Leader‐member exchange‐subordinate outcomes relationship: role of voice and justice

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore, deriving from social exchange theory, the process paths between leader‐member exchange (LMX) and subordinate outcomes (satisfaction and commitment). LMX is conceptualized as a two‐dimensional construct, consisting of LMX‐Contribution and LMX‐Affect. The two dimensions are hypothesized to have differential impact on subordinate outcomes. Procedural and distributive justice perceptions are hypothesized to mediate the relationship of LMX with subordinate outcomes, and voice is hypothesized to mediate the relationship of LMX with procedural justice. Additionally, alternate models based on the primacy of the procedures are tested. Design/methodology/approach – The study reports responses of 295 professionals from 30 software organizations operating in different parts of India. Data were collected by means of a structured questionnaire containing standard scales of LMX, distributive, and procedural justice, voice, satisfaction and commitment. After establishing the psychometric properties of the measures, path analysis of the hypothesized and alternate models was conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM). Findings – Overall, results provided support for most of the hypotheses with a few exceptions. Specifically, LMX led to distributive justice through procedural justice – a finding consistent with the "procedural primacy hypothesis". Researchlimitations/implications – The results have implications for LMX interventions. However, the results are to be viewed in the light of common method variance and same source bias. Originality/value – The paper is of value in that its results indicate that the negative effect of work‐group differentiation can be neutralized if the leader uses voice mechanisms for improving procedural justice. Also, this study adds to the literature by testing the proposed model in the Indian setting, thus providing some empirical cross‐cultural validity to LMX‐subordinate outcomes relationships.