Gender Effect in Leader-Member Exchange: A Study on the Healthcare Sector

Dr. Jayeeta Debnath Munshi Dr. Shamima Haque

Asst Professor Asst. Professor
School of Management Studies School of Management Studies
Techno Main Salt Lake Techno Main Salt Lake
EM – 4/1 Salt Lake Sector V EM – 4/1 Salt Lake Sector V
Kolkata – 700091 Kolkata – 700091

Email – jayeetad.m@[Link] Email – haqueshamima@[Link]

Ph No - 9830066490 Ph No - 9433224875
Abstract: Subordinates and leaders engage in a reciprocal relationship known as Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX). However, while attempting to study the link & and influence of gender on LMX, previous research yields
inconclusive data. While several research found a direct or indirect relationship, several did not link gender to
LMX. These researchers inspired one another to begin the current investigation. Finding out how gender
affected the quality of interactions between leaders and members was the aim of this study. The study was
conducted in carefully chosen workgroups under the direction of supervisors who were divided based on gender.
(Males overseeing men, men overseeing women, women overseeing women, and women overseeing women).
There is a noticeable change in the way dyad members communicate when work groups are divided based on
gender. The research also uncovered some noteworthy information concerning the impact of the demographic
factor of gender on LMX.

Keywords: Leader-Member Exchange, LMX, Dyad, Gender, Male & Female.

1. INTRODUCTION

The field of organizational and behavioural science has extensively researched leadership. The idea that
effective leadership is a key indicator of organizational success contributes to the importance of this field (Bass,
1990). Most people define leadership as a persuasion technique used to help organizations accomplish their
goals on an individual, team, and corporate level. "The affinity people have with their leader or subordinate,
which in turn shape their cultural fit, amendment of standards, and thus reactions to change, decisions of
correctness, they accomplish experience, and their commitment of work for the organization even beyond the
official-suggestion," is the definition of the leader-member relationship (Gerstner and Day, 1997, p. 34). A
defined relationship and a mechanism for analyzing how leaders and members interact that could either support
or obstruct professional success are provided by the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). There are
ramifications for many aspects of organizational life for LMX. For example, LMX research has concentrated
on worker productivity (Scandura & Graen, 1984), organizational climate, performance assessment (Wayne &
Ferris, 1990; Linden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), and so forth. However, the factors that can affect LMX may be
investigated to support conceptual frameworks. It has long been believed that organizational dynamics can be
better understood by considering demographic factors if they have an impact on LMX.
Gender roles are societal attitudes that apply to people based on their socially defined sexual identity (Eagly,
1987). Throughout history, societal attitudes depend on the concept that certain vocations, hobbies, and
emotions are more suited for one gender than the other and those concepts have been prominent and persistent.
Men are supposed to have agentic traits such as assertiveness, independence, and boldness, while women are
thought to have a high degree of communal attributes such as sociability, generosity of spirit, and care for others
(Bakan, 1966; Eagly, 2009). The characteristics given to each gender are used to make decisions on how women
and men are expected to behave at home and at work to ensure the betterment of their workgroup. People's
expectationsare influenced by gender role beliefs, as described by Eagly (2009), which influence the perceived
consequencesof interactions, attitudes, exchange quality, and participation in activities in job role definition. A
range of internal and external demographic variables influence the quality of LMX. The key demographic
characteristics are age, gender, tenure, and educational background (Malangwasira, 2013). Leaders and
subordinates can provide distinct demographic insights. This study evaluates the influence of gender
similarity/dissimilarity on LMX of the hospitals in Kolkata.

2. Research Objective

To empirically investigate the degree of correlation between leaders’ and members’ perception of the exchange
quality shared by them in the gender-similar/dissimilar groups.

3. Literature Review

LMX theory was proposed by Dansereau, Graen, Haga & Cashman in 1975. In those days the LMX was referred
to as the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) approach to accomplishment. LMX theory consequently viewed
leadership as a dyadic action between a leader and each of the subordinates differently, depending on the mutual
perception of their relationship. Schriesheim, Castro and Cogliser (1999) viewed the aboriginal Vertical Dyad
Linkage as evolving into two theoretical approaches LMX and individualized leadership. The LMX approach
has exploited measures of leader-member exchange as its central idea of exploring the perception of the
relationshipfrom both sides of the dyad but has left some dimensions open-ended. According to LMX theory,
effective leadership is achieved via the dyadic relationship of the leader and member together. These
relationships experience or are generated out of a conglomerate of social exchanges and are characterized as the
quality of therelationship between a leader and a subordinate (Schriesheim et al., 1999). LMX relationships
develop througha process of exchanging a communication of tangible and intangible commodities inside a leader-
member [Link], a leader might use resources or transactions like, information, influence, desired tasks,
latitude, support and attention, for the services of the employee, which might include task performance,
commitment, loyalty andcitizenship.

Originating from social exchange and reciprocity theories, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) display the dyadic
relationship between team members and their team boss in organizations (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Graen &
Cashman, 1975; Northouse, 2010). The Leader (supervisor) and the Member (subordinate) have a two-way
connection termed a dyad, according to LMX (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Danserau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen
& Schiemnann, 1978; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984; Deluga, 1998). According to the
notion, leaders handle each employee differently in terms of social interactions, i.e., supervisors do not engage
with subordinates in the same way (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Wayne & Green, 1993). Because supervisors have
constrained time and resources, and people have concerns and differing levels of interest in their jobs, the quality
of the interaction or exchange varies. In exchange for subordinates' performance on both scheduled and
unstructured duties, supervisors trade personal and positional resources. Sharing of significant information,
influence in decision-making, work assignment, job latitude, assistance, and attention are examples of personal
and positional resources (Graen & Cashman, 1975). This research is a helpful addition to the pool of information
to comprehend the dynamics of dyadic functioning in organizational settings in light of the demographic element
of gender, as indicated by the widespread use of LMX theory.

Past studies investigating the effect of gender on leadership styles have found strong evidence supporting gender
differences in organizational context, where women tend to adopt a more democratic, participativestyle, whereas,
men would apply a more autocratic and directive style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; 1996). As notedby Ansari (1989),
male leaders exhibited a greater likelihood of using influence tactics such as negative sanction, assertiveness,
reward, and exchange as compared to female leaders. Other researchers such as Carothers and Allen (1999) also
concluded that males changed tactics from reward to coercion whenever challenged while females continued to
use requests when insulted. Some previous research mentioned a remarkable fact that both male and female
supervisors exhibit a positive bias toward subordinates of the same sex and rate membersof the same gender
higher (Varma & Stroh, 2001). Gender match affected LMX in a Malaysian setting, which led to organizational
support (Bhal, Ansari and Aafaqi, 2007). Males had a more positive LMX relationship under male supervision,
while females had a more positive LMX relationship under female supervision, with a significant interaction
between supervisor gender and subordinate gender, highlighting different patterns of exchange between the two
groups (Milner, Katz, Fisher & Notrica, 2007). The gender of the supervisors, on the other hand, had no
significant impact on LMX encounters (May-Chiun, Ramayah, Ernest, 2009). A study of Indonesian
government officials found that gender had a direct impact on LMX (Santoso & Franksiska, 2019) Hence, from
the above backdrop the specific focus of this study is to examine whether gender can influence leader-member
exchange quality significantly or not.

4. Research Design

4.1. Research question

Does gender influence leader-member exchange quality across workgroups in hospitals of Kolkata?

4.2. Sample description

The sample size for the study is 594, with an age range from 19 to 65 years. The sample for the study was organized
department-wise and selected using clustered & structured sampling techniques. A questionnaire was
administered (4 Private & 4 Public healthcare organizations) to the identified leader and member sets (at least
2 dyads from each department).

An average score of members LMX of each work group under the leader is computed (97 scores) and considered
for comparison with the leader's score. The groups are then categorized into male-male Leader-Member groups,
female-female Leader-Member groups and mixed Leader-Member groups and the groups are comprised of 25,
38 and 34 samples respectively.

4.3. Hypothesis
a) Gender has an impact on LMX of groups with male leaders and male members.
b) Gender has an impact on LMX of groups with female leaders and female members.
c) Does gender have an impact on LMX of groups with mixed-gender leaders & members?

4.4. Statistical Tool used

Pearson's correlation test is conducted to understand the strength and direction of the relationship between leader
and member perception of relationship quality in work groups with male-male or female-female or male/female-
female/male composition in hospitals of Kolkata.

4.5. Description of the instrument & scoring interpretation

LMX-7 scale used in this study contains items that ask to describe the individual perception of LMX relationship
with leader or subordinates (one at a time). The score obtained on the questionnaire scale reflects the quality of
the leader–member relationships under test and indicates the degree to which the relationships are effective. To
interpret LMX 7 scores the point mentioned in the scale as very high has a range of value between 30–35, high
can be marked for the range of 25–29, moderate lies between 20–24, low can be 15–19, and very low is 7-14.
Scores in the upper ranges indicate stronger, higher-quality leader–member exchanges (e.g., in-group members),
whereas scores in the lower ranges indicate exchanges of lesser quality (e.g., out-group members). (G. B. Graen
and M. Uhl-Bien, 1995).

5. Results

Pearson’s correlation analysis is conducted to understand the statistical relationship between male leaders’ and
male members’ perception of Leader-Member Exchange quality.

i. Pearson’s Correlation between Gender Similar Dyads ---Leader (Male) & Member (Male)

Table 1:
 Correlations: Male Leader LMX & Male Members LMX

Male-Leader Male-Member
Leader-Member Leader-Member
Exchange Exchange

Pearson Correlation 1 .584**

Male-Leader
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
Leader-Member
N 25 25
Exchange
Pearson Correlation .584** 1

Male-Member Sig. (2-tailed) .002

Leader-Member
Exchange N 25 25

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The test yields a p-value less than 0.01 (p<0.01), hence the association in the research question is statistically
significant. The direction of the relationship is positive & the strength of the relationship is medially strong with
a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.584. LMX quality perceived by leaders and members in the male-male group
has a medium correlational value.

ii. Pearson’s Correlation between Gender Similar Dyads – Leader (Female) & Member (Female)

Table 2:
Correlations: Female Leader LMX & Female Members LMX

Female-Leader Female-Member
Leader-Member Leader-Member
Exchange Exchange

Pearson Correlation 1 .678**

Female-Leader Leader-
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
MemberExchange
N 38 38

Female-Member Pearson Correlation .678** 1

Leader-Member Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Exchange
 N 38 38

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

When the test is conducted to understand the statistical relationship between female leaders' and female
members' perception of Leader-Member Exchange quality, the test yields a p-value less than 0.01 (p<0.01),
hence the correlation is statistically significant. The direction of the relationship is positive & the strength of the
relationship is strong with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.678. LMX quality perceived by leaders and members
infemale-female groups has a strong correlational value.

iii. Pearson’s Correlation between Gender Dissimilar Dyads – Leader (Male / Female) & Member
(Female / Male)

Table3:
Correlations: Male/Female Leader LMX & Female / Male Members LMX

Mixed- Leader- Mixed-Member

Leader- Leader-Member
Member Exchange
Exchange
Pearson 1 .747**

Mixed-Leader Leader Correlation

Member-Exchange Sig. 2-tailed) .000

N 34 34

Pearson .747** 1
Mixed-Member Correlation
Leader-
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Member
N 34 34
Exchange
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The third correlational test is conducted to understand the statistical relationship between a mixed category of
leaders’and mixed-group members’ perception of Leader-Member Exchange quality. The test yields a p-value
less than
0.01 (p<0.01), hence the association is statistically significant. The direction of the relationship is positive &
the strength of the relationship is very strong with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0. 747. LMX quality perceived
by leaders and members in male-female/female-male groups has a high correlational value.

6. Finding
When compared it can be seen that the gender-dissimilar dyads show the highest leader-LMX & member-LMX
correlation (R-value) when correlation analysis is conducted to understand the statistical relationship between
the two.

Table 4:
Comparison between results

Respective Leader-Member
Exchanges

Pearson Correlation 1 .584**

All Male- Leader-
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
MemberExchange
N 25 25

Pearson Correlation .678** 1

All Female Leader-
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
MemberExchange
N 38 38

Pearson Correlation .747** 1

Mixed Team- Leader-
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
MemberExchange
N 34 34

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Gender appears to have interesting implications when used as a marker of evaluation. When an attempt was
madeto understand how gender-similar & dissimilar dyads would perceive leader-member relationship quality,
it wasseen that in the case of both the dyadic partners being male, the correlation is least, which increases when
both the dyadic partners are female. However, the degree of perceptual agreement of the LMX quality is highest
when the workgroup is heterogeneous in composition, i.e., male and female combination for leader and members,
forthe sample under test. The direction of the relationship is positive in all three cases and the strength of the
relationshipvaries from medium to strong.

7. Discussion & Conclusion

The perception of the male or female leader about their male or female member in a heterogeneous group is
generally better than homogeneous combinations, as it cancels the normal ego-clashes between the same
genders. Both dyad-members, in gender dissimilar work groups generally perceive the relationship in a
convergent
manner or has agreement in perception because it is perceived probably based on interactions, communications
and behavioural patterns that the dyad shares in daily operational activities (Hogg, 1992; Sias, 1996; Graen &
Scandura, 1987). The results can be explained in line with previous research where the acceptance &
reciprocation of positive exchange is largely dependent on followers’ way of accepting their leader(Graen et al.,
1982; Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986). Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003) reported on components that might
comprise reciprocal behaviour like similar interest, patterns of competition & mutual affection, highlighted as
factors enhancing positive relationships. This kind of relationship is generally blessed with mutual interests and
high-quality exchange. Gender is a significant predictor of LMX relationship quality and many other factors
may impact the perceptual agreement between the leader and the member (Matkin &Barbuto, 2012; Pelled &
Xix, 2000; Milner et al., 2007; Thomas, 2013).

In the case of gender similar workgroups, the LMX correlation is positive; more specifically female-female
combination shows a slightly stronger relationship when compared to the male-male dyadic combination. That
the intention to engage in activities that enhance mutual trust and obligations co-dependence is high for gender-
similar groups. But when gender heterogeneous workgroup is being investigated the LMX correlation is very
strong. This can have a plausible explanation for the characteristics of LMX for the management in particular.
Same employees often share different qualities of bond with different leaders with change in situational or
professional reasons (Kim et al., 2013). But when the gender of dyadic partners is dissimilar, LMX is high,
probablybecause employees are super-conscious that their LMX will somewhat reflect their acceptance towards
opposite gender subordinate or boss (Kark & Manor, 2003; Thomas, 2013). However, in gender-similar dyads,
due to congruence or perceptual similarity concerning attributes like feminine or expressive behaviours (e.g.,
empathy) in the case of females and masculine or instrumental behaviours (e.g., competitiveness) in the case of
males, the perceptual agreement is discretionary & contingent. Kidder and Parks (2001) indicated that LMX is
highlyconsistent within the female group due to the characteristic of similarity regarding sincerity towards work
and the requirement of obvious dependence on each other to maintain family urgencies. It is less consistent in
male groups due to common ego clashes between males. Both are fundamental and common characteristics of
the mentioned genders. These research findings can be used by both hospital management and academia to asses
such relationships while taking any strategic decisions and might add value for future research in the behavioural
field.
 References

 Bass, B. M. (1985). ‘Leadership and performance beyond expectation’, New York: Free Press.

 Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. 2000, ‘A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust
and leader-member exchange’, Leadership Quarterly, 11: 227–250.
 Bhal KT, Ansari. MA, ‘Measuring quality of interaction between leaders and members’, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 26 (11), 945-0972.
 Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B., & Haga, W. (1975), ‘A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal
organizations’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
 Deluga, R. J. 1994, ‘Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship
behaviour’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,315–326.
 Desimone, L., C, Greenwich, CT 2002, ‘Toward a more refined theory of school effects: A study of the
relationship between professional community and mathematics teaching in early elementary school. Research
and Theory in Educational Administration, Miskel & W. Hoy (eds.), Information Age Publishing, 8. 67-89.
 Dienesch, R. M, Liden, R. C 1986, ‘Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development’, Journal of Academy of Management Review [AMR], 11, 618 – 634
 Deluga R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,315–326.
 Dienesch, R. M, Liden, R. C (1986), Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Journal of Academy of Management Review [AMR], 11, 618 - 634.
 Evans, Martin G 1970, ‘The effects of supervisory behaviour on the path-goal relationship', Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 5: 277–298.
 Ferris G. 1985, ‘Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70(4): 777-781.
 Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997) “Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and
construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-844.
 Gomez, C., & Rosen, B. 2001, ‘The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and employee
empowerment’,. Group and Organization Management, 26, 53-69.
 Graen, G.B. 1976, ‘Role making processes within complex organizations’, M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
 Graen, G.B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A
developmental approach, In: J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers (pp. 143-166). Kent, OH:
Kent State University Press.
 Graen, George B. and Uhl-Bien, Mary 1995, ‘Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain
Perspective’, Management Department Faculty Publications. Paper 57.

 Hersey. P and Blanchard. K.H. (1969). Management of Organizational Behaviour: Utilization of human
resources. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
 House, Robert J 1996, ‘Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory’, Leadership
Quarterly. 7 (3): 323–352.

 Jagendorf, J. & Malekoff, A. 2005, ‘Groups-on-the-go: Spontaneously formed mutual aid groups for adolescents
in distress’, in Malekoff, A., & Kurland, R. (eds.). A quarter century of classics (1978- 2004): Capturing the
theory, practice, and spirit of social work with groups. The Haworth Press

 Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, p. 528). New York: Wiley.
 Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. 1980, ‘Generalizing ability, of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership’, Academy
of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
 Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M 1998, ‘Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment
through scale development’, Journal of Management, 24, 43-73.
 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. 1939, 'Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created climates’,
Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271-99.
 Milner, K., Katz, L.-A., Fisher, J., & Notrica, V. (2007). Gender and the Quality of the Leader-Member
Exchange: Findings from a South African Organisation. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 316– 329.
[Link]
 May-Chiun Lo, T. Ramayah and Ernest Cyril de Run (2009). Leader-member exchange, gender, and influence
tactics. A test on multinational companies in Malaysia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 7(1)
 Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984), ‘Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the
effects of a leadership intervention’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
 Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986), ‘When managers decide not to decide autocratically:
An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-
584.
 Schaubroeck J, May DR, Brown FW. 1994, ‘Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to
economic hardship: a field experiment’, Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 455-460.
 Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994), ‘Determinates of innovative behaviour: A path-model of individual innovation
in the workplace’, Academy of Management Journal, 137,580-607.
 Steers, R.M. Bigley, G.A. & Porter, L.W 1996, ‘Motivation and leadership at work’, Singapore, McGraw-
Hill.
 Sweeney, J. T. and Quirin, J. J 2008, ‘Accountants as layoff survivors: A research note. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34(6/7):787-795.
 Wayne SJ, Shore M, Liden RC 1997, ‘Perceived organizational support and leader-memberexchange: A
social exchange perspective’, Acad. Manage. J., 40(1): 82-111
 Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D 2000, ‘Theory and research on leadership in organizations’, M. D. Dunnette & L.
M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of organizational psychology 2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp.147–197, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.