Integrating Implicit Leadership Theories,Leader–Member Exchange,Self-Efficacy,and Attachment Theory to Predict Job Performance

Abstract

The impact of implicit leadership theories on performance and the mechanism linking them have received insufficient theoretical and research attention. Drawing on Bandura's social cognitive theory, the present study contributes theory through examining the assertion that higher congruence between followers' implicit leadership theory and the characteristics of supervisors enhance job performance through higher quality of leader–member exchange and self-efficacy. Moreover, in the proposed model, attachment insecurity was considered as the antecedent of the congruence and leader–member exchange in addition to the moderator of the relationship between them. Capitalizing upon Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), this study tested the model in a field study using a sample of employees in knowledge-oriented firms in Iran. The results suggest that the congruence between followers' implicit leadership theory and the characteristics of supervisors does not directly impact performance and leader–member exchange and self-efficacy are the full mediators. The results also showed that attachment insecurity is the predictor of neither the congruence nor the leader–member exchange. Additionally, attachment insecurity moderates the relationship between these two variables in a way that when attachment insecurity is high, the congruence has more positive impact on leader–member exchange.

Keywords

Implicit leadership theories leader–member exchange self-efficacy attachment insecurity job performance

Introduction

In recent years, there has been an increasing investigative interest in follower-centered leadership (Shamir, 2007; Junker & van Dick, 2014) and hence, a growing amount of research has studied implicit leadership theories (ILTs). ILTs refer to some schemas and cognitive structures specifying the abilities and traits characterizing a business leader (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Witnessing and feeling the possession of ILTs in supervisors can impact an array of work variables such as job satisfaction, well-being, affective commitment, and leader–member exchange (LMX) (Engle & Lord, 1997; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Topakas, 2011). As for the mechanisms linking ILTs to job outcomes, a few studies have explored the antecedents, mediators, and moderators (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013).

Despite the emerging literature, no empirical research has yet introduced self-efficacy as the potential mediator bridging the relationship between the congruence of followers' ILTs about a leader in general and their recognized ILTs for their current supervisors and follower performance. Second, despite the provision of a theoretical framework connecting follower attachment styles (anxious, avoidant, and secure) and ILTs by Keller (2003), no research has empirically validated the proposed framework. Third, attachment theory, as a leading theoretical framework established to investigate individuals' differences in close relationships and leadership (Gillath, Karantzas, & Fraley, 2016; Richards & Hackett, 2012), has the power to function to moderate the relationship between leaders and followers after the picture of a supervisor as a leader or nonleader is solidified.

This study aims to void these gaps by, first, introducing attachment insecurity as the antecedent of the supervisor-leader match (based on ILTs) and the moderator on the relationship between this match and LMX and, second, investigating how the two mediators of LMX and self-efficacy mediate the relationship between supervisor-leader congruence and follower job performance.

ILTs and job performance

Leadership is a prevailing social phenomenon; therefore, both experts and laypeople create and develop mental characteristics distinguishing leaders. Explicit theories (e.g., LMX, transformational leadership and transactional leadership) are devised by scientists through scientific data and observations; whereas, implicit theories (e.g., ILTs) are constructed in the minds of people regardless of their education, knowledge, and expertise (Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006). The knowledge structures defining leadership in the minds of people are called ILTs (Eden, 1992; Lord & Maher, 1991).

Leadership categorization theory (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984) is rooted in social cognitive theory, positing that followers possess a mental depiction of a leader via prototypes. This provides a background for the followers to make a comparison between actual people and these prototypes to give a verdict if they are (ideal) leaders or not (Lord & Maher, 1991; Shondrick & Lord, 2010). The extent to which this match can be verified determines the level of leader power (Maurer & Lord, 1991). Additionally, ILTs are some cognitive representations utilized for “sensemaking” (Weick, 1995); therefore, they create expectations of individuals and also act as a simplification mechanism to free cognitive resources to be employed for more important tasks such as problem-solving and coordination (Dinh & Lord, 2010). Research has shown that the consideration of leader as the owner of followers' ILTs can positively impact the quality and amount of attributed influence and even charisma (Maurer & Lord, 1991). One can sensibly think of these attributions of power due to the overlap between employees' ILTs and managers' traits, characteristics and behavior as the vehicle to increase their expectations of receiving positive outcomes and rewards due to their association with such a manager.

From one point of view, heightened expectations are likely to alter employee perceptions more pervasively regarding their work environment, job attitudes, and performance. Taken from a different angle, when one is accepted as a leader, the followers reciprocate via openness toward the leaders' actions (van Quaquebeke & Brodbeck, 2008) and mental confirmation of leader's effectiveness (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008). Both, followers' reverence and perception about the effectiveness of leader initiate the welcoming of leaders' influence, which is the core to leadership effectiveness (Hollander, 2006; Yukl, 2010). Leaders' influence, in return, manifests itself in followers' behavior or performance (van Knippenberg, 2011).

The mediating role of LMX

Based on LMX theory, leaders categorize followers into two groups of in-groups and out-groups. For the former, the employees have high-quality relationships with their leaders and are privileged to access a bigger share of leader's attention, resources, and support than do the ones in the latter whose relationships of less quality. From the perspective of leadership, the approach investigating the quality of the dyadic relationship between a leader and a follower (LMX) has been popular.

Having roots in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and role theory (Merton, 1968), LMX concentrates on the dyadic exchange between leaders and followers in addition to the process of relationship development. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) pointed out that “LMX clearly incorporates an operationalization of a relation-based approach to leadership” (p. 109), which is based on the benefits of both sides (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Graen and colleagues pioneered the classification of exchange quality between leaders and followers (see Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975), which differentiates in-group members from out-group members. The former receives more support and resources while the latter possess less freedom in role development and have little power in decision making.

This dichotomy causes a wide array of work-related consequences. Gerstner and Day's (1997) meta-analysis showed that LMX is correlated with performance, job satisfaction with one's supervisor, organizational commitment, overall satisfaction, and follower's competence level. In the most recent meta-analysis, Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, and Epitropaki (2016) demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between LMX and objective task performance. Some other positive job outcomes are employee well-being (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005), self-efficacy (Murphy & Ensher, 1999), lower levels of followers' stress (e.g., Bernas & Major, 2000), empowerment (Keller & Dansereau, 1995), and perceptions of transformational leadership style (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). High-quality relationship between leaders and followers can lead to higher organizational citizenship behavior (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), time and effort invested in the job (Liden & Graen, 1980), and innovation (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999).

A plethora of research has explored the predictors of LMX quality. In one classification, Martin, Epitropaki, Thomas, and Topokas (2010) put the antecedents in four groups of leader characteristics, subordinate characteristics, interactional variables, and contextual factors. As examples of subordinate characteristics, follower's personality (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, & Walker, 2008; Lapierre & Hacket, 2007) is positively related to LMX. In terms of interactional variables, leader and subordinate liking (Martin et al., 2010) is positively associated with LMX. In a study, Nahrgang, Morgeson, and Ilies (2009) found out that leader personality predicts LMX. As a more pertinent study, researchers have shown that the congruence between implicit and explicit leadership theories can positively impact LMX quality (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Topakas, 2011).

The mediating role of self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is rooted in social cognitive theory, which mainly shows people have a tendency to give a direction to their effort through some controllable behaviors leading to desired outcomes (Bandura, 1997). The relationship between performance and self-efficacy has been explored by different researchers. It is widely proved that there is a positive correlation between performance and self-efficacy (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Also, prior performance can boost up a person's self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels, George-Falvy, & James, 1994).

Despite being the subject of scrutiny, it is also shown that self-efficacy can positively influence performance (Bandura, 1997) via controlling distractions and disruptive thoughts leading to more focus on tasks (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1996), standing against obstacles and failure (e.g., Cervone & Peake, 1986), using strategies effectively (e.g., Bandura & Wood, 1989), higher goal setting (Bandura, 1997; Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990), goal commitment (Locke & Latham, 1990) in different realms of academic settings (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991), health functioning (Holden, 1992), work organizations (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), and athletics (Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000).

Social cognitive theory posits that people do not function in isolation and people's environment can shape performance expectations and direct individuals' endeavor (Bandura, 1997). For instance, Eden, Ganzach, Flumin-Granat, and Zigman (2010) demonstrated that admiring systems' superior technology could decline the time of filing entitlement claims by 43.5%. Bearing this notion in mind, in this research, we focus on interpersonal self-efficacy, identification with leader, and the perception of transformational leadership to justify the mediating role of self-efficacy.

Individuals influencing a focal task are the critical building blocks of a task environment and therefore can boost up performance in conjunction with self-efficacy (Emich, 2012). However, prior research done to explore the relationship between self-efficacy and performance shows contradictory results. In interdependent task outcome, because of the interconnection of skills to do the task, the performance is contingent upon the perception of partners' skills (Kerr, Messe, Park, & Sambolec, 2005; Kerr & Fleming, 2007), whereas in noninterdependent tasks, due to shared instrumentality, individuals' attempt declines and as a result performance decreases (Karau & Williams, 1993). Since leadership and followership are essentially interdependent (Baker, Mathis, & Stites-Doe, 2011; Hollander, 1992), it is likely that self-efficacy is improved by the perception of leaders' skills.

Bass and Avolio (1989) showed that leadership prototypes correlated the characteristics of transformational leaders. In an international vein, GLOBE project results also bolstered this idea and showed that culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories associated with charismatic/transformational leadership (Den Hartog et al., 1999).

Bandura (1997) posits that role modeling increases self-efficacy. As it was mentioned, self-efficacy is a belief that one has the ability to fulfill a task (Bandura, 1997), whereas relational identification is the extent to which one defines oneself based on a given role-relationship (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Modeling is a strategy to provide information on “correct” performance which is not available otherwise (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Identifying oneself with the high-quality relationship with the leader enables employees to behave aligned with their identity which provides the opportunity for the followers to increase their knowledge, acquire new skills, learn from their leaders, and thereby boost up self-efficacy (Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994).

According to Sluss and Ashforth (2007), relational identification entails the participation of two sides. This extension from identifying oneself with personal qualities to the inclusion of another's quality is likely to be beneficial through more empathy, mutual understanding, social support, cooperation, and loyalty which can lead to trust as the predictor of knowledge sharing. Isaksen (1983) has already shown that trust and information sharing can foster followers' self-efficacy through escalating the ability to specify the correct course of action. One may argue that high relationship quality with leader can benefit followers through relational identification which can cause followers to incorporate positive relationship into their self-concept and, as a consequence, increase self-efficacy and performance.

Based on self-efficacy theory, individuals receive clue from the environment to evaluate some factors pertinent to themselves and their situations to figure out the availability of resources to accomplish tasks (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). One of these factors is mastery experience or experiencing success repeatedly (Bandura, 1997). High levels of LMX quality increase mastery experience which can bolster self-efficacy (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). Self-efficacy is independently associated with job performance (e.g., Liao & Chuang, 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Since it impacts an individual's goal setting and activates taking up a challenge or activity, the task is believed to be successfully accomplished. Wise selection of situations via the road map of self-efficacy plays a critical role in strong commitment and high aspiration to fulfill expectation.

Attachment styles

Based on the attachment literature, two general types of attachment styles are detectable: secure and insecure (anxious and avoidance attachment). Secure attachment is the consequence of consistent caregiving. In this style, infants are optimistic, have positive views of the self and others, have enough confidence in the availability of support in the times of distress; hence, leading to optimal functioning (Mikulincer, 1995). On the contrary, attachment anxiety features negativity of self-image and overreliance on mutual relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005) as well as hyper vigilance to social and emotional signals received from others. This germinates from the seeds of distress from separation or rejection and abandonment from the attachment figure.

Being categorized as insecure attachment style, attachment avoidance engenders untrustworthiness and unavailability of others in the times of need (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005) which causes the “deactivation of proximity seeking, inhabitation of the quest for support and active attempts to handle distress done.” (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Avoidance is the response to the termination of anticipating additional frustration emanating from attachment figure's untrustworthiness. This leads to the denial and suppression of relational importance, attachment needs, abstaining from emotional involvement and intimacy, and finally dismissing of threat-related signals (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).

Attachment and the congruence between implicit and explicit leadership theories

Keller (2003) postulated that attachment styles can explain individuals' differences in ILTs. According to Keller and Cacioppe (2001), avoidant leaders (followers) are reluctant to resolve the challenges in relationships, whereas anxious ones show more sensitivity to conflicts for the fear of losing their relationship. Self-verification theory (Swann, 2012) suggests that individuals judge behavior from others which is consistent with their self-concept. Therefore, attachment theory and self-verification theory can provide a solid ground on which the nature of individual's leadership expectations is placed.

Secure adults, believing in the responsiveness of caretakers (leaders), are likely to expect partners as sensitive, supportive, and responsive (Keller & Cacioppe, 2001). Anxiously attached followers think of leaders' trustworthiness and reliability as intermittent. Therefore, they may expect leaders to be sensitive, responsive, and supportive. In this situation, followers maintain their proximity with unreliable figures. Hence, they may inconsistently think of leaders as sensitive, supportive, and responsive. On the other hand, avoidant followers generally do not trust others (Keller, 2003) and are reluctant to invest in others' emotional support (Bartholomew, 1993). Thus, avoidant individuals are likely to construct negative images of leaders due to their nonreceptive and inattentive behavior.

Research has shown that individuals with a secure attachment style have more confidence in others in comparison with those with insecure attachment style (e.g., preoccupied, fearful, and dismissing) (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Moreover, insecurely attached individuals consider others as threat (Hardy & Barkham, 1994). In terms of trust, Harms, Bai, and Han (2016) demonstrated that follower's anxious attachment influence cognitive trust negatively and are skeptical or distrustful of others' intentions, whereas followers with avoidant attachment do not trust people effectively. This lack of trust may cause followers not to rate their current supervisors as the owners of leaders' traits while secure attachment of followers can cause positive views of their leader and that positively impact the rating of current supervisors.

Attachment and LMX

Attachment is likely to be one of the effective precursors of LMX quality since the two theories of attachment and LMX have more common points than differences. Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) have shown that attachment insecurity impacts relation satisfaction negatively. Based on Liden and Maslyn (1998), LMX is shaped through three stages. In the first stage (role taking) dyadic relationship between leader and follower is formed. In the second stage (role making), however, leaders and members get acquainted with each other and set up to exchange resources at personal and professional levels. Finally, in the third stage (routinization), exchanges are more social than transactional. In this stage, high-quality exchange, mutual respect, perceived equity in contribution, positive affect, and loyalty are constructed.

Trust plays a pivotal role in the formation of high-quality LMX during these three stages (e.g., Ferris et al., 2009; Sue-Chan, Au, & Hackett, 2012). Research has shown that propensity to trust and trust in the mutual relationship between coworkers are interconnected (Yakovleva, Reilly, & Werko, 2010) and low propensity as a feature of attachment insecurity can negatively influence LMX and trust building process. Attachment insecurity causes the emergence of a motivational, cognitive, and perceptual dynamism manifesting itself behaviorally in a way which reduces LMX quality and challenges role-taking and role-making (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Seeking dependence and nonautonomy, anxiously attached followers cannot handle and take over increasingly challenging tasks which play a key role in LMX development (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Based on the development stages of LMX, dependence from followers' side and lack of delegation and persuasion from leaders' side will adversely impact followers' confidence to achieve their tasks successfully which impair LMX quality (Richards & Hackett, 2012).

For more elaboration, attachment avoidance pertains to the preference for solitary jobs, dissatisfaction with colleagues, and working as a means of shunning socializing and conflict prevention (Hardy & Barkham, 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Such followers deactivate interactions with others and manage to solve problems alone (Cassidy, Werner, Rourke, Zubernis, & Balaraman, 2003). According to self-verification theory, followers high in attachment avoidance are more likely to assign tasks than focusing on relationships and try to fortify their self-identity as “lone wolves.” Moreover, avoidance brings about lack of trust in others and getting stuck in the first stage of LMX development which is purely transactional (Keller & Cacioppe, 2001). Nonresponsiveness and inconsideration of quality relationship as well as inattentive behavior toward the partner can convey the idea that mutual leader–member relation is not respectable and loyal; therefore, affect and relation strengthening factors are not shown to enhance LMX (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).

Attachment insecurity is so pervasive in the relationships and even can impact attitudes and behaviors. Keller (2003) noted that attachment styles of followers have impact on the perceptions of followers about the leader (i.e., ILTs). From another pint of view, attachment styles influence LMX quality (e.g., Richards & Hackett, 2012). In this regard, it is hypothesized that for the followers high in attachment insecurity, the relationship between the rates of accepting current supervisors as a leader and LMX can become less positive due to their rates of both supervisor's leadership and also the perceived quality of their relationship with their current supervisors.

This study aims to examine the mechanism linking the match between the supervisor's and a leader's characteristics (followers' ILTs) through the lenses of followers and their job performance. In this regard, in the proposed model, LMX and self-efficacy are the mediators. Moreover, attachment insecurity is the moderator and predictor of the aforementioned match. The hypotheses guiding this research are the following:

H1: The congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for their current supervisors is positively related to follower job performance.

H2: LMX mediates the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors from one side and follower job performance from the other side.

H3: Self-efficacy mediates the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for their current supervisors from one side and follower job performance from the other side.

H4: For followers, the congruence between their ILTs and those for their immediate supervisor and attachment insecurity are negatively related.

H5: Attachment insecurity is negatively associated with LMX in leader–member dyadic.

H6: Attachment insecurity moderates the relationship between the congruence between their ILTs and those for their immediate supervisor and LMX in a way that attachment insecurity makes this relationship less positive.

The conceptual model of this study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The conceptual model of this study.

Method

Participants and procedure

Two graduated university students were employed to distribute questionnaires among the employees of 141 knowledge-oriented firms in a city in Iran. The list of knowledge-oriented firms and their addresses were obtained from science and technology parks and growth centers. The graduated students distributed their questionnaires among the present employees. The average age of the participants was 38 years (SD = 9.88), and they had worked for the company for an average of 4.22 years (SD = 1.23). Thirty-one percent of the participants were females. The employees interacted with their immediate supervisor on daily basis. Before data collection, the two employed members were trained how to collect data. Three questionnaires were administered and collected in three waves. In the first wave, the employed students visited the knowledge-oriented firms and handed out the first questionnaire to the employees of the firms with unique codes written on the questionnaires representing their names. The participants were assured for the confidentiality of their data. The questionnaires at time 1 contained the measures of demographics, the congruence between their ILTs and those of their current supervisors and self-efficacy. In the first wave, 400 questionnaires were distributed, and after 2 weeks, 350 complete questionnaires were collected. A package containing a pen and a notepad was given to each participant as a reward. The second survey (time 2), containing LMX and attachment questionnaires, was completed by 321 employees (response rate = 0.92).

In order to mitigate the negative impact of context effects, the measures were counter-balanced (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Moreover, the second questionnaire was distributed with the lag of six weeks to minimize the impact of transient sources pertaining to common method bias. Some researchers believe that this technique is as effective as source separation (Doty & Glick, 1998). Time 3 survey comprised employee job performance measure and was distributed after a week. This questionnaire was completed by all the supervisors of the employees who had completed both questionnaires at times 1 and 2.

Measures

The questionnaires were originally in English; therefore, they were translated into Persian through an iterate process for which experts of Persian and English were employed. Having been translated back to Persian by one expert, the questions were translated back into English by another one. This method finally proved that both English and Persian versions were comparable with a high level of accuracy (Brislin, 1970).

The congruence between ILTs and those for current supervisors

The 21-item version of the ILTs scale developed out of 41-item scale devised by Offermann, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994) was utilized to measure ILTs (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). The degree to which followers perceive their current supervisors as the possessors of their ILTs was measured via Pictorial Venn diagrams (van Quaquebeke, van Knippenberg, & Brodbeck, 2011). It has several advantages: (1) there is no need to have a long list of traits to measure both ILTs and those traits for their current supervisors via verbal options and (2) testing the congruence via polynomial regression has errors in measurement (Topakas, 2011) pictorial measures can help to avoid common item variance in cross-sectional questionnaire studies (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, several studies have applied this technique and the validity of this approach is verified (e.g., Schubert & Otten, 2002; Shamir & Kark, 2004). To evaluate ILTs, two latent variables of prototypes and anti-prototypes were measured. To assess the fit of the two-factor model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. Results indicated that the two-factor model fits the data well (χ²/df = 2.76, p ≤ .001; comparative fit index (CFI) = .94; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .93; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .077). Cronbach's alpha for prototypes and anti-prototypes were 0.96 and 0.92, respectively.

Leader–member exchange

Followers' LMX was measured using the 11-item LMX-MDM from Liden and Maslyn (1998). Liden and Maslyn (1998) have already validated a high-order factor and since this research sought to measure the perception of leader–member relation quality, all items were considered as one variable. Three questions were deleted because of low levels of reliability (less than .7). Participants measured their LMX relationship on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). A sample item is “I respect my supervisor's knowledge and competence in the job.” For this scale, Cronbach's alpha was 0.90.

Self-efficacy

A 10-item scale developed by Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker (1994) was utilized to measure self-efficacy. The questionnaire evaluates participant's personal work abilities and skills to carry out particular tasks. A sample item is “I have confidence in my ability to do my job.” The answers were based on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very accurate to 6 = very accurate). The coefficient alpha for this study was 0.86.

Job performance

We measured followers' job performance by using the four items developed by Chen, Tsui, and Farh (2002). In order to avoid same source bias, the supervisors were asked to score their subordinate job performance. Sample items of this scale included “S/he always completes job assign/ments on time.” and “His/Her performance always meets the expectations of the supervisor.” This variable was measured based on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.86.

Attachment insecurity

Two constructs of attachment anxiety and avoidance were merged and assessed by a validated 12-item version of Experiences in Close Relationship scale developed by Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, and Vogel (2007). Participants rated six questions for attachment anxiety (e.g., “I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by others.”) and six items to measure avoidance attachment (e.g., “I try to avoid getting too close to others.”) on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha for attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and attachment insecurity were 0.80, 0.70, and 0.71, respectively.

Control variables

Previous research has demonstrated that followers' gender, age, and tenure can influence employees' perceptions about leader effectiveness, and this in return impacts follower performance (e.g., Riordan, Griffith, & Weatherly, 2003; Schaubroeck, Larn, & Cha, 2007). Therefore, in this study, age, gender, and tenure were controlled.

Analysis procedure

For this research, IBM SPSS Statistics 22 and Amos 22 were used to analyze data. In order to evaluate the strength of linear relationships between study variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were utilized. Before testing the goodness of the proposed model, CFA was used to evaluate the goodness of fit for the measurement model with Amos 22. The indices used to explore fitness were the RMSEA, χ²/df, the TLI, and the CFI. The acceptable range for χ²/df is between 2 and 5 based on previous research (Salisbury, Chin, Gopal, & Newsted, 2002). The threshold of acceptance for CFI and TLI is 0.9 (Salisbury et al., 2002). RMSEA should be less than 0.08 to indicate good data fitness (Byrne, 2006).

To test mediation, bootstrapping analysis was conducted since this method is robust to analyze mediation (Hayes, 2013). Through bootstrapping, a large sample is created from the original data (5000 for this study). In this method, the confidence interval of 95% is determined around the indirect effect, and this internal should exclude zero in order to show a significant indirect effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In order to test the moderation model, hierarchical regression analysis was applied through mean-centering the variables consisting of the interaction term in the moderation analysis (Aiken & West, 1991).

Results

Descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, and zero-order correlations are shown in Table 1. The diagonal figures show the reliability of measures.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities of the variables in this study.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. The congruence between followers' ILTs and those for their current supervisors	2.879	.537	(.86)
2. Leader–member exchange	3.652	.735	.42**	(.89)
3. Self-efficacy	3.689	.726	.07	.27**	(.86)
4. Job performance	3.890	.586	.04	.29**	.44**	(.85)
5. Attachment insecurity	2.408	.552	−.17	.09	−.03	.17**	(.72)

The Cronbach's alpha values are shown diagonally in parentheses. N = 296.

LMX: leader–member exchange; ILTs: Implicit Leadership Theories. **p < .001

Measurement model

In order to analyze structural equation modeling, Amos software (Arbuckle, 2007) was employed to test the proposed hypotheses. Before analyzing the hypothesized structural model, data fitness of the measurement model was tested (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), appraising a model comprising of five latent factors (i.e., the congruence between ILTs and those for current supervisors, LMX, self-efficacy, job performance, and attachment insecurity with 2, 8, 4, 6, and 2 factors, respectively). The measurement model showed an acceptable data fitness (χ²/df = 2.84, p ≤ .001; CFI = .90; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .079), and all the indicators had acceptable and significant loadings on their unique variables (ranging from .67 to .88). In the measurement model, attachment insecurity does not have significant effects on the congruence between followers' ILTs and those for their immediate supervisor and LMX. Moreover, a series of CFA were carried out to determine the study variables were discriminant and the proposed model had better data fitness.

Hypothesized model

Having tested the data fitness of the measurement model, the proposed structural model was tested. The results of the proposed model demonstrated an acceptable data fitness (χ²/df = 2.31, p ≤ .001; CFI = .0.92; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .07). After analyzing the proposed model (fully mediated model), some paths were added to test other nested models in order to figure out if there are better fitting models to data. The data fitness indices for the partially mediated models are shown in Table 2. Nonsignificant χ² difference test between the fully mediating model and other models in Table 2 postulates that the direct paths added to the model do not contribute significantly to model fitness. Consequently, according to the rules of parsimony (Byrne, 2006), the fully mediating model, without direct paths, is the best selection.

Table 2.

Fit indices for partially and fully mediated model.

Model	χ²	df	Δχ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Fully mediating model	521.77	166		.91	.90	.84
Three paths added from CONG to self-efficacy, CONG to role performance and LMX to role performance	509.13	163	12.64	.89	.88	.85
Two paths are added from CONG to self-efficacy and CONG to role performance	514.76	164	7.01	.89	.88	.85
One path is added from CONG to self-efficacy	515.11	165	6.66	.89	.88	.85
One path is added from LMX to job performance	518.07	165	3.7	.89	.88	.85

N = 296.

CONG: the congruence between followers' ILTs and those for their current supervisor; LMX: leader–member exchange; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.

Results pertaining to Hypothesis 1 to Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 1 predicted that the congruence between followers' ILTs and those for their immediate supervisor would have a positive effect on follower job performance. The results showed the direct effect of the congruence and performance is nonsignificant (b = 0.00, n.s.). However, after bootstrapping, the results supported that the congruence between followers' ILTs and those for their immediate supervisor would have a positive and significant effect on follower job performance through the mediators of LMX and self-efficacy since the estimated 95% confidence interval [0.03, 0.13] did not include zero (average bootstrap estimate = 0.10).

Since the fully mediating model is finally accepted as the fittest model, the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for the current supervisors is not directly related to job performance and LMX and self-efficacy fully mediate this relationship. This finding supports the second and third hypotheses. On the contrary, Hypothesis 4 is repudiated since the relationship between attachment insecurity and the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors is not significant (b = .07, n.s.). Similarly, Hypothesis 5 was not confirmed because the relationship between attachment insecurity and LMX was not significant (b = .11, n.s.).

Results relating to Hypothesis 6: The moderating effect

The moderation was analyzed through hierarchical regressions. Table 3 shows the results of regression analysis for testing Hypothesis 6 (the moderating effect of attachment insecurity on the relationship between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and LMX). In this approach, the variables comprising the interaction term in the moderation analysis are mean-centered (Aiken & West, 1991). In the first step, controlling variables (gender, age, and followers' tenure) are entered. Then, at step 2, the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and attachment insecurity, and in the final step, the interaction term between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and attachment insecurity are introduced to the regression with LMX as the independent variable.

Table 3.

The results of moderation analysis through hierarchical regression.

	Leader–member exchange
	1	2	3
Control variables
Gender	.040	.022	.022
Age	−.047	.021	−.017
Followers' tenure	.147*	.119*	.121*
Independent variables
The congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors (Cong)		.0411***	−.349
Attachment insecurity		−.091	−.312***
Interaction
Cong* Attachment insecurity			.260***
R²	.020	.197***	.233***
ΔR²		.177***	.036***
df	292	290	289
Overall F	2.015	14.260	14.656

*p < .05; ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 6 prognosticated the moderating effect of attachment insecurity on the linkage between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and LMX. As Table 3 shows, the coefficient for the interaction of the congruence and attachment insecurity was statistically significant (β = 0.26, p < .001). In order to illustrate the relationship, split-plot analyses were conducted (Aiken & West, 1991) with one standard deviation below the mean when the level of attachment security was low and one standard deviation above the mean when the level of attachment insecurity was high. The results are shown in Figure 2. Based on Hypothesis 6 and Figure 2, the slope for the relationship between dependent and independent variables is steeper when attachment insecurity is high. However, the lines converge when the level of the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors increases. Hence, Hypothesis 6 is supported (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of attachment insecurity on the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and those for their current supervisor and family performance LMX.

Discussions

Implicit theories impact a wide range of factors. As examples, emotional intelligence can influence emotional abilities (Cabello & Fernández-Berrocal, 2015), implicit theories of intelligence can impact the feelings of self-efficacy (Dweck, 1999; Komarraju, & Nadler, 2013), ILTs are the predictors of LMX (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Topakas, 2011), and implicit theories of work and job fit can boost job and life satisfaction (Burnette & Pollack, 2013). However, the question that is remained relatively unquestioned is what mechanism lies between implicit theories and the outcomes. Considering the importance of ILTs in job satisfaction, well-being, and commitment (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005), the subjective mental process of followers specifying leaders should be more seriously investigated since it can have some implications for the performance of organizations (Junker & van Dick, 2014).

This study aims at exploring the socio-cognitive mechanism linking the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and follower job performance. In this relationship, LMX and self-efficacy play mediating roles. Additionally, in the proposed model, attachment insecurity is both the predictor of LMX and the congruence between followers' ILTs and those for their immediate supervisor. In terms of moderation, attachment insecurity plays a moderating role on the relation between linking the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and LMX.

First, based on some reviews (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2013; Junker & van Dick, 2014), this is one of the very few if not the only study to explore the mechanism linking the gap between typical-current leadership gap and job performance. Although, several studies have investigated ILTs as the factor impacting leader effectiveness ratings (e.g., Abdalla & Al-Hamoud, 2001; Eden & Leviatan, 1975); however, looking at ILTs through the lens of followers and how they impact follower job performance are novel.

The results of this study confirm the findings of prior studies showing ILTs impact LMX positively (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Topakas, 2011). Having elaborated this process, this study considered self-efficacy, a social-cognitive structure, as the bridge on the gap between LMX and performance. Bearing the association between cognition and relationship in mind, this study tried to find out if attachment insecurity can also act as the antecedent of the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors as well as LMX. Moreover, this research explored the role of attachment insecurity as a moderator on the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and LMX.

Second, the results demonstrated that the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors does not predict job performance directly, and LMX and self-efficacy fully mediate the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and job performance. Although research done by Epitropaki and Martin (2005) showed that the congruence between implicit and explicit leadership theories can increase job satisfaction, well-being, and affective commitment via LMX; however, self-efficacy has not, hitherto, been explored as a mediating factor influencing job performance. Furthermore, that research did not consider job performance as a specific job outcome. The findings of this study are in line with the results of their research positing that the congruence between implicit and explicit leadership theories can positively impact LMX and positive job attitudes.

Based on the results, the model and variables proposed have a good and solid theoretical foundation. According to social identity theorists, the process of categorization simplifies the understanding of social theory (Amion et al., 2007). This categorization can be done to distinguish leaders from nonleaders (which is done through ILTs in the model). Leadership, as an inherently social phenomenon, can mobilize followers toward a collective answer to the questions of “who we are” and “what we are about” (Haslam & Reicher, 2006), which is associated with an increase in the in-groups' status over other groups. According to social identity theory, this leads to high self-esteem (Barron, 2003; Turner, 1982). Defining categories (as an input) can form shared identity and self-efficacy, which finally lead to behavioral outcomes (Smith & Woodworth, 2012).

Third, although attachment theory has been explored in psychology and related fields, research regarding attachment in organizational contexts has been comparatively very limited. The results of this research showed that attachment insecurity does not function as the antecedent of both LMX and the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors but moderated the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and LMX. This result is in line with the claim that the most important role of attachment can be its moderating role (Harms, 2011).

There are some noteworthy points about the predictability of attachment insecurity for congruence. Attachment insecurity did not predict the congruence for some possible reasons. First, there are some inherent features of attachment which may not exist in the research context. In attachment theory, we have a person who is the caregiver, however; caregiving may lose its meaning where there is a high level of power distance (a feature of Iranian culture based on House et al., 2004). Most research in the realm of attachment is done in America, Israel, and Australia (Harms, 2011), in which power distance is lower than that of Iran (Chhokar et al., 2008). In these countries, the interpersonal relationship between supervisors and employees is less formal than the interpersonal relationship between them in Iran. The level of formality at workplaces may not provide the situation for the subordinates to have a close relationship with the supervisor. This might be the reason that attachment insecurity does not function as a factor impacting the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors as well as LMX. Moreover, in the scale of attachment insecurity, the word “others” may not include the supervisors since the high level of power distance makes them so special that the answers to those questions may not address their relationship with them. This result is aligned with the hypothesis of Keller (2013) which mentions that “There is also evidence that cultural contexts differ widely in their models of autonomy and relatedness, socialization goals and caregiving strategies” (p. 187). It seems necessary to consider the sample and the culture of nations in which research about attachment styles is done. Aligned with it, (Maslyn et al., 2017) showed that anxious attachment is only indirectly related to LMX via relationship effort. It is likely that it is out of comfort zone for employees to establish close relationships with supervisors in high power distance countries; therefore, anxious attachment did not significantly associate with LMX.

Fourth, the results showed that attachment insecurity moderated the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors (congruence) and LMX in a way that when congruence is low, those with high attachment insecurity report lower LMX quality, whereas when the congruence is high, the negative impact of high attachment insecurity is mitigated. Putting it differently, the positive linear relationship between the congruence and LMX is supported for both low and high levels of attachment insecurity; however, when the congruence is low, the impact of attachment insecurity causes the followers to perceive LMX at a lower level. When there is less match between follower' ILTs and those of their current supervisor, employees do not find their leaders worthy enough to have high-quality LMX, especially when the followers feel low attachment insecurity, but when the supervisors is perceived as a prototypical leader, attachment insecurity is marginalized and may not influence the positive relationship with the leader.

Fifth, the results acquired in this research are based on the answers of knowledge-oriented firms. Therefore, some points should be considered. Based on Green and Campbell (2000), attachment styles are both chronically and contextually activated. Attachment theory is based on a main pillar of caregiver. When the caregiver is watchful and present, the attachment system becomes quiescent (Green & Campbell, 2000). Moreover, when the child is at play, the child may periodically turn the head to guarantee the receiving of mother's attention, especially when frightened or altered; however, this checking gradually fades away (Anderson, 1972). Considering this analogy, from one perspective, it is likely that in knowledge-oriented firms, contextually caused attachment insecurity decreases and loses its impact since the employees are so engaged in exploration, innovation and knowledge utilization, and production that the employees gradually act autonomously. From another perspective, in such firms, the supervisor clearly outlines what the employees have to do and they are supposed to stay close to their team members in order to prevent against any possible failures. The intense connection and interaction between supervisors and subordinates can make attachment insecurity minimized; hence, lack of security in relationships may not act as the antecedents of supervisor-leader match and LMX. It is suggested that the generalizability of the result regarding attachment styles be considered with attention for other contexts.

Future research and limitations

More research is required to boost the understanding of the mechanism causing ILTs to increase job performance. Given the early focus on understanding the impact of LMX on job performance, it makes sense to keep on broadening the understanding of the social-cognitive as well as affective mechanisms delineating the consequences of ILTs. Trust is shown to impact LMX (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008). For supervisors, attachment styles and supervisors' implicit followership theories may impact the relationship between followers' ILTs and job performance. Moreover, followers' identification with leader, creativity, and conscientiousness are also some variables which are likely to encourage followers to enhance their performance when they see the supervisors are good or ideal leaders.

One of the nascent areas of research is the exploration of attachment effect on organizational outcomes. This research tried to contribute to this field; however, more research is needed to figure out if eastern culture can impact the intensity of attachment effects. More specifically, culture should be considered as an important influencing parameter in attachment style since some cultural variables such as power distance and individualism are likely to affect the results.

This study has several inherent limitations. In order to tackle common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), two sources and three data collection waves were used. However, the data could be collected in more waves to isolate the collection of data of each questionnaire. Second, self-report by nature is a limitation. Third, in this research, performance was assessed through the overall perception of the supervisor about the follower's performance. However, some objective scales (e.g., organization reports) can be used to increase the accuracy of the scale. Third, despite the high reliability and validity of Venn diagram to measure the congruence, other methods such as latent congruence modeling (Cheung, 2009) could be utilized. Fourth, data of all questionnaires were not acquired in all collection points; therefore, causality cannot be discussed. Fifth, since this study was conducted in an eastern culture and the ILTs scale used in this study had been developed in a western culture, the generalizability of the findings still remains unclear.

Past research has shown that a number of ILTs are culture-specific, and future research can take this into account. Further, the findings of this study revealed the relationships between the measured variables; however, they do not provide evidence on the causality between variables. Finally, the data were gathered from supervisors and employees at the individual level of analysis since we did not want to add to the complexity of inter-group variables in the conceptual model. Nevertheless, using group-level variables and adding them to the proposed model can be a fruitful venue of research and contribute to multi-level analysis approach to ILTs which is not yet addressed and explored sufficiently.

Conclusion

This research delved into the social-cognitive mechanism leading to an increase in follower's job performance. In this regard, ILTs, LMX, and self-efficacy fully mediate the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and job performance. Also, attachment insecurity moderates the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and job performance. The results showed that the congruence of ILTs, as cognitive structures formed in the minds of followers, with their image of their current supervisor does not directly impact job performance; however, when these perceptions enter the realm of relations (LMX in this study) can impact individuals' perceptions about themselves and improve the self-image of followers and increase their self-efficacy which finally leads to better job performance. In terms of the moderation, attachment insecurity was shown to moderate the relationship between the congruence between followers' ILTs and their recognized ILTs for current supervisors and LMX. In this relation, when the level of congruence is low, attachment insecurity causes the lower ratings of LMX.

Footnotes

Article Notes

References

Abdalla

I. A.

Al-Homoud

M. A.

(2001) Exploring the implicit leadership theory in the Arabian Gulf states. Applied Psychology 50(4): 506–531.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions, New York, NY: SAGE.

Amiot, C. E., De la Sablonniere, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 364–388.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.

Anderson, J. W. (1972). Attachment behaviour out of doors. Ethological studies of child behaviour, 199–215.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2007) AMOS users' guide 18.0, Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Baker

S. D.

Mathis

C. J.

Stites-Doe

(2011) An exploratory study investigating leader and follower characteristics at US healthcare organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues 23(3): 341–363.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan, New York.

Bandura

Wood

(1989) Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(5): 805–814.

10.

Baron, S. W. (2003). Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 403–425.

11.

Bartholomew

(1993) From childhood to adult relationships: Attachment theory and research. In: Duck

(ed.) Learning about relationships. Understanding relationship processes series Vol 2, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 30–62.

12.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1989) Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement 49(3): 509–527.

13.

Bernas

K. H.

Major

D. A.

(2000) Contributors to stress resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly 24(2): 170–178.

14.

Bernerth

J. B.

Armenakis

A. A.

Feild

H. S.

Giles

W. F.

Walker

H. J.

(2008) The influence of personality differences between subordinates and supervisors on perceptions of LMX: An empirical investigation. Group & Organization Management 33(2): 216–240.

15.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

16.

Bouffard-Bouchard

(1990) Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. The Journal of Social Psychology 130(3): 353–363.

17.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216.

18.

Burnette, J. L., & Pollack, J. M. (2013). Implicit theories of work and job fit: Implications for job and life satisfaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(4), 360–372.

19.

Byrne

B. M.

(2006) Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

Cabello, R., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2015). Implicit theories and ability emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 700.

21.

Cassidy

K. W.

Werner

R. S.

Rourke

Zubernis

L. S.

Balaraman

(2003) The relationship between psychological understanding and positive social behaviors. Social Development 12(2): 198–221.

22.

Cervone

Peake

P. K.

(1986) Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(3): 492–501.

23.

Chen

Z. X.

Tsui

A. S.

Farh

J. L.

(2002) Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75(3): 339–356.

24.

Cheung, G. W. (2009). Introducing the latent congruence model for improving the assessment of similarity, agreement, and fit in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 6–33.

25.

Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2013). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Routledge.

26.

Dansereau

Graen

Haga

W. J.

(1975) A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13(1): 46–78.

27.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Abdalla, I. A., … Akande, B. E. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? 1. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219–256.

28.

Dienesch

R. M.

Liden

R. C.

(1986) Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review 11(3): 618–634.

29.

Dinh

J. E.

Lord

R. G.

(2012) Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for individual difference research in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 23(4): 651–669.

30.

Doty

D. H.

Glick

W. H.

(1998) Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results?. Organizational Research Methods 1(4): 374–406.

31.

Eden

(1992) On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies 29(3): 261–265.

32.

Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736–741.

33.

Eden

Ganzach

Flumin-Granat

Zigman

(2010) Augmenting means efficacy to boost performance: Two field experiments. Journal of Management 36(3): 687–713.

34.

Emich

K. J.

(2012) Transpersonal efficacy: How efficacy perceptions of single others influence task performance. Human Performance 25(3): 235–254.

35.

Engle

E. M.

Lord

R. G.

(1997) Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal 40(4): 988–1010.

36.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2004) Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(2): 293–310.

37.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2005) From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of Implicit Leadership Theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(4): 659–676.

38.

Epitropaki

Martin

Tram-Quon

Topakas

(2013) Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly 24(6): 858–881.

39.

Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858–881.

40.

Ferris

G. R.

Liden

R. C.

Munyon

T. P.

Summers

J. K.

Basik

K. J.

Buckley

M. R.

(2009) Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management 35(6): 1379–1403.

41.

Gerstner

C. R.

Day

D. V.

(1997) Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(6): 827–844.

42.

Giessner

S. R.

van Knippenberg

(2008) “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105(1): 14–35.

43.

Gillath

Karantzas

G. C.

Fraley

R. C.

(2016) Adult attachment: A concise introduction to theory and research, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

44.

Gist

M. E.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1992) Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review 17(2): 183–211.

45.

Graen

G. B.

Scandura

T. A.

(1987) Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior 9: 175–208.

46.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 219–247.

47.

Graen

Cashman

J. F.

(1975) A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership Frontiers 143: 165.

48.

Green

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

(2000) Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(4): 452–461.

49.

Hardy

G. E.

Barkham

(1994) The relationship between interpersonal attachment styles and work difficulties. Human Relations 47(3): 263–281.

50.

Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 285–296.

51.

Harms

P. D.

Bai

Han

G. H.

(2016) How leader and follower attachment styles are mediated by trust. Human Relations 69(9): 1853–1876.

52.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Stressing the group: social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1037–1052.

53.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

54.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1990) Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(2): 270–280.

55.

Holden

R. R.

(1992) Associations between the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory in a nonclinical sample. Psychological Reports 71(3 Suppl): 1039–1042.

56.

Hollander

E. P.

(1992) Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly 3(1): 43–54.

57.

Hollander, E. P. (2006). Influence processes in leadership-followership: Inclusion and the idiosyncrasy credit model. Advances in social & organizational psychology: A tribute to Ralph Rosnow, 293–312.

58.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.

59.

Howell

J. M.

Hall-Merenda

K. E.

(1999) The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(5): 680–694.

60.

Ilies

Nahrgang

J. D.

Morgeson

F. P.

(2007) Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1): 269–277.

61.

Isaksen

S. G.

(1983) Toward a model for the facilitation of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior 17: 18–31.

62.

Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154–1173.

63.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A self-regulatory skills perspective to reducing cognitive interference. Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings, 153–171.

64.

Karau

S. J.

Williams

K. D.

(1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(4): 681–706.

65.

Keller

(2003) Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly 14(2): 141–160.

66.

Keller

Cacioppe

(2001) Leader-follower attachments: Understanding parental images at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22(2): 70–75.

67.

Keller

Dansereau

(1995) Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations 48(2): 127–146.

68.

Keller, H. (2013). Attachment and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 175–194.

69.

Kerr

E. A.

Fleming

(2007) Making performance indicators work: Experiences of US Veterans Health Administration. BMJ 335(7627): 971–973.

70.

Kerr

N. L.

Messé

L. A.

Park

E. S.

Sambolec

E. J.

(2005) Identifiability, performance feedback and the Köhler effect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(4): 375–390.

71.

Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67–72.

72.

Lapierre

L. M.

Hackett

R. D.

(2007) Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour: A test of an integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80(3): 539–554.

73.

Latham

G. P.

Winters

D. C.

Locke

E. A.

(1994) Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(1): 49–63.

74.

Levy

S. R.

Chiu

C. Y.

Hong

Y. Y.

(2006) Lay theories and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(1): 5–24.

75.

Liao

Chuang

(2007) Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 1006–1019.

76.

Liden

R. C.

Graen

(1980) Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal 23(3): 451–465.

77.

Liden

R. C.

Maslyn

J. M.

(1998) Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management 24(1): 43–72.

78.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990) Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science 1(4): 240–246.

79.

Lord

R. G.

Maher

K. J.

(1991) Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2: 1–62.

80.

Lord

R. G.

Foti

R. J.

De Vader

C. L.

(1984) A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 34(3): 343–378.

81.

Martin

Epitropaki

Thomas

Topakas

(2010) A review of leader-member exchange research: Future prospects and directions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 25(1): 35–89.

82.

Martin

Guillaume

Thomas

Lee

Epitropaki

(2016) Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology 69(1): 67–121.

83.

Maslyn, J. M., Schyns, B., & Farmer, S. M. (2017). Attachment style and leader-member exchange: the role of effort to build high quality relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 450–462.

84.

Maurer

T. J.

Lord

R. G.

(1991) An exploration of cognitive demands in group interaction as a moderator of information processing variables in perceptions of leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21(10): 821–839.

85.

Merton

R. K.

(1968) Social theory and social structure, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

86.

Mikulincer

(1995) Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(6): 1203–1215.

87.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2005) Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships 12(2): 149–168.

88.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007) Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry 18(3): 139–156.

89.

Mitchell

T. R.

Hopper

Daniels

George-Falvy

James

L. R.

(1994) Predicting self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(4): 506–517.

90.

Moritz

S. E.

Feltz

D. L.

Fahrbach

K. R.

Mack

D. E.

(2000) The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71(3): 280–294.

91.

Multon

K. D.

Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(1991) Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology 38(1): 30–38.

92.

Murphy

S. E.

Ensher

E. A.

(1999) The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader–member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(7): 1371–1394.

93.

Nahrgang

J. D.

Morgeson

F. P.

Ilies

(2009) The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108(2): 256–266.

94.

Offermann

L. R.

Kennedy

J. K.

Wirtz

P. W.

(1994) Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly 5(1): 43–58.

95.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

96.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

97.

Richards

D. A.

Hackett

R. D.

(2012) Attachment and emotion regulation: Compensatory interactions and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly 23(4): 686–701.

98.

Riggs

M. L.

Warka

Babasa

Betancourt

Hooker

(1994) Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement 54(3): 793–802.

99.

Riordan

C. M.

Griffith

R. W.

Weatherly

E. W.

(2003) Age and work-related outcomes: The moderating effects of status characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33(1): 37–57.

100.

Salisbury

W. D.

Chin

W. W.

Gopal

Newsted

P. R.

(2002) Better theory through measurement—Developing a scale to capture consensus on appropriation. Information Systems Research 13(1): 91–103.

101.

Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leadermember exchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 101–110.

102.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S.

Cha

S. E.

(2007) Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 1020–1030.

103.

Schubert

T. W.

Otten

(2002) Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity 1(4): 353–376.

104.

Shamir

(2007) From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the leadership process. In: Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

M. C.

Uhl-Bien

(eds) Follower-centered perspectives on leadership, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. ix–xxxix.

105.

Shamir

Kark

(2004) A single-item graphic scale for the measurement of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77(1): 115–123.

106.

Shondrick

S. J.

Lord

R. G.

(2010) Implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, and leader-follower processes. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 25(1): 1–33.

107.

Sluss

D. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2008) How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science 19(6): 807–823.

108.

Smith, I. H., & Woodworth, W. P. (2012). Developing social entrepreneurs and social innovators: A social identity and self-efficacy approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 390–407.

109.

Stajkovic

A. D.

Luthans

(1998) Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 124(2): 240–261.

110.

Sue-Chan

A. K.

Hackett

R. D.

(2012) Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality. Journal of World Business 47(3): 459–468.

111.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (2012) Self-verification theory. In: Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(eds) Handbook of theories of social psychology Vol 2, London, England: SAGE, pp. 23–42.

112.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

Graen

G. B.

(1999) An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology 52(3): 591–620.

113.

Topakas, A. (2011). Measurement of Implicit Leadership Theories and their effect on leadership processes and outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Aston University, Birmingham, England.

114.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social identity and intergroup relations, 15–40.

115.

van Quaquebeke

Brodbeck

F. C.

(2008) Entwicklung und erste Validierung zweier Instrumente zur Erfassung von Führungskräfte-Kategorisierung im deutschsprachigen Raum [Development and first validation of two scales to measure leader categorization in German-speaking countries]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie 52(2): 70–80.

116.

van Quaquebeke

Van Knippenberg

Brodbeck

F. C.

(2011) More than meets the eye: The role of subordinates' self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. The Leadership Quarterly 22(2): 367–382.

117.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Hartnell

C. A.

(2011) Understanding transformational leadership–employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84(1): 153–172.

118.

Wei

Russell

D. W.

Mallinckrodt

Vogel

D. L.

(2007) The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment 88(2): 187–204.

119.

Weick

K. E.

(1995) Sensemaking in organizations Vol. 3, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

120.

Yakovleva

Reilly

R. R.

Werko

(2010) Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(1): 79–91.

121.

Yukl

(2010) Leadership in organizations, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.