Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Contextual effects of leader power distance and group task interdependence

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Contextual effects of leader power distance and group task interdependence ⁎

Smriti Ananda, , Prajya Vidyarthib, Sandra Rolnickia a b

Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, 565 W. Adams Street, Chicago, IL 60661, United States College of Business Administration, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968-0539, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Leader-member exchange Power distance Task interdependence OCB

In this paper we explore the context of the relationship between leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). We maintain that workgroup leader's power distance and the extent of task interdependence in the group exert cross-level effects on the LMX-OCB relationship. We assert that leader power distance attenuates the relationship between LMX and OCB, and this effect is stronger in workgroups with high degree of task interdependence. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analysis of data gathered from 245 employees nested in 54 workgroups supported our hypotheses. LMX-OCB relationship was weaker in workgroups led by high power distance leaders. Further, the three-way cross-level interaction between LMX, leader power distance and group task interdependence demonstrated that the tendency for LMX to have a stronger positive effect on OCB when leader power distance was low rather than high was more pronounced in high task interdependence teams.

“There is perhaps no construct that is so fundamental to interpersonal interactions in organizations, yet so incompletely understood, than distance” (Napier & Ferris, 1993). Distance is particularly meaningful to leader follower or manager subordinate relationships because the degree of closeness within the dyad impacts followers' behaviors such as performance and withdrawal that are vital to organizational effectiveness (e.g., Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982; Rothaus, Morton, & Hanson, 1965). Scholars have considered leader distance – the social/psychological distance between a leader and a follower – a neutralizer of leadership effectiveness (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Howell, Bowen, Dorfman, Kerr, & Podsakoff, 1997; Vidyarthi, Anand, & Liden, 2014). Antonakis and Atwater (2002) argue that an understanding of leader distance is critical for despite the large body of leadership research, “… we still do not understand the fundamental processes undergirding the influencing effect of leadership”. Leadership is a process of social influence, whose effectiveness depends on how close or distant the leaders and the followers are. This is because distance can change how leader attributes, behaviors and reactions are perceived and responded to by the followers. An understanding of leader-follower distance can thus partly explain the underpinnings of leadership effectiveness. Because leadership is a social influencing process, social distance between leaders and followers merits particular attention from researchers. One way to study leader follower social distance is through

⁎

leader's power distance orientation (Napier & Ferris, 1993). Power distance is a cultural value that expresses the extent to which one expects and accepts power asymmetry between individuals at different strata of a society (Hofstede, 1980). In the context of workplace leader's power distance is the leader's tendency to maintain power differential with followers due to the leader's elevated status in the organizational hierarchy (e.g., Vidyarthi et al., 2014). Leaders' power distance can make them appear socially distant to the followers because of the ensuing chasms of status, authority, and social standing (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). This social distance affects the extent of closeness, communication, and information sharing between leaders and followers, and has implications for the effectiveness of leadership. Leadership at the dyadic level between an individual leader and a follower is explored in leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. LMX theory suggests that leaders develop a different exchange relationship with each subordinate, ranging from economic to social (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). While low LMX relationships involve resource exchanges for basic task completion, high LMX relationships are based on mutual trust, liking and reciprocal influence, and resource exchanges extend beyond the formal contract (Liden & Graen, 1980). LMX scholars have shown that dyadic relationship quality has a significant effect on a wide variety of organizational outcomes, such as in-role performance and organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational acceptance, promotions, and

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Anand), [email protected] (P. Vidyarthi), [email protected] (S. Rolnicki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.002 Received 29 July 2016; Received in revised form 5 September 2017; Accepted 4 November 2017 1048-9843/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Anand, S., The Leadership Quarterly (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.002

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

distance is negatively related to leaders' approachability, communication and delegation. In a meta-analytic review of research based on Hofstede's cultural model, power distance at the societal level has been found to be one of the strongest predictors of a number of outcomes (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010). Though leader's power distance is an important aspect of workgroup context, it has received little attention from leadership researchers (cf. Cole, Carter, & Zhang, 2013; Vidyarthi et al., 2014). Leader has more power and thus more influence on how the dyadic relationship functions (Dulebohn et al., 2012). The followers' outcome dependency on the leader makes them pay careful attention to leader's values and respond appropriately. We therefore argue that leaders' power distance perceptions provide the social context that sets the tone for reciprocity in the workgroup and thus exert cross-level influence on the relationships between LMX and employees' outcomes. Specifically, we argue that the higher the leader's power distance orientation, the weaker the relationships between LMX and its outcomes. Our second objective was to examine the cross-level influence of the workgroup environment on the relationship between LMX and its outcomes. We were motivated by scholar's assertion that social and structural distance are two separate constructs that work in distinct ways, and may interact to shape the effectiveness of leadership (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Napier & Ferris, 1993). We propose that task interdependence sets the structural distance between leaders and followers and shapes the impact of leader follower social distance (i.e., leader's power distance) on LMX-outcomes relationships. We argue that the extent of task interdependence in the workgroup plays an important role in how followers interpret social distance with the leader and react to it. We contend that high group task interdependence accentuates the effect of social distance with leader on the relationship between LMX and outcomes. We contribute to LMX theory in several ways. We explore LMX boundary conditions by investigating the effect of leaders' power distance values on the relationships between LMX and its outcomes. In contrast to bulk of the cross-cultural research we explore individual rather than societal level values, and focus on leader's values – a relatively unexplored facet of leader-follower relationship. Further, we contribute to the stream of context-oriented research relevant to LMX through concomitant examination of leader's power distance and task interdependence in workgroups. Specifically, we examine the crosslevel interactive effects of leaders' power distance perceptions and workgroup task interdependence on the relationship between LMX and employees' organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). We focus on OCB because of its importance to organizations (Motowidlo, 2003; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) and the extensive research done on the LMX-OCB relationship (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2016). Fig. 1 illustrates our conceptual model.

turnover intentions (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Despite an impressive amount of research on outcomes of LMX, relatively little attention has been paid to contextual factors that attenuate or accentuate the effects of LMX (Anand, Hu, Liden, & Vidyarthi, 2011; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005). A number of meta-analytic studies have suggested that further analyses are needed to explain a significant amount of variability in the relationship between LMX and its outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007; Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016). We assert that leader distance is a critical component of the context surrounding LMX-outcomes relationship. LMX researchers have long maintained that attention to leaders' personal values as a boundary condition to the effects of dyadic relationship quality is warranted for advancement of LMX theory (Anand et al., 2011; Ilies et al., 2007; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007). This recommendation fits within the more general need for analyzing the broader context of LMX relationships (Anand et al., 2011; Yammarino et al., 2005). Because of the power differential innate to leader follower relationships, LMX scholars have been more attentive to power distance than the other cultural values identified by Hofstede. For instance, Dulebohn and colleagues' meta-analysis found that in high power distance societies the positive association between trust and LMX was weaker than in low power distance societies (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). Rockstuhl and colleagues' meta-analysis maintains that the effects of LMX may be shaped by cultural values (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012). These scholars found that LMX was less strongly associated with outcomes such as OCB and justice in high power distance societies. Findings such as these have led to calls for more research so organizational scholars develop a deep understanding of the complex effects of culture on LMX-outcomes relationships (e.g., Anand et al., 2011; Dulebohn et al., 2012; Rockstuhl et al., 2012). We assert that a deeper understanding requires a finegrained analysis of LMX-outcomes relationship through individual-level values. This is because cross-cultural research has shown that individuals within each society vary in the extent to which they have absorbed the societal level cultural values, and individual-level rather than societal-level values are better predictors of individual-level outcomes (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Analyzing leader's power distance values can offer new insights in LMX-outcomes relationships. Further, despite being a dyadic relationship LMX exists in the context of workgroups, and therefore its influence is bounded by the attributes of workgroup environment. An important structural aspect of workgroup context is the extent to which members depend on each other to accomplish their tasks (Pearce & Gregersen, 1991). Therefore, the goal of this study was to develop and test theory identifying both social and structural aspects of workgroup context (e.g., Vidyarthi et al., 2014). We explore workgroup leader's power distance and within group task interdependence as the social and structural context surrounding all LMX-OCB relationships in the group. Hofstede's typology of cultural values (Hofstede, 1980, 1991) includes individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and long versus short term orientation. This model provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing the effect of cultural differences among different societies. Out of these dimensions power distance is particularly relevant to authority relationships for leaders are important authority figures in the work place, and there is an inherent power differential in the leader follower relationship (Anand et al., 2011; Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Liden, Anand, & Vidyarthi, 2016). At the societal level power distance has received considerable attention in studies of cross-cultural leadership (Ng, Koh, Ang, Kennedy, & Chan, 2011). In low power distance societies leaders maintain informal relationships with followers, whereas in high power distance societies, leader-follower relationships tend to be more hierarchically ordered and somewhat distant. In a leadership study spanning 39 countries Offermann and Hellmann (1997) found that power

Theoretical background and hypotheses Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors Leader-member exchange theory maintains that in a workgroup leader-follower relationships run the entire gamut from low to high quality (Anand, Vidyarthi, & Park, 2015; Liden et al., 1997). LMX scholars assert that a high quality relationship with the leader affords followers several rewards, such as resources, challenging assignments, and professional mentoring (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Settoon et al., 1996). It is also suggested that followers reciprocate leader's favorable treatment by engaging in discretionary behaviors designed to promote organizational productivity (Gerstner & Day, 1997). LMX to follower behavior relationship is thus suggested to be based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Several meta-analyses attest to the positive relationship between LMX and follower citizenship behaviors (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Ilies et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2016). We assert that followers with high LMX are motivated to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors that are geared to change the status quo, and 2

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

Leader’s Power Distance Perceptions

Within-group Task Interdependence

Group Level

Individual Level

Leader-member Exchange

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Fig. 1. Multi-level model of relationship between LMX and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

(Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002), reduce the influence of perceived organizational support (Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007), and attenuate the positive effects of procedural justice climate (Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007). Power distance has also received attention from scholars exploring different types of leadership such as transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, and ethical leadership. For example, Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, and Lowe (2009) found that power distance orientation weakened the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB by casting a moderating effect on the intervening mechanism of employees' procedural justice perception. Similarly, Liu and Liao (2013) found that power distance negatively moderated the effect of transformational leadership on employee voice behaviors. Loi, Lam, and Chan (2012) found that the effect of ethical leadership on the relationship between procedural justice and job insecurity was stronger among low power distance employees. Charismatic leadership researchers maintain that employee outcomes are partly dependent on power distance (e.g., Howell & Shamir, 2005). Extending this line of research by exploring the influence of power distance on the relationships between LMX and follower outcomes is key to further advancement of leadership theories (Anand et al., 2011). Scholars maintain that power distance is a distancing factor in relationships (House, Filley, & Gujarati, 1971; Tjosvold, 1985; Vidyarthi et al., 2014). House et al. (1971) assert that status differential reduces subordinates' inclination to approach superiors and share information, and satisfaction with the social climate of the workgroup. In one of the early empirical studies on leader subordinate distance, Sundstrom (1986) examined the impact of manager's desk positioning on subordinates' behaviors. Sundstrom found that managers who position their desks to maintain a power differential experience less contact and reduced informal flow of information. We argue that high power distance leaders believe in established ranks and power asymmetry, and thus perceive substantial status differences between themselves and their subordinates and therefore make themselves less accessible and more socially distant. We argue that managers who maintain power differentials (i.e., high PD leaders) do not encourage high levels of social contact with the followers, which is key to improving employee performance (Crouch & Yetton, 1988). Proximity with subordinates allows leaders to communicate effectively (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Yagil, 1998). Lower distance between managers and subordinates enhances the quality of interpersonal communication, and creates more accurate assumptions about mutual expectations, behaviors, and

improve organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 1. LMX is positively related to OCB.

Cross-level moderating effects of leader's power distance perceptions Leader-follower relationships constitute one of the most important interpersonal interactions in the workplace (Dulebohn et al., 2012), and thus understanding distance in the dyad is critical to enhancing positive outcomes for both employee and the organization. Our assertion is in line with scholars who uphold that a deeper understanding of distance is critical to improving desired employee behaviors in organizational settings (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Napier & Ferris, 1993). LMX scholars have consistently maintained that the relationship between LMX and outcomes is rooted in the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). In a high quality relationship, leaders provide interaction, trust, and support in the form of resources, better assignments, and professional guidance (Ilies et al., 2007; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Settoon et al., 1996). A high quality relationship goes beyond job-related contractual obligations, and motivates followers to reciprocate with OCBs and in-role performance (Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). We contend that this norm of reciprocity is weakened by social distance arising from leader's high power distance perceptions. Power distance is the extent to which uneven distribution of power is accepted in the institutions of a society (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede defines culture at a societal level, however later research demonstrated that within each society there is considerable variation in individuals' cultural values (e.g., Sinha, Daftuar, Gupta, & Mishra, 1994), and these individual-level variations are more closely related to individual-level outcomes (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Because we are interested in individual level outcomes, we define and operationalize power distance at the individual level. Power distance then indicates the degree to which individuals accept power asymmetry in societal institutions or organizations (Dorfman & Howell, 1988). An individual high in power distance believes in hierarchy, accepts and expects deference to authorities, whereas one low in power distance believes in equal rights for everyone (e.g., Earley & Gibson, 1998). Many studies have demonstrated the moderating effect of individual-level power distance on various organizational outcomes (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). For example, power distance has been shown to reduce the use of voice (Brockner et al., 2001), weaken the desirability of procedural justice 3

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

found support for this model (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004). Finally, a high power distance leader's emphasis on his own status and power disparity with followers is likely to make him socially distant, and thus reduce his influence (Bass, 1990). Lack of social interaction between leader and follower can reduce followers' engagement and thus diminish the effects of LMX. Therefore, we expect leader's high power distance to weaken the relationship between LMX and OCBs. In comparison to high power distance leaders, those with low power distance do not instill feelings of social distance, compliance, and dependency in their followers. Low power distance leaders are likely to provide more latitude in how and when tasks get done. Greater latitude bestows subordinates with a sense of empowerment and responsibility, allowing them to engage in tasks beyond their employment contract. Low power distance leaders' informal behavior makes the followers believe that they are on the same social footing, and therefore they do not feel the need to be reverent in return for leader's support. Followers of a low power distance leader thus try to reciprocate a high quality relationship with enhanced OCBs.

reactions (Napier & Ferris, 1993). Socially proximal leaders are able to communicate with followers in an individually customized manner designed to boost confidence. Approachable leaders are also able to role model desired behaviors and create right expectations in their subordinates. Yagil (1998) found that socially close leaders can enhance followers' efficacy because they understand the followers and can tailor their behaviors to suit each individual. Social proximity also makes the leader appear more human and motivate subordinates to reciprocate the relationship quality by engaging in citizenship behaviors that can benefit the leader directly or indirectly by helping other workgroup members, whose performance reflects on the leader's effectiveness. In the presence of high leader power distance dampened communication and clarity (e.g., lack of encouragement for subordinates' questions) weakens this norm of reciprocity. Employees are no longer certain if OCB is the avenue through which they can reciprocate the LMX quality. Reciprocity in LMX relationships is based on “currencies of exchange” desired by the involved parties (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). LMX scholars maintain that followers attempt to reciprocate a high quality relationship with their leader by engaging in behaviors desired by the leader (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Ilies et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2016). A high power distance leader may provide cues about her desire to be revered and obeyed. Accordingly, followers will not expect this leader to be as friendly as someone low on power distance might be. Hofstede (1991) suggests that high power distance leaders tend to behave in a paternalistic manner and desire to be treated as a “father figure”. Power distance as a personal value drives these leaders to firmly take charge, and to provide clear directions to subordinates (Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000). Power distance installs a belief that the role of subordinates is to follow orders and not to offer advice. Therefore, rather than seeking advice from subordinates, a high power distance leader is more likely to expect unquestioning obedience. Further, it is not always possible for followers to reciprocate the leader's support. Reciprocity is possible between two parties on equal footing; a relationship based on power asymmetry discourages complete reciprocity. Therefore when leaders act as father figures, followers sense that they should remain indebted to the leader, else they will violate the norm of the relationship. We therefore assert that followers of a high power distance leader are apt to use respect and reverence, rather than OCBs, as the exchange currency for reciprocity. Graen and Scandura (1987) assert that LMX quality determines the extent to which leader provides work-related resources such as information, challenging assignments, and autonomy. High LMX relationships engender subordinates with manager's trust, discretion, and better communication (Liden & Graen, 1980). In such relationships followers feel empowered to make independent judgements and take responsibilities (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). This autonomy might be instrumental in eliciting OCBs from subordinates, as these lie outside of the employment contract. A high LMX relationship thus provides followers with the opportunities and resources needed for them to engage in OCBs. This dynamic may change in the presence of high leader power distance, for those leaders are not as likely to give latitude and discretion to their followers. With high power distance leaders, subordinates may not feel empowered to go beyond clearly defined roles and make independent decisions. Such leaders are likely to maintain distance with their subordinates, which hinders communication, needed to clarify employee roles and responsibilities, and the zone of negotiability. In the absence of this communication OCBs are likely to be lower. Further, high power distance leaders may instill a feeling of helplessness in their followers. These leaders provide cues about their access to resources and power to make decisions about followers' resource and reward allocations. Consequently followers develop feelings of dependency on the leader. They become used to complying rather than taking initiative. Our argument is consistent with the model of authoritarian leadership proposed by Farh and Cheng (2000). Farh and Cheng proposed that authoritarian leadership evokes dependence and compliance in followers. In an empirical study Cheng and his colleagues

Hypothesis 2. The relationship between LMX and employees' OCBs is moderated by leader's power distance, such that the relationship is stronger when leader's power distance is low than when it is high. The hypothesized relationship between leader power distance and follower's outcomes exists in the broader context of the workgroup; therefore we expect the group context to have a bearing on its strength. For example, in some workgroups employees may be more prone to reduce OCBs when their leader is high on power distance. In particular, the structural aspect of workgroup context – the degree to which job tasks are interdependent such that members rely on each other and the leader to accomplish work goals - is likely to affect the extent and quality of within group communication, which in turn is likely to influence how they interpret and respond to their leader's attributes and behaviors. Therefore, we suggest that examining the level of task interdependence in the workgroup in tandem affords an opportunity for further clarifying the effect of leader power distance on followers' outcomes due to LMX. Cross-level moderating effects of group task interdependence Scholars maintain that distance between leader and follower exists in multiple forms with distinct consequences (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Napier & Ferris, 1993). Two forms of distance - social and structural - have received particular attention in leadership research because of their potential to mold the effectiveness of leadership (e.g., Vidyarthi et al., 2014). Leadership scholars have theorized that the different forms of distances may interact to guide the effects of leadership. Extending this line of reasoning we argue that workgroup task interdependence – structural distance between leaders and followers drives followers' perceptions of and responses to social distance with the leader. We assert that high group task interdependence deepens the effect of leader follower social distance on the relationship between LMX and outcomes. Task interdependence is the extent to which employees need to cooperate with each other and the group leader to accomplish their work (Kiggundu, 1981; Thompson, 1967). Wageman (2001) has identified four conditions that define the extent of task interdependence: (a) how the task is defined, (b) what is the process to complete the task, (c) what is the underlying technology, and (d) how are the required skills or resources distributed in the group. Thus, workgroups have high task interdependence when the division of labor is difficult and everyone must contribute in order to accomplish the task. Group task interdependence has been conceptualized and empirically tested as the context for individual and group level relationships by several scholars (e.g., Colquitt, 2004; Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006; Vidyarthi et al., 2014). For instance, Colquitt (2004) found that group task interdependence exerts cross-level influence on the relationship 4

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

within the group. Consequently these groups are apt to be hierarchical, and less inclined toward reciprocity in the form of enhanced OCBs. This argument is consistent with Yang et al.’ (2007) findings that the relationship between procedural justice climate and OCBs is weaker in high power distance workgroups. In summary, we argue that high task interdependence in workgroup accentuates the negative effect of leaders' power distance on LMX-OCB relationship. Conversely, we contend that when workgroups are low in task interdependence members do not experience and react to leader's power distance as much. Thus, in low task interdependence groups, we argue that leaders' power distance does not alter LMX-OCB relationship in the same manner as in high task interdependence groups.

between procedural justice climate and employees' in-role performance, such that the relationship is stronger in highly interdependent teams. Liden et al. (2006) suggest that leader's differential treatment of group members is more acceptable in high task interdependence groups because members interact more, observe one anothers' performance more closely, and thus perceive fair rather than unfair bases for differentiation within the group. Vidyarthi et al. (2014) found that leader's emotional intelligence is more effective in eliciting employee performance under high rather than low group task interdependence condition. These scholars maintain that group members interact more with the leader due to high task interdependence and the heightened communication intensifies the positive effects of leader's emotional intelligence. In line with Vidyarthi et al.’s findings we expect group task interdependence to exert a cross-level influence with respect to the effect of leader's power distance on followers' OCBs. More specifically, we expect high task interdependence to amplify the negative effects of leader's power distance on LMX-OCB relationship. Under high task interdependence condition the frequency of interactions between leaders and followers increases (Breaugh, 1985). The increased interactions are driven by organizational structure and design and are primarily related to tasks rather than affect. Thus, in high task interdependence groups followers come into more task rather than affective contact with the leader. Napier and Ferris (1993) suggest that task contact is directly related to task, and thus can decrease the amount of latitude and independence perceived by the subordinates. We therefore argue that under high task interdependence and thus high task contact condition subordinates may begin to feel under leader's close monitoring. Further, tasks in high interdependence groups are usually more complex and require a high degree of coordination across multiple members (Liden et al., 2006; Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993), which might make the leader give even lower discretion to subordinates. Moreover, high power distance leaders are likely to be distant and autocratic in these interactions. Subordinates are more likely to experience leader's autocracy during repeated task-related interactions. The effects of leader not giving much discretion and autonomy are likely to get amplified through repeated episodes. High task interdependence combined with high leader power distance may thus intensify follower perceptions that leader is in charge and there is little latitude or discretion in deciding how and when which tasks are to be completed. Followers in such groups are likely to be less inclined to take charge and go beyond their job contracts to engage into discretionary citizenship behaviors than in low task interdependence groups. High power distance leaders are perceived as commanding, distant, and less humane (Hofstede, 1980). A socially distant leader in close task contact situation is likely to appear as someone leading in an aloof manner across an insurmountable gap between the ranks (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Such a leader does not engender affect and trust in the followers, which is necessary to invoke reciprocity – the root of LMXoutcomes relationship (Ilies et al., 2007). On the other hand low power distance leaders are perceived as friendly, human, and fallible (Hofstede, 1980, 1991), and as subordinates interact more with such leaders, they are more likely to want to reciprocate with discretionary citizenship behaviors targeted to help the leader directly and indirectly by helping the coworkers. Another way to understand the effect of group task interdependence is through leaders' influence on group norms. The ambient stimuli provided by leaders play a role in creating widespread beliefs and assumptions in the group (Hackman, 1992; Schein, 1992). Dynamic social impact theory (Latané, 1996) suggests that leaders' legitimate power in the workgroup increases their influence on group norms. Due to leaders' status, their personal values and norms are more likely to be adapted by the group. It follows that individuals in highly interdependent workgroups with low power distance leaders are likely to internalize the low power distance values and reciprocate high quality LMX with enhanced OCBs. In contrast, groups led by high power distance leaders are likely to develop high power distance as a value for individual relationships

Hypothesis 3. The tendency for LMX to have a stronger positive effect on OCB when leader's power distance is low versus high is more pronounced when group task interdependence is high rather than low. Method Participants and procedures We collected data from managers and their subordinates employed in information technology industry in India. Because we wanted to study the effects of LMX, leader power distance and group task interdependence on organizational citizenship behaviors, a sample with intact workgroups was needed wherein members depended on each other and the leader to accomplish work goals. We also needed a sample in which citizenship behaviors were essential for both individual and group success, and thus more likely to be observed. IT industry is a knowledge-intensive service industry, and as such OCBs are critical to the success of individuals, groups, and organizations. All these reasons motivated us to utilize this sample. One of the authors administered written surveys on site during paid working hours. The surveys were coded so managers and subordinates could be matched. Employee and manager surveys were conducted in different rooms at different times to avoid any psychological discomfort for both parties were answering questions about each other. Prior to survey administration respondents were informed of their right to voluntary participation and response confidentiality. Altogether 122 managers and 519 employees were invited to participate in the study. Seventy two managers (response rate = 59%) and 482 employees (response rate = 93%) provided complete responses. These responses yielded 260 dyads (effective response rate of 54%) after subordinates were matched with their managers. Following extant multi-level research we defined a workgroup as employees reporting to the same manager, and removed any workgroups where < 60% of the members had participated (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Timmerman, 2005). Our final sample size for all analyses was thus 245 employees nested in 54 groups. These groups had goals pertaining to software design, development, and maintenance. Study participants held professional positions, and accomplished majority of their tasks by interacting with their workgroup members and managers. Eighty seven percent managers were male with average age 32.9 years (SD = 4.9). Employee sample characteristics were as follows: 75% male with average age 27.5 years (SD = 4.2) and average dyadic tenure 0.84 year (SD = 0.76). Average workgroup size was 4.5 (SD = 2.4) and education level was college or above for both managers and subordinates. All responses were measured on 7-point scales (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), and scale items were averaged such that higher composite scores indicated higher value for the underlying construct. Measures Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) We used a 5-item measure developed by Moorman and Blakely 5

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) we calculated the Rwg using a rectangular distribution to check agreement within the group members about the level of task interdependence. The median Rwg value of 0.86 was above the suggested threshold of 0.7 deemed necessary for justifying aggregation (James, 1988) of task interdependence to group level. In addition, ICC(1) = 0.11 and ICC(2) = 0.37, F(53, 191) = 1.58, p < 0.05. The value of ICC(1) was above the acceptable value of 0.10 in multi-level research; however the value of ICC(2) was a bit lower than typical values reported in multi-level research (Bliese, 2000). The smaller value of ICC(2) is in line with Bliese's (2000) argument that ICC(2) values depend on group sizes and thus a sample with smaller groups is likely to have a smaller value of this index. Further, Chen and Bliese (2002) argue that a high Rwg value combined with strong conceptual rationale for group level construct justifies aggregation even with a low ICC(2) value. We therefore chose to proceed with aggregation in line with a high Rwg and the extant literature that asserts task interdependence to be a group level phenomena. Our confidence in this path of action was also bolstered by LeBreton and Senter's (2008) suggestion that one or more of a variety of criteria such as Rwg and/or ICC (2) can be used to justify aggregation, if the construct has been conceptualized at the group level.

(1992) to have leaders report their subordinates' citizenship behaviors in terms of individual initiative. An example item is: “This employee frequently communicates to co-workers suggestions on how the group can improve” (α = 0.92). Leader power distance Cross-cultural researchers have theorized that social/psychological distance between a leader and the followers can shape the effectiveness of leadership (Berson, Halevy, Shamir, & Erez, 2015). Dyadic distance matters because leader follower relationships have an innate power asymmetry due to followers' dependence on the leader for access to resources, task assignments, and rewards (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Erdogan & Liden, 2002). Therefore, we chose to assess power distance to operationalize social distance in the dyad in line with extant literature on interpersonal distance (e.g., Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Napier & Ferris, 1993). Because leader has more power to shape how the dyadic relationship functions we chose to assess power distance from the leader's perspective. Our choice is in line with Napier and Ferris (1993), who called for research on dyadic distance from the manager's perspective and the consequences of this distance. We used a 6-item measure developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) to have leaders report their own power distance perceptions, a cultural attribute that has been used in past research (e.g., Vidyarthi et al., 2014) to indicate leader's view of social distance with the followers. An example item is: “I believe it is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates” (α = 0.82). Because leader's power distance is a personal cultural attribute of the leader, we followed extant cross-cultural research (e.g., Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000; Kirkman et al., 2009; Li & Sun, 2015) and assessed this variable from the focal using an individual level measure; however in all analyses this variable was modeled as a contextual variable at the group level. This is because all members of a workgroup report to the same leader and are affected by the leader's attributes. Leader's power distance is thus a part of the workgroup context and a group level construct. Our operationalization and subsequent analyses are in line with extant OB/HR research utilizing multi-level models. For instance, Tangirala, Green, and Ramanujam (2007) employed an individual level measure to assess individual leaders' LMX perceptions with their leaders. Tangirala and colleagues named this variable leader‑leader exchange (LLX), and modeled it at the group-level to test its cross-level moderating effect on the individual level relationship between subordinates' LMX and their attitudes toward the organization and its customers.

Control variables In line with LMX and OCB literatures we controlled for employee age, dyadic tenure, and dyadic sex similarity in the individual level or level 1 model to rule out alternative explanations for employee OCB ratings (e.g., Liden et al., 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Older employees may have better understanding of performance norms which may influence the extent of their OCBs. Employee performance ratings may also be influenced by the length of leader-follower relationship and similarity (Bauer & Green, 1996). We measured dyadic tenure in years, and created dummy codes for sex (female = 1 and male = 0) such that sex similarity = 1, if employee and manager were of same sex. In the group level or level 2 model, we controlled for workgroup size to account for differences in group sizes. We also controlled for manager's age.

Analyses The data in the present study were of multi-level nature, with leader power distance and group task interdependence at the group level and LMX, task interdependence, and OCB at the individual level of analysis. To account for the multi-level data, we tested our hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). We also chose HLM, because it allows examination of higher level sources of variance in the dependent variable after controlling for individual-level sources of variance. This feature makes HLM ideal for testing the two and three-way cross-level interactions hypothesized in this study (Hofmann, 1997). We standardized all study variables to facilitate interpretation of the findings (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). We developed a series of HLM models to test the hypotheses. First we developed a null model to examine whether there was meaningful between-group variance in the dependent variable OCB. Then, we used random coefficient models to examine whether LMX was related to OCB. Finally we introduced appropriate group-level interaction terms in the models to test the hypotheses pertaining to two and three-way interactions. Hypothesis testing utilized deviance tests to compare successive models for expressing effect sizes (e.g., Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010). HLM with maximum likelihood estimation provides a deviance statistic for each model, such that a statistically significant reduction in deviance after adding a predictor indicates improvement in model fit. Deviance tests are superior to other alternatives for expressing effect sizes in HLM models, because they account for the multilevel nature of errors in these models (Kreft, 2000).

Leader-member exchange (LMX) We used a 12-item measure of leader-member exchange developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998) to have subordinates report the quality of LMX with their leaders. An example item is: “I like my manager very much as a person” (α = 0.90). Task interdependence We used a 3-item measure of individual level task interdependence developed by Pearce and Gregersen (1991) to have employees report the extent to which they were dependent on their leader and team members for accomplishing their work goals. An example item is: “I frequently must coordinate my efforts with others” (α = 0.69). Task interdependence is a group level construct (e.g., Courtright, Thurgood, Stewart, & Pierotti, 2015); however the vast majority of OB/ HR scholars have utilized individual level measures to assess individual members' perceptions, and then used aggregation to assess withingroup task interdependence (e.g., Hu & Liden, 2015). In line with past research, we used a direct consensus composition model (Chan, 1998) to aggregate individual employees' responses to create a single group task interdependence score for each group. Following the suggestion of 6

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables. Individual level Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

Employee age Dyadic sex similaritya Dyadic tenure Task interdependence Leader member exchange Organizational citizenship behaviors

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

27.51 0.72 0.84 5.42 5.15 4.74

4.20 0.45 0.76 1.00 1.06 1.25

0.13⁎ 0.16⁎ 0.15⁎ − 0.13⁎ 0.02

0.11 −0.02 −0.01 −0.16⁎

0.06 − 0.08 − 0.13⁎

(0.69) 0.18⁎⁎ 0.00

(0.90) 0.16⁎

(0.92)

Group level Variable 7 8 9 10

Leader age Group size Group task interdependence Leader power distance

Mean

SD

7

8

9

10

32.94 4.54 5.33 2.31

5.05 2.42 0.67 1.11

− 0.01 0.40⁎⁎ − 0.02

0.24 −0.14

0.05

(0.82)

Note: Nindividual = 245; Ngroup = 54. Reliabilities are reported in parentheses along the diagonal. ⁎ p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ p < 0.01. a Same sex = 1, different sex = 0.

coefficient for the product term (−0.16, p < 0.05) and fit improvement over Model 3 indicated by deviance test (4.98, p < 0.05) provided initial support for Hypothesis 2. To further understand the nature of the interaction, we calculated simple slopes of the LMX-OCB relationship for high and low values (i.e., one standard deviation above and below the mean respectively) of the moderator variable leader power distance (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The simple slopes were − 0.01 (p > 0.05) and 0.30 (p < 0.05) respectively. Fig. 2 shows the LMX-OCB relationship at high and low levels of leader power distance. In Fig. 2 LMX-OCB relationship is positive at low levels of leader power distance, but becomes insignificant at high levels of leader power distance. These findings provide support for Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 suggested a three-way cross-level interaction between LMX, leader power distance and group task interdependence to predict OCB. To test this hypothesis we created preliminary Model 5 by adding the following variables to Model 4: group task interdependence as a level 2 predictor, and individual level task interdependence as a level 1 control variable to partial out individual level effects of task interdependence; product term of LMX and group task interdependence and of leader power distance and group task interdependence. Model 5 was used to regress OCB on LMX, leader power distance, group task interdependence, and all two-way interaction terms. This preliminary model provided an assessment of between group variability in the relationship between LMX and OCB, and therefore could be used as a basis for assessing additional variability explained by the three-way interaction between LMX, leader power distance, and group task interdependence in Model 6. As shown in Table 2, a negative coefficient for the 3-way product term (− 0.33, p < 0.01) and fit improvement over Model 5 indicated by deviance test (7.08, p < 0.01) provided initial support for Hypothesis 3. To further understand the nature of the 3-way interaction, we followed the method proposed by Dawson and Richter (2006). According to Hypothesis 3 the tendency for LMX to have a stronger positive effect on OCB when leader power distance (LPD) is low versus high is more pronounced when group task interdependence (GTI) is high rather than low. Hypothesis 3 suggests that LMX-OCB relationship slope under low LPD and high GTI should be higher than that under low LPD and low GTI, and LMX-OCB relationship slope under high LPD and high GTI should be less positive than that under high LPD and low GTI. We plotted these 4 slopes in Fig. 3, and conducted slope difference tests. The plot at the top of Fig. 3 shows LMX-OCB relationship for low (− SD)

Results Before hypothesis testing, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to establish convergent and discriminant validity for the constructs used in this study. Using LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2004) we specified four separate factors for LMX, task interdependence, power distance, and OCB. We constrained each item to fall under a single factor and the factors were allowed to correlate, even while accounting for the multi-dimensional nature of the LMX measure. The four-factor model showed significantly superior fit statistics (χ2 (289) = 445.68, p < 0.05; RMSEA = 0.047; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97) compared to alternate models with fewer factors, and a one factor model fit data poorly (χ2 (295) = 1765.57, p < 0.05; RMSEA = 0.143; CFI = 0.82; TLI = 0.80) supporting the hypothesized data model. Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients (α), and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. We developed a null model without any predictors to assess the extent to which the variability in the outcome variable OCB was due to workgroup membership. Results of the null model showed individual or level 1 variance = 0.64 and group or level 2 variance = 0.32. The ratio of group level to total variance yielded ICC(1) value of 0.33 (χ2 (53) = 185.13, p < 0.001), which suggested that approximately 33% of the variance in individual level ratings of OCB was arising from workgroup membership. The ICC(1) value was above the acceptable median value of 0.1 suggested in the organizational literature, and thus justified multilevel analyses (Bliese, 2000). We created a series of models beginning with Model 1 that included only the control variables: employee age, dyadic tenure, dyadic sex similarity (at level 1), group size, and leader age (at level 2). Adding LMX as a level 1 predictor to this model created Model 2, which was used to test Hypothesis 1 regarding the positive relationship between LMX and OCB. As shown in Table 2, a positive coefficient for LMX (0.16, p < 0.05) and fit improvement over Model 1 indicated by deviance test (43.82, p < 0.001) provided support for Hypothesis 1. Next, we added leader power distance (LPD) as a level 2 predictor to this model to create Model 3, which served as a preliminary model for testing Hypothesis 2 regarding the cross-level interaction of LMX and leader power distance. Model 4 was created by adding the product term of LMX and leader power distance to Model 3, and its deviance statistic was compared to that of Model 3 to test Hypothesis 2. A negative 7

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

Table 2 HLM results for Hypotheses 1–3. Variable

Intercept Control variables Employee age Dyadic tenure Dyadic sex similarity Group size Leader age Leader member exchange (LMX) Leader power distance (LPD) LMX × LPD Task interdependence Group task interdependence (GTI) LMX × GTI LPD × GTI LMX × LPD × GTI Deviance ΔDeviance

Parameter estimate Model 1 with only controls

Model 2 to test H1

Model 3 - preliminary model before testing H2

Model 4 to test H2

Model 5 - preliminary model before testing H3

Model 6 to test H3

0.02

− 0.01

− 0.01

− 0.02

− 0.02

− 0.01

⁎

⁎

⁎

⁎

0.06 0.01 − 0.12 − 0.04 − 0.08

0.12 0.06 − 0.09 0.05 − 0.14 0.16⁎

0.12 0.06 − 0.09 0.05 − 0.14 0.16⁎ 0.00

0.12 0.06 − 0.09 0.05 − 0.14 0.16⁎ 0.07 − 0.16⁎

0.12 0.07 − 0.10 0.07 − 0.12 0.16⁎ 0.07 − 0.16⁎ 0.00 − 0.12 0.18⁎⁎ 0.05

641.02

597.20 43.82⁎⁎a

597.20

592.22 4.98⁎b

587.05

0.12⁎ 0.08 − 0.10 0.04 − 0.10 0.18⁎⁎ 0.06 − 0.14⁎⁎ 0.00 − 0.04 0.03 0.21⁎ − 0.33⁎⁎ 579.97 7.08⁎⁎c

Note: Nindividual = 245; Ngroup = 54. ⁎ p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ p < 0.01. a Decrease in comparison to Model 1. b Decrease in comparison to Model 3. c Decrease in comparison to Model 5.

Fig. 2. LMX-OCB relationship at high and low levels of leader power distance.

and high (+ SD) levels of leader power distance when group task interdependence is high (+ SD). The plot at the bottom shows LMX-OCB relationship for low (− SD) and high (+ SD) levels of leader power distance when group task interdependence is low (− SD). As expected the slope of LMX-OCB relationship under low LPD and high GTI (0.62, p < 0.01) was greater than the slope under low LPD and low GTI (− 0.04, p > 0.05), and the test of slope difference was significant (0.67, p < 0.01). Further, the slope of LMX-OCB relationship under high LPD and high GTI (− 0.30, p < 0.05) was less positive than the slope under high LPD and low GTI (0.32, p < 0.05), and the test of slope difference was significant (0.62, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 3 was thus supported.

Fig. 3. Three-way interaction between LMX, Leader power distance, and Group task interdependence to predict OCB.

effect is more pronounced in high task interdependence teams. Findings of the study suggest that employees in high task interdependence teams led by low power distance leaders engage in the highest level of OCBs. The discretionary nature of OCBs allows employees to withdraw or

Discussion Our results revealed that leaders' high power distance attenuates the positive relationship between LMX and employees' OCBs. However this 8

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

leader's power distance weakened the relationship between LMX and followers' OCBs, especially in high task interdependent teams, implies that leaders need to be supportive but not autocratic if they wish to maximize their subordinates' potential. Further, socially distant leaders may employ communication techniques that can be construed by subordinates as discriminatory practices. It may be argued that power distance perceptions are a stable trait and therefore may not be changed. However cross-cultural training scholars have repeatedly suggested that while values cannot be completely changed, the resulting human behavior can be changed through training and other interventions (Bhawuk, Landis, & Lo, 2006; Bhawuk, Podsiadlowski, Graf, & Triandis, 2002). According to behavioral theory of interpersonal interaction, an individual is likely to engage in a behavior due to intentions, habits rooted in personal values, and the presence of facilitating conditions (Triandis, 1979). Triandis (1979) suggests that habits are driven by personal values such as power distance and are therefore automatic, but intentions can be changed through training. Further, lack of facilitating conditions discourages even habitual automatic behaviors. Bhawuk et al. (2002) and Bhawuk et al. (2006) suggested that intentions, and to a certain extent habits, can be changed through appropriate training programs. The training content and methods need to be customized to the strength of one's habits. Some managers may need extensive training to change their habits rooted in their high power distance values. These managers may need to go through scenario based workshops and other interventions to learn how to manage their habits, so that they reduce their use of autocratic behaviors. In contrast, some managers may just need an awareness of their values, as they simply may not be aware that asking their subordinates to get approval for all decisions is a sign of high power distance. Even a small amount of training may help such managers who have good intentions, but poor habits. Training can also teach managers to behave in ways so they appear less socially distant to their subordinates. For instance managers can be trained to communicate with the subordinates in less formal ways. Organizations should provide frequent training sessions focusing on cross-cultural scenarios, so both managers and subordinates develop an understanding and appreciation of cultural differences. Finally, organizations can provide a context that deemphasizes hierarchy and autocracy. Organizations are embedded in the broader national societal context; however they can create organizational cultures that reduce the salience of hierarchy and lessen social distance between managers and subordinates. For instance, information technology industry in India is less formal and hierarchical than the more traditional government sector. Setting up a more informal culture requires several measures such as support from top management (e.g., engaging in informal communication practices), more casual seating arrangements (no personal offices with walls and doors), and creation of sports teams and affinity groups comprising employees from various levels of organizational hierarchy,

augment behaviors according to their wishes. Employees working for a low power distance leader are motivated to perform extra OCBs, while those working for a high power distance leader are able to restrict their behaviors to those that are required by the job descriptions. These findings support scholars' assertion that interpersonal distance in organizational settings exists in distinct forms with distinct consequences (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Napier & Ferris, 1993). We operationalized leader follower social distance and structural distance as leader's power distance values and group task interdependence respectively. Insodoing we were able to examine how the two forms of distance prevalent in workgroup settings exert cross-level influence on LMX-outcomes relationships. LMX-OCB relationship became weaker as social distance between leaders and followers increased; however this negative effect became more pronounced as the structural distance in the dyad decreased. Findings show that dyadic proximity is not as beneficial when social distance is high. On the other hand, when social distance is low, reducing structural distance in the dyad engenders high OCBs. Several LMX scholars have called for more research on the context surrounding social exchange in organizations (e.g., Anand et al., 2011; Dulebohn et al., 2012), and others have speculated about the linkages between cultural values and effects of LMX quality on organizational outcomes (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Rockstuhl et al., 2012). The findings of this study answer these calls and contribute to LMX literature by identifying boundary conditions that affect the extent to which LMX relates to employees' OCBs. The addition of leaders' power distance and group task interdependence as social and structural aspects of the workgroup context to existing theoretical frameworks of reciprocitybased employee outcomes provides interesting insights to the LMX literature. Analyzing the group context simultaneously with leaders' personal values provides a more complete picture of social exchange dynamics in organizations. Further, we answer cross-cultural researcher's calls to study variables other than collectivism, such as power distance (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Kirkman et al., 2006). Moreover, the use of an individual level measure of power distance in our study allowed us to treat it as a dispositional variable, making our results compatible to any setting. Meta analyses by Dulebohn et al. (2012) and Rockstuhl et al. (2012) have shown negative effects of societal level power distance; however, individuals within each society vary in the extent to which they have absorbed these values, and those values are better predictors of individual-level outcomes. Analyzing individual level cultural values is important to both leadership theory development and practice. For example, even low power distance societies such as the U.S. include some individuals with a high degree of power distance. By treating power distance as individual-level dispositional variable, our findings are generalizable to all settings rather than only to a high power distance society. Findings of this investigation also bolster external validity of theories of leadership in general. Results are consistent with those of research involving other theories of leadership such as transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and charismatic leadership (e.g., Kirkman et al., 2009; Loi et al., 2012) in that cultural values set boundaries to the effects of leadership. Our findings thus support fundamental tenets of contingency leadership theories (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001) in that cultural orientation (e.g., power distance) can serve as barriers to leadership effectiveness.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions Methodological strengths of the study included a large sample from a high power distance society. Our research design included data collection at multiple levels and multiple sources. Independent variables LMX and OCB were gathered from two different sources, which allowed us to largely eliminate concerns of common source common method bias. In contrast to bulk of research on power distance, we explored leader's cultural values to add a new perspective to LMX theory by testing cross-level effects of leader power distance on individual level LMX-OCB relationship. Inclusion of intact workgroups allowed us to provide a robust test of cross-level effects of group task interdependence and contribute to research on both structural and social aspects of leader follower distance. Despite these strengths, there were a number of limitations. The cross-sectional design does not allow us to make causal inferences. The

Managerial implications With increasing globalization of the economy and diversification of the workforce it is likely that there will be wide variability in both employees' and managers' cultural values in organizational settings. Understanding of leader power distance is therefore imperative to maintain organizational effectiveness. Because managers' cultural values have important implications for their subordinates, managers need to be aware of the group context and adjust their behavior accordingly. What works in one group may not work in another. Our finding that 9

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

salient power distance becomes. However, it is also possible that high level subordinates such as vice presidents and unit heads may not be as responsive to their leader's power distance as their lower level counterparts. It is worth investigating if the effects of power distance are isomorphic at different echelons of the organization. The power distance norms in the organization are likely to interact with leader's power distance as well. The effects of a leader's power distance are apt to differ between a traditional institution such as a bank and a fastpaced organization such as a high-technology start up. The influence of work group size, organization size, and industry type are all important contextual factors which may interact with leader's power distance.

interclass correlation coefficient ICC(2) for task interdependence was low due to small group sizes. The small value of ICC(2) may have reduced the size of group-level relationships; however we addressed this by obtaining a large number of groups in our sample. Our confidence was also boosted by high degree of within-group agreement on task interdependence. Next, in our sample the managers were quite educated and urban professionals, which may be why the power distance mean and variance were low (mean = 2.31 on a 7-point scale; SD = 1.11). According to Hofstede (2010) India at 77 score is above the world mean of 56.5 on power distance, and thus considered a high power distance society. We conducted this study in Indian information technology (IT) industry, which is more informal and westernized than other less modern industries such as the public sector or Indian government. In IT industry, the possibility of westernization is quite high as company clients tend to be other firms based in the western world, which is primarily low on power distance (Hofstede, 2010). Power distance values in this study might also be a result of IT industry having younger (study sample average manager age: 32.94 with SD: 5.05 years) and more educated individuals as compared to other traditional industries. We are confident in the generalizability of study findings for empirical evidence suggests that cultural values and norms in IT industry are still aligned with the national culture (Leidner & Kayworth, 2006). We believe our study provides a conservative test of leader power distance effects, for even with the low power distance values we see the negative effects on LMX-outcomes relationship (Deviance test for 2-way interaction: 4.98, p < 0.05; for 3-way interaction: 7.08, p < 0.01). We believe that similar or stronger results can be achieved in other samples with greater variance in power distance. We therefore urge LMX scholars to replicate our findings in diverse samples from a variety of industries. We call on future researchers to examine the effects of leader's power distance on the relationship between LMX and employee behaviors over the long term. A longitudinal study will further reduce potential common method bias and allow inferences about causality. Future research should also explore the effect of followers' cultural values concomitant with leader's cultural values. We focused on leader's power distance to operationalize social distance in the dyad, and following extant cross-cultural research (e.g., Kirkman et al., 2009; Li & Sun, 2015) assessed this personal attribute from the focal; however collecting followers' power distance values in addition will provide a more fine grained understanding of how these values operate together. We argue that leaders' values have a higher effect when they are congruent with the group members' values. For example, leaders' high power distance values are more likely to be internalized by group members who themselves possess high power distance values. High power distance subordinates accept the power asymmetry and thus accept the leaders' values. On the other hand low power distance members may not accept this downward transfer of values. In a similar manner the effect of task interdependence is apt to be higher when the group members are more collectivistic and wish to maintain harmony in the group. These members are more likely to respect each other's and the leader's opinions. Similarly, uncertainty avoidance and masculinityfemininity are cultural values which may have bearing on LMX-outcomes relationship, and thus merit attention from LMX scholars. We focused on LMX-outcomes relationship in this study. Our findings are consistent with research involving other theories of leadership in that cultural values set boundaries to leadership effects (e.g., Howell & Shamir, 2005; Kirkman et al., 2009; Liu & Liao, 2013; Loi et al., 2012). To further extend knowledge on leadership we recommend that scholars test our hypotheses with respect to other theories such as transformational leadership, servant leadership, and ethical leadership. Further, we examined the effects of leader's power distance in the context of group task interdependence. It would be interesting to explore the interaction between leaders' power distance and other contextual variables based on organizational structure. For instance, the higher in the organizational hierarchy the leader's position, the more

Conclusion In sum this study demonstrates that leaders' power distance perceptions influences the association between LMX and followers' citizenship behaviors. It appears that leaders' power distance becomes more salient in high task interdependence groups, such that followers of low power distance leaders engage in more discretionary behaviors than is true of high power distance leaders' subordinates. In this era of globalization and increasing competition employees' discretionary behaviors are more important than ever, and therefore organizations should make every effort to leverage social exchange relationships to encourage employees to perform citizenship behaviors. Acknowledgments We thank Associate Editor Kevin Lowe and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and support, and Sophia Marinova for her helpful comments on drafts. References Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.). The sage handbook of leadership (pp. 311–325). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poorquality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 970–988. Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., & Park, H. (2015). LMX differentiation: Understanding relational leadership at individual and group levels. In T. Bauer, & B. Erdogan (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 263–291). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673–704. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. Berson, Y., Halevy, N., Shamir, B., & Erez, M. (2015). Leading from different psychological distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 143–155. Bhawuk, D. P. S., Landis, D., & Lo, K. D. (2006). Acculturation and intercultural training: An integrated theoretical framework. In D. Sam, & J. Berry (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of acculturation (pp. 504–524). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhawuk, D. P. S., Podsiadlowski, A., Graf, J., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Corporate strategies for managing diversity in the global workplace. In G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley, & D. B. Fedor (Eds.). Human resource management: Perspectives, context, functions, and outcomes (pp. 112–145). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measure of work autonomy. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 38, 551–570. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., ... Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300–315. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. Chen, G., & Bliese, P. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-

10

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

96–112. Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1102–1127. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277. James, L. R. (1988). Organizational climate: Another look at a potentially important construct. In S. G. Cole, & R. G. Demaree (Eds.). Applications of interactionist psychology: Essays in honor of Saul B. Sells (pp. 253–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management Review, 6, 499–508. Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural value framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285–320. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557–569. Kreft, I. G. G. (2000). Using random coefficient linear models for the analysis of hierarchically nested data. In H. E. A. Tinsey, & S. D. Brown (Eds.). Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical models (pp. 613–639). New York: Academic Press. Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1–18. Latané, B. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46, 13–25. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. Leidner, D., & Kayworth, T. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30, 357–399. Li, Y., & Sun, J. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 172–189. Liden, R. C., Anand, S., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2016). Dyadic relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 139–166. Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723–746. Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multi-dimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Vol. Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 15. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 47–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Liu, S. M., & Liao, J. Q. (2013). Transformational leadership and speaking up: Power distance and structural distance as moderators. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41, 1747–1756. Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Coping with job insecurity: The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 361–372. Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69, 67–121. Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other's effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 697–708. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1992). A preliminary report on a new measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the southern management association, Valdosta, GA (pp. 185–187). . Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 12. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 39–53). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 321–357. Ng, K. Y., Koh, C., Ang, S., Kennedy, J. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2011). Rating leniency and halo in multisource feedback ratings: Testing cultural assumptions of power distance and individualism–collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1033–1044. Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture's consequences for leadership behavior: National values in action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 342–351. Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extra-role behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838–844. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549–556. Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89–117. Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader-team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 962–973. Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 633–646. Courtright, S. H., Thurgood, G. R., Stewart, G. L., & Pierotti, A. J. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1825–1846. Crouch, A., & Yetton, P. (1988). Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and social contact, manager friendliness and subordinate performance in management groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 65–82. Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the rolemaking process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634. Dorfman, P., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In R. N. Farmer, & E. G. McGoun (Eds.). Advances in international comparative management (pp. 127–150). London, UK: JAI Press. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A metaanalysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715–1759. Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualismcollectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24, 265–304. Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.). Leadership (pp. 65–114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A Cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.). Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 94–127). London: Macmillan. Farh, J., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcomes relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715–729. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. Graen, G., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868–872. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology(2nd ed.). Vol. 3. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 199– 267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources. Prentice Hall. Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. Journal of Management, 23, 623–641. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGrawHill. Hofstede, G. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd edition). McGraw Hill. House, R. L., Filley, A. C., & Gujarati, D. W. (1971). Leadership style, hierarchical influence, and the satisfaction of subordinate role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 422–432. Howell, J. P., Bowen, D. E., Dorfman, P. W., Kerr, S., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1997). Substitutes for leadership: Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 381–395). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30,

11

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Anand et al.

Applied Psychology, 92, 309–320. Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405–439. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Timmerman, T. A. (2005). Missing persons in the study of groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 21–36. Tjosvold, D. (1985). Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 281–293. Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In H. E. Howe, & M. M. Page (Eds.). Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 196–259). Nebraska University Press. Vidyarthi, P. R., Anand, S., & Liden, R. C. (2014). Do emotionally perceptive leaders motivate higher employee performance? The moderating role of task interdependence and power distance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 232–244. Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.). Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 197–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111. Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 161–176. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879–919. Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 681–692.

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, & India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643–658. Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1097–1130. Rothaus, P., Morton, R. B., & Hanson, P. G. (1965). Performance appraisal and psychological distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 48–54. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020–1030. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219–227. Sinha, J. B. P., Daftuar, C. N., Gupta, R. K., & Mishra, R. C. (1994). Regional similarities and differences in people's beliefs, practices and preferences. Psychology and Developing Societies, 6, 131–150. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663. Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss's boss: Effects of supervisors' upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of

12