The paper "The Effects of Personality on Leader-Member Relationships in the Organization" is a wonderful example of a research paper on human resources. The Leader-Member Relationships in the Organization has been given substantial research attention, which has made it to be proposed as one of the most crucial relationships for employees (Manzon & Barsoux, 2002). The Leader-Member exchange and relationships have given an essential framework for assessing this relationship and has been the spotlight of various empirical studies (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Grerstner & Day, 1997). The Leader-Member exchange theory differs from the other leadership theories, for instance; contingency theories and trait leadership theories, for it assumes that leaders vary in the relationship types they build up with their subordinates.
Therefore, the distinctive relationship between a specific leader and subordinate forms the focus of interest in this study. The Leader-Member exchange theory states that exchanges, such as social and work interactions, are usually practiced by the leaders and the subordinates. Subsequently, the leaders form relationships of differing quality with the subordinates out of these exchanges. The employees who have outstanding quality relationships attain various benefits and advantages as compared to those with poor quality relationships.
Such benefits include improved communication, a higher degree of emotional support, better roles, and greater access to organizational resources (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). In the past thirty years, the Leader-Member exchange research has generally paid attention to the outcomes of Leader-Member exchange relationships (Grerstner & Day, 1997). However, the inadequate focus has been given to antecedents. Moreover, there are remarkably few instances whereby both the outcomes and the antecedents have been assessed in the same survey.
In addition, among the few antecedents which have been studied, the personality variables have not been given much attention. Nevertheless, with the increasing significance of personality at the workplace (Barrick, Parks, & Mount, 2005), and with the knowhow that personality is probable to play an essential role in Leader-Member exchange relationships (Bono & Judge, 2004), it is imperative to unearth more about these linkages. 2.0 Objectives of the Study The objective of this study is threefold. To find out the relationship between three subordinate personality variables, that is; locus of control, need for power, and self-esteem, and the Leader-Member exchange quality. To examine the association between the personality variables and the outcomes of job satisfaction, role conflict, supervisor feedback, and organizational feedback.
Job satisfaction refers to the overall effective evaluation of one’ s work (Spector, 1997). Role conflict happens when more than one set of role pressures exists in an individual’ s workplace, and compliance with any one of these roles impedes the accomplishment of another (Perrewé et al. , 2004). Supervisor and organizational feedback refer to the general quality of feedback that is received from different sources (Herold, Liden, & Leatherwood, 1987). To find out the antecedents and outcomes of Leader-Member exchange quality in the same study. To determine whether Leader-Member exchange mediates the relationships between personality and job outcomes. 3.0 Description of Overall Approach The sample is to consist of 136 employees, from an active local organization, who are proposed to have a response rate of 34%).
The job responsibilities of the respondents include sales and marketing. The participant respondents are to generally work in teams and where are to communicate, work with, and at times rely on their supervisors to complete many parts of their tasks.
As opposed to other jobs where the level of supervisor-subordinate interaction is minimal and the work is completed primarily independent of the supervisor, this sample is especially appropriate for investigating antecedents and consequences of Leader-Member exchange because the respondents of this nature have jobs where the leader-member relationship was integral and necessary for completing their work. Of the 136 respondents, 73 are to be male and 63 female. The sample is to contain 72.1% Caucasian and the ages should range from 22 to 71 with the average age of 44.
The organizational tenure of the participants is to be an average of 6.77 years and should range from 1 to 21 years. On average, the employees should be working in the organization at least forty hours per week. In addition, the respondents are to receive pen-and-paper surveys with an attached letter requesting their participation. The letter is to be written by the research leader, which emphasizes accuracy and promptness in completing and returning the questionnaire. Furthermore, the leader is to inform the potential respondents that the purpose of the study was developmental, as was aimed at establishing the effects of personality on leader-member relationships in the organization. Respondents are to be assured of anonymity and were to complete the survey during the working hours.
Also, the research leader is to send follow-up emails to all the organization employees in two and four weeks after the questionnaires are mailed. Completed questionnaires are to be mailed directly to the researchers. The data collected from the survey will be properly analyzed, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and conclusions are drawn thereafter. 4.0 Critical Review of the Literature This section deals with the relevant literature of the study as it takes a close look at the effects of personality on leader-member relationships in an organization, particularly on the research methodology used and any loopholes identified on those techniques.
The literature used that is feasible and bears close parities with performance and leader-member relationships within an organization. 4.1 The Overall Approach In a study conducted to explore how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time, (Nahrgang, Morgeson & Ilies, 2009), the study was done in an experimental class setting at Midwestern United University.
The class was designed to model an organization context in that the leader was responsible for all aspects of the formation, development, and performance of the team within a fifteen-week semester. In examining the relationship between personality and transformational and transactional leadership, (Bono & Judge, 2004), the survey was efficiently done in an organization. The respondents included the leaders and their subordinates and the data analysis was adequately done by the use of the SPPS statistical program, which gave ease to quantitive analysis that is highly effective. In another survey concerning the meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange, (Gerstner & Day, 1997), the research was effectively done among five organizations.
The probability sampling method was used, which was the most appropriate for that matter. In addition, both quantitive and qualitative data analysis was used to adequately draw findings and conclusions. 4.2 Method used to collect the Data In the first context, questionnaires and physical interviews and interactions were used to collect the data. The sample, which was randomly selected, consisted of 125 respondents and there were 194 participants (Nahrgang, Morgeson & Ilies, 2009).
In the second context, only questionnaires were used for collecting data, and a nonprobability sampling method was applied for sampling respondents (Bono & Judge, 2004). In the third survey, both primary and secondary data were used for the study. The data collection tools included; questionnaires, interviews, observations, and relevant analysis of library and internet data sources (Gerstner & Day, 1997). 4.3 Gaps Identified The use of students as samples in the first case was misguided.
This is because; students are not the most appropriate to be used as the samples while conducting research of this nature. It requires the engagement of employees who are already in the organization system. This shows that the findings identified in such a survey cannot be entirely relied upon. However, their analysis more theoretical meaning that it might not be applicable in real-life situations. The application of nonprobability sampling and the use of only quantitive data analysis in the second case were ill-informed. This is because; nonprobability sampling method usually suffers a high rate of biasness.
This results in the misrepresentation of the group and the facts. Also, the issue of disregarding qualitative data analysis also creates another loophole of producing questionable findings, thereby making it to be less reliable. In addition, their analysis more theoretical meaning that it might not be applicable in real-life situations. The third case was conducted most effectively and conclusively. However, though, the survey did not incorporate personality valuables, which is the basis of this survey. In conclusion, this research is aimed at filling the gaps identified above, pertaining to the techniques and approaches previously used and also inadequate inclusion of personality valuables in the survey.
In a nutshell, the study will find out the actual effects of personality on leader-member relationships in an organization. This is to be achieved by applying the most appropriate approaches and research techniques, with the sole aim of accomplishing the set objectives of the research.
Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Self-Monitoring As a Moderator of the Relationships between Personality Traits and Performance. Personnel Psychology Journal, 58, 745-767.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910
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
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.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward A Psychology of Dyadic Organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior journal, 9, 175-208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Herold, D. M., Liden, R. C., & Leatherwood, M. L. (1987). Using Multiple Attributes to Assess Performance Feedback Sources. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 826-835.
Manzoni, J., & Barsoux, J. (2002). The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome. How Good Managers Cause Great People To Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance inﬂuence leader and member relationships over time. Retrieved September 26, 2012, from https://www.msu.edu/~morgeson/nahrgang_morgeson_ilies_2009.pdf
Perrewé et al., (2004). Neutralizing Job Stressors: Political Skill as an Antidote to the Dysfunctional Consequences of Role Conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141-152.
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.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.