinglham/er, 4*, Janden/erghe, (*, Suchars%i, 6* L*, D Rhoades, L* 2+,,+3*
Perceived su#ervisor su##ort: (ontri/utions to #erceived organi)ational su##ort and em#loyee
retention* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (8' 2.228*!
Erdogan, &*, D Liden, R* (* 2+,,+3* Social exchanges in the !or%#lace: A revie! of recent
develo#ments and future research directions in leader;mem/er exchange theory* 6n L* L*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 36
eider, D (* A* Schriesheim 2Eds*3, Leadership 2##* =C;<<-3* 0reen!ich, (T: 6nformation
Age Pu/lishing*
4erris, 0* R* 2<EFC3* Role of leadershi# in the em#loyee !ithdra!al #rocess: A constructive
re#lication* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' 86, >>>;>F<*
0erstner, (* R*, D "ay, "* J* 2<EE>3* Meta;analytic revie! of leader;mem/er exchange theory:
(orrelates and construct issues* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (), F+>;F--*
0raen, 0* &*, Liden, R* (*, D 1oel, $* 2<EF+3* Role of leadershi# in the em#loyee !ithdra!al
#rocess* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' .8, F=F;F>+*
0raen, 0* &*, D Scandura, T* A* 2<EF>3* To!ard a #sychology of dyadic organi)ing* #esearch on
0rgani1ational 7ehavior' ,' <>C;+,F*
1uselid, M* A*, D "ay, * E* 2<EE<3* .rgani)ational commitment, Ao/ involvement, and turnover:
A su/stantive and methodological analysis* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' 8., ?F,;?E<*
'a/lin, 4* M* 2+,,,3* .rgani)ational entry, assimilation, and disengagement@exit* 6n 4* M* 'a/lin D
L* L* Putnam 2Eds*3 The ne/ handboo9 of organi1ational communication 2##* >?+;F<F3*
Thousand .a%s, (A: Sage*
'udge, T* A*, &ono, '* E*, 6lies, R*, D 0erhardt, M* $* 2+,,+3* Personality and leadershi#: A
:ualitative and :uantitative revie!* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (8, >=C;>F,*
'udge, T* A*, (a/le, "* M*, &oudreau, '*$*, D &ret), R* "* 2<EEC3* An em#irical investigation of
the #redictors of executive career success* Personnel Psychology' +(' -FC;C<E*
'udge, T* A*, Martochhio, '* '*, D Thoresen, (* '* 2<EE>3* 4ive;factor model of #ersonality and
em#loyee a/sence* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (), >-C;>CC*
Hacmar, H* M*, (arlson, "* S*, D &rymer, R* A* 2<EEE3* Antecedents and conse:uences of
organi)ational commitment: A com#arison of t!o scales* Educational and Psychological
LMX to Performance and Turnover 37
Measurement' 2,, E>=;EE-*
Hammeyer;Mueller, '* "*, D $an/erg, (* R* 2+,,?3* 5n!ra##ing the organi)ational entry
#rocess: "isentangling multi#le antecedents and their #ath!ays* "ournal of &pplied
Psychology' ((, >>E;>E-*
Herr, S*, D 'ermier, '* M* 2<E>F3* Su/stitutes for leadershi#: Their meaning and measurement*
0rgani1ational 7ehavior and Human Performance' )), ?>C;-,?*
Hraimer, M* L*, $ayne, S* '*, D 'a!ors%i, R*A* 2+,,<3* Sources of su##ort and ex#atriate
#erformance: The mediating role of ex#atriate adAustment* Personnel Psychology' 2+' ><;EE*
Hramer, M* $* 2<EEC3* A longitudinal study of su#erior;su/ordinate communication during Ao/
transfers* Human Communication #esearch' )), ?E;=-*
Hramer, M* $*, (allister, R* R*, D Tur/an, "* &* 2<EEC3* 6nformation;giving and information;
receiving during Ao/ transitions* :estern "ournal of Communication' 2,' <C<;<>,*
Lee, T* $*, Mitchell, T* R*, Sa/lyns%i, (* '*, &urton, '* P*, D 1oltom, &* (* 2+,,-3* The effects of
Ao/ em/eddedness on organi)ational citi)enshi#, Ao/ #erformance, volitional a/sences, and
voluntary turnover* &cademy of Management "ournal' +8, ><<;>++*
Liden, R* (*, D Maslyn, '* M* 2<EEF3* Multidimensionality of leader;mem/er exchange* An
em#irical assessment through scale develo#ment* "ournal of Management' )+' -?;>+*
Liden, R* (*, S#arro!e, R* T*, D $ayne, S* '* 2<EE>3* Leader;mem/er exchange theory: The #ast and
#otential for the future* #esearch in Personnel and Human #esource Management' -2, ->;<<E*
Liden, R* (*, $ayne, S* '*, D S#arro!e, R* T* 2+,,,3* An examination of the mediating role of
#sychological em#o!erment on the relations /et!een the Ao/, inter#ersonal relationshi#s, and
!or% outcomes* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (2, -,>;-<=*
Liden, R* (*, $ayne, S* '*, D Stil!ell, "* 2<EE?3* A longitudinal study on the early develo#ment
LMX to Performance and Turnover 38
of leader;mem/er exchange* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' 8(, ==+;=>-*
Lucas, R* E*, "iener, E*, 0ro/, A*, Suh, E* M*, D Shao, L* 2+,,,3* (ross;cultural evidence for the
fundamental features of extraversion* "ournal of Personality and $ocial Psychology' 8,, -C+;-=F*
Lyness, H* S*, D Thom#son, "* E* 2<EE>3* A/ove the glass ceilingO A com#arison of matched
sam#les of female and male executives* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (), ?CE;?>C*
Lyness, H* S*, D Thom#son, "* E* 2+,,,3* (lim/ing the cor#orate ladder: "o female and male
executives follo! the same routeO "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (2, F=;<,<*
Maert), (* P*, D (am#ion, M* A* 2<EEF3* +C years of voluntary turnover research: A revie! and
criti:ue* 6n (* L* (oo#er D 6* T* Ro/ertson, International revie/ of industrial and
organi1ational psychology, vol* <?: -E;F<* e! Ior%: $iley*
Mainiero, L. A. (1994). Getting anointed for advancement: The case of executive women.
Academy of Management Executive, 8, 53-67.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal
investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating
effect of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.
Masterson, S* S*, Le!is, H*, 0oldman, &* M*, D Taylor, M* S* 2+,,,3* 6ntegrating Austice and
social exchange: The differing effects of fair #rocedures and treatment on !or% relationshi#s*
&cademy of Management "ournal' +*' >?F;>-F*
Mc(all, M* $*, Lom/ardo, M* M*, D Morrison, A* M* 2<EFF3* The lessons of experience% Ho/
successful executives develop on the ;ob! Lexington, MA: Lexington &oo%s*
Mc(auley, (* "*, Ruderman, M* *, .hlott, P* '*, D Morro!, '* E* 2<EE-3* Assessing the
develo#mental com#onents of managerial Ao/s* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' 8,, C--;C=,*
Michaels, E*, 1andfield;'ones, 1*, D Axelrod, &* 2+,,<3* The :ar for Talent! &oston, MA:
LMX to Performance and Turnover 39
1arvard &usiness School Pu/lishing*
Morita, '* 0*, Lee, T* $*, D Mo!day, R* T* 2<EE?3* The regression;analog to survival: A selected
a##lication to turnover research* &cademy of Management "ournal' *., <-?,;<-=-*
.hlott, P* '*, Ruderman, M* *, D Mc(auley, (* "* 2<EE-3* 0ender differences in managers7
develo#mental Ao/ ex#eriences* &cademy of Management "ournal' *8, -=;=>*
.verton, &* 2+,,<3* 5sing #eer grou# #erformance in executive #ay* Executive Compensation' )8
2<3, <;F*
Ragins, &* R*, To!nsend, &*, D Mattis, M* 2<EEF3* 0ender ga# in the executive suite: (E.s and
female executives re#ort on /rea%ing the glass ceiling* &cademy of Management Executive'
-), +F;-+*
Saucier, 0* 2<EE-3* Mini;mar%ers: A /rief version of 0old/erg7s uni#olar /ig;five mar%ers*
"ournal of Personality &ssessment' .*' C,=;C<=*
Scandura, T* A*, D 0raen, 0* &* 2<EF-3* Moderating effects of initial leader;mem/er exchange
status on the effects of a leadershi# intervention* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' .,' -+F;-?=*
Schiemann, W. A. (1977). The nature and prediction of organizational communication: A review
of the literature and an empirical investigation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
Champaign, IL.
Schriesheim, (* A*, (astro, S* L*, D Iammarino, 4* '* 2+,,,3* 6nvestigating contingencies: An
examination of the im#act of s#an of su#ervision and u#!ard controllingness on leader;
mem/er exchange using traditional and multivariate !ithin;and /et!een;entities analysis*
"ournal of &pplied Psychology' (2, =CE;=>>*
Sei/ert, S* E*, Hraimer, M* L*, D Liden, R* (* 2+,,<3* A social ca#ital theory of career success*
&cademy of Management "ournal, ++, +<E;+?>.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 40
Settoon, R* P*, &ennett, *, D Liden, R* (* 2<EE=3* Social exchange in organi)ations: The
differential effects of #erceived organi)ational su##ort and leader mem/er exchange* "ournal
of &pplied Psychology' (-, +<E;++>*
Sheridan, '* E* 2<EE+3* .rgani)ational culture and em#loyee retention* &cademy of Management
"ournal' *2, <,?=;<,C=*
Singer, '* "*, D $illett, '* &* 2<EE<3* Modeling the days of our lives: 5sing survival analysis
!hen designing and analy)ing longitudinal studies of duration and the timing of events*
Psychological 7ulletin' --6, +=F;+E,*
S#arro!e, R* T*, D Liden, R* (* 2<EE>3* Process and structure in leader;mem/er exchange*
&cademy of Management #evie/' )), C++;CC+*
S#arro!e, R* T*, D Liden, R* (* 2+,,?, August3* LM<' social net/or9 structure' and outcomes% &
structural model! Pa#er #resented as #art of a sym#osium entitled, 8Leaders and their social
net!or%s: An alternative a##roach to leadershi# research*9 ational meetings of the Academy
of Management, Seattle, $ashington*
Vecchio, R. P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange: A failure to
replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 478-485.
Jecchio, R* P*, 0riffeth, R* $*, D 1om, P* $* 2<EF=3* The #redictive utility of the vertical dyad
lin%age a##roach! "ournal of $ocial Psychology' -)., C<>;=+C*
$an/erg, (*R* D Hammeyer;Mueller, '*"* 2+,,,3* Predictors and outcomes of #roactivity in the
sociali)ation #rocess* "ournal of &pplied Psychology' (2' ?>?;?FC*
$atson, "*, D (lar%, L* A* 2<EE>3* Extraversion and its #ositive emotional core* 6n R* 1ogan, '*
'ohnson, D S* &riggs 2Eds*3, Handboo9 of personality psychology 2##* >=>;>E?3* San "iego,
(A: Academic Press*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 41
$ayne, S* '*, Shore, L* M*, D Liden, R* (* 2<EE>3* Perceived organi)ational su##ort and leader;
mem/er exchange: A social exchange #ers#ective* &cademy of Management "ournal' +6, F+;<<<*
$el/ourne, T* M*, 'ohnson, "* E*, D Ere), A* 2<EEF3* The role;/ased #erformance scale:
Jalidity analysis of a theory;/ased measure* &cademy of Management "ournal' +-' C-,;CCC*
Williamson, I. O., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Organizational hiring patterns, interfirm network ties,
and interorganizational imitation. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 349-358.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 42
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations among Variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age (T1) -,*E> >*,? ;
2. Gender (T1) *CE *-E *,= ;
3. Employee Status (T1) *== *-> ;*<= ;*,? ;
4. Hours of Interaction (T2) -*C= -*E? ;*<C ;*,? ;*,
+
;
5. Extraversion (T1) =*=> <*<? ;*<F
Q
;*<EQ *,- ;*,< 2*F+
3
6. LMX (T2) C*F- *>> ;*<+ *<FQ *<C *
<FQ
*<= 2*E,3
7. Turnover Intentions (T2) <*>< *F> ;*,> ;*?<Q
Q
;*<
<
*,E ;*,- ;*?>Q
Q
2*F>3
8. Job Performance (T3) -*?> *>- ;*,E ;*,> ;*,
+
*<< *+CQ *??QQ ;*,+ 2*E<
3
9. Days Stayed (T4) <,<>*<
F
-,?*<
F
*,? *,= ;*,
F
;*,C *,- *<? ;*+,
Q
*+CQ ;
4ote* n M => P <+,* 0ender !as coded < M male, , M femaleG em#loyee status !as coded < M ne! hire, , M transfereeG T< M Time <
2#re;entry, ne! executive rated3G T+ M Time + 2? months #ost;entry, ne! em#loyee rated3G T? M Time ? 2= months #ost;entry, su#erior
of ne! executive rated3G T- M Time - 2? <@+ years3* (oefficient al#ha relia/ility estimates are #resented along the diagonal* Age,
gender, em#loyee status, and days stayed in the organi)ation !ere all gathered from com#any records*

LMX to Performance and Turnover 43
Q p N *,C* QQ p N *,<*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 44
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Job Performance as the Dependent Variable
Job Performance
Variable Step 1 Step 2
21y#othesis <3
Step 3
(Hypothesis 4)
Age -.03 *,, *,,
Gender -.01 ;*,? ;*,?
Hours of Interaction .06 *,? .06
Extraversion .23 *+< *+,
LMX *?<Q *+CQ
LMX x Extraversion ;*?+QQ
R
2
*,> .10 *<,
F <*<> >*,,Q F*+=QQ
#
)
*,> *<> *+>
AdA* #
)
*,< *<, *<E
.verall 5 1.17 2.42* 3.64**
Note. n = 67 for Hypotheses 1 and 4. LMX = leader member exchange. Gender was
coded 1 = Male and 0 = Female. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
Extraversion and LMX are centered variables. Confidence intervals for the hypothesized
and supported relationships did not include zero.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 45
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Turnover Intentions as the Dependent Variable
Turnover Intentions
Variable Step 1 Step 2
21y#othesis +3
Step 3
(Hypothesis 5)
Age -.06 ;*,E ;*<,
Gender -.32** ;*+CQ ;*++QQ
Hours of Interaction .07 *<? *<+
Extraversion -.12 ;*,C ;*,-
LMX ;*?CQQ ;*?<QQ
LMX x Extraversion *+?QQ
R
2
.12 *<< *,C
F 3.79** <=*<?QQ >*>+QQ
#
)
*<+ *+? *+F
AdA* #
)
*,F *<E *+-
.verall 5 3.79** 6.67** 7.18**
Note. n = 116 for Hypotheses 2 and 5. LMX = leader member exchange. Gender was
coded 1 = Male and 0 = Female. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
Extraversion and LMX are centered variables. Confidence intervals for the hypothesized
and supported relationships did not include zero.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 46
Table 4
Results of the Proportional Hazards Model using Cox Regression
Independent Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
SE Wald Odds
Ratio
SE Wald Odds
Ratio
SE Wald Odds
Ratio
Age ;*,
<
.
02
*+, .99 ;*,
<
*
,+
*+= .99 ;*,
+
*
,+
*C- *EF
Gender ;*<
E
*
?<
*?= .83 ;*,
C
*
?+
*,+ .95 *,> *
??
*,- <*,>
Hours of Interaction *,< *
,?
*++ 1.01 *,? *
,?
*>? 1.03 *,? *
,?
<*+, <*,?
Extraversion ;*,
-
*
<-
*,E .96 ;*,
<
*
<-
*,, .99 *<+ *
<C
*CF <*<+
LMX ;*-
-
*
+<
-*--
Q
.64 ;*-
E
*
++
C*+?Q *=<
LMX x Extraversion *-> *
<>
>*+-Q
Q
<*=<

2
*F= 4.14* 6.86**

2
*F> 5.30 13.32*
D *,, .04 .11
LMX to Performance and Turnover 47
Note. n = 116 for Hypothesis 6. Gender was coded 1 = Male and 0 = Female. Extraversion and LMX are centered
variables. Confidence intervals for the hypothesized relationships did not include 1. * p < .05 ** p <.01.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 48
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Sample survivals function at high and low levels of LMX.
Figure 2. The relationship between LMX and performance at high and low levels of
extraversion.
Figure 3. The relationship between LMX and turnover intentions at high and low levels
of extraversion.
Figure 4. The relationship between LMX and turnover intentions at high and low levels
of extraversion.
LMX to Performance and Turnover 49
Number of Days Stayed
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -200
S
u
r
v
i
v
a
l

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
.
.6
.!
.4
"#$
%i&%
lo'
LMX to Performance and Turnover 50
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
-1 -0.! 0 0.! 1
LMX
J
o
b

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
"o' ()traversio*
+i&% ()traversio*
LMX to Performance and Turnover 51

0
0.!
1
1.!
2
2.!
-1 -0.! 0 0.! 1
LMX
T
u
r
n
o
v
e
r

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
"o' ()traversio*
+i&% ()traversio*

LMX to Performance and Turnover 52
0
1
2
3
4
!
6

-1.! -1 -0.! 0 0.! 1 1.!

LMX
T
u
r
n
o
v
e
r

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
"o' ()traversio*
+i&% ()traversio*