2. zhang et al. (2013) role stressors and job attitudes - a mediated model of lmx

This article was downloaded by: [Australian Catholic University]On: 05 March 2014, At: 00:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Role Stressors and JobAttitudes: A Mediated Model ofLeader-Member ExchangeRui-Ping Zhang a , Li Tsingan a & Long-Ping Zhang aa Beijing Normal UniversityAccepted author version posted online: 11 Mar2013.Published online: 26 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Rui-Ping Zhang , Li Tsingan & Long-Ping Zhang (2013) RoleStressors and Job Attitudes: A Mediated Model of Leader-Member Exchange, TheJournal of Social Psychology, 153:5, 560-576, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2013.778812

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.778812

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00224545.2013.778812

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.778812

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, 153(5), 560–576

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Role Stressors and Job Attitudes: AMediated Model of Leader-Member

Exchange

RUI-PING ZHANGLI TSINGAN

LONG-PING ZHANGBeijing Normal University

ABSTRACT. Workers with high levels of role stressors have been known to report lowjob satisfaction and high turnover intention. However, how the role stressors-job atti-tudes relationship is influenced by leader-member exchange has hardly been studied. Thisstudy examined the effect of leader-member exchange (leader support) on the relationshipbetween chronic role stressors (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) and job attitudes (i.e.,job satisfaction and turnover intention). Employees (N = 162) who enrolled in weekendpsychology courses were investigated. The results showed that leader-member exchangemediated the effects of role stressors on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Implicationsof these results are discussed and directions for future research are suggested.

Keywords: job satisfaction, leader-member exchange, role stressors, turnover intention

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE are whyemployees are satisfied with their jobs and why they will opt to stay with orleave the organization. Several meta-analyses found that role stressors can impactemployees’ attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction and job performance(e.g., Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011; Fried, Shirom, Gilboa, &Cooper, 2008; Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2008; Jackson & Schuler,1985; Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006; Podsakoff, LePine, & Lepine, 2007). In addi-tion, there is growing concern about the detrimental consequences of stressorsupon the organization itself, such as high quit rates, decreased productivity, andincreased organizational healthcare costs (Wallace, Edwards, Arnold, Frazier, &Finch, 2009). Accordingly, it is very important for researchers and managers tounderstand and deal with role stressors.

Address correspondence to Li Tsingan, Beijing Normal University, Institute ofDevelopmental Psychology, No. 19, XinJieKouWai St., HaiDian District, Beijing 100875,P. R. China; [email protected] (e-mail).

560

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014

Zhang, Tsingan, & Zhang 561

Ways of reducing role stressors may involve linking social support tostressors. Although social support research has focused primarily on its protectivefunction against the negative effects of stress, we have chosen to conceptualizesocial support as a mediating variable between stressors and psychologicaloutcomes. The direct effect of stressors on social support has been documented inprevious studies (e.g, Kaniasty & Norris, 1993; Seeds, Harkness, & Quilty, 2010).Leader-member exchange serves as a potential source of social support (Kraimer,Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001). Given the resource concentration and relationshiporientation in a Chinese context (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002), it is critical toestablish a high-quality relationship with supervisors in Chinese organizationalsettings. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether leader-memberexchange, as one form of social support, operates as a mediator between rolestressors and job attitudes.

In the present study, using data from working adults in the People’s Republicof China, we integrate the idea of role stressors, indicated by role ambiguity androle conflict, with leader-member exchange, one of the key constructs from thesocial exchange perspective. Doing so helps point out ways in which organizationscan foster high levels of job satisfaction and reduce their intention to leave whenemployees face work stress.

Role Stressors

Role stressors are some of the most frequently studied types of chronic workstress (e.g., Gilboa et al., 2008; Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Prolonged exposureto role stressors may cause employees to evaluate their work situation adversely,leading to lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intention (Fried et al., 2008;Glazer & Beehr, 2005; Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006). Two indicator variables of rolestressors here are role ambiguity and role conflict.

Role ambiguity refers to vague and unclear expectations set for a roleincumbent, such that employees lack necessary information of what behavioris appropriate (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Lack of clarity about behav-ioral expectations can hinder the opportunity to enhance work performance andreceive rewards, thus decreasing satisfaction and increasing propensity to leave(e.g., Lyons, 1971; Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). For example, in theAsian context, Hang-yue, Foley, and Loi (2005) in professional clergy found thatrole ambiguity has a significant effect on job satisfaction and intention to leavetheir organization.

Role conflict refers to a situation in which employees receive incompatibleexpectations at work from role senders in an organization (Katz & Kahn, 1978).According to the role theory, inconsistent requests from the supervisors wouldmake the individual suffer from stress and decrease satisfaction (Schaubroeck,Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). In a study of neophyte newcomers, Vandenberghe,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014

562 The Journal of Social Psychology

Panaccio, Bentein, Mignonac and Roussel (2010) reported that the increasedchanging in role conflict was associated with a decline in job satisfaction andan increase in turnover intention.

Although role ambiguity and role conflict are primarily associated with hin-drance or threat at work, there are some important differences between them,which may affect their relationships with employees’ attitudes and behaviors(Gilboa et al., 2008). For example, role ambiguity is most likely to be viewedas a pure hindrance to individuals’ work achievements, with the least challengecomponent. In contrast, role conflict is likely to have a slightly higher challengecomponent, as employees may bargain with different senders some priorities overtask assignments in order to meet all their needs. For this reason, role ambiguityand role conflict should be treated as distinctive stressors (Eatough et al., 2011;Jackson & Schuler, 1985).

Leader-Member Exchange

According to leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, each employee estab-lishes a unique dyad-level interpersonal relationship with the leader (Gerstner &Day, 1997). The quality of relationships ranges from high to low.

High-quality or in-group LMX relationships are characterized by a highdegree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).In high-quality exchanges, followers receive special attention and privileges (e.g.,access to key information), career-enhancing opportunities (e.g., special workassignment), and increasing levels of autonomy in doing their jobs from the super-visors (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Thus, high-quality LMX isexpected to be positively associated with increased job satisfaction and decreasedturnover intention.

On the other hand, low-quality exchanges or out-group relationships arecharacterized by formal role-defined relations, economic behavior exchange, andpredominantly contextual exchanges that lead to hierarchy-based downward influ-ence and distance between the parties (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). In this type ofrelationship, employees cannot depend on their immediate supervisors for extrasupport and encouragement to solve job-related problems. Consequently, they areinclined to have relatively low job satisfaction and want to leave their employingorganizations.

Previous research on LMX theory has established a number of positive out-comes for high-quality LMX subordinates, including high levels of job satisfac-tion, increased job performance and decreased turnover intention (e.g., Dulebohn,Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Harris, Harris, & Brouer, 2009; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Volmer,Niessen, Spurk, Linz, & Abele, 2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Studies of Both Role Stressors and Leader-Member Exchange

While considerable research focused on the relationship between job stressorsand social support (e.g., Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986; Jackson & Schuler,1985; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999), only a small number of studieshave included measures of both role stressors and LMX. Kim and Organ (1982)argued that task stress was one of the antecedents of the quality of the exchangerelationship. Snyder and Bruning (1985) further proposed that role stress has morevalue as an independent predictor of dyadic linkage. In public welfare organiza-tions, Erera (1992) applied quantitative and qualitative measurements to examinethe effects of role ambiguity on various support sources (i.e., superior, peers,and subordinates). He found that the relationships with all these support sourceswere determined by organizational uncertainty, produced by ambiguous policies.Firth, Mellor, Moore and Loquet (2004) reported that the core stressors (i.e., roleambiguity, role conflict, work overload, and work-family conflict) were associatedstrongly with lack of supervisor support.

Two prior meta-analyses on LMX also found a significant positive rela-tionship between role clarity (low role ambiguity) and LMX and a negativerelationship between role conflict and LMX (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Gerstner, &Day, 1997). However, none of these studies showed how role stressors and LMXare related to job attitudes.

The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in Role Stressors and Job Attitudes

LMX as a source of support. LMX captures three types of social support: aid,affect, or affirmation (Kraimer, Wayne & Jaworski, 2001). First, as mentionedabove, employees in a high-quality LMX relationship receive relevant informationand assistance to serve as supportive aid. Second, interpersonal attraction was dis-cussed as an element and predictor of high-LMX relationships (e.g., Dienesch &Liden, 1986; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Third, another element of LMX isprofessional respect, which refers to the mutual respect that both parties have foreach other’s abilities to succeed, and captures the third type of social support, affir-mation. Thus, LMX represents a potential source of support. Besides, supervisorsupport has been assessed with measures involving leader-member exchange (e.g.,Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004; Harris, & Kacmar, 2005; Kraimer, Wayne, &Jaworski, 2001).

The potential mediating role of LMX. We hypothesized that LMX plays a medi-ating role in the relationship between role stressors and job attitudes for thefollowing two reasons.

First, the mediating hypothesis derives from the social support deteriorationmodel that low levels of social support acted as a mediator between chronicstressors and outcome variables (e.g., Barrera, 1986; Kaniasty & Norris, 1993;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Norris & Kaniasty, 1996; Quittner, Glueckauf, & Jackson, 1990). As support dete-rioration model suggests, stressful events are an important situational factor thatmay deteriorate support resources (Gracia & Herrero, 2004). Several studies haveshown that chronic stressors such as unemployment and organizational ambigu-ity can negatively affect social support (e.g., emotional support or instrumentalsupport; Lepore, Evans, & Schneider, 1991; Norris & Kaniasty, 1996; Quittner,Glueckauf, & Jackson, 1990; Schulz et al., 2006). This makes way for an indirecteffect or a mediator model in the explanation of social support (Yap & Devilly,2004). For example, in the 10-year longitudinal study of a community sample,Holahan, Moos, Holahan, and Cronkite (1999) reported that in the face of thechronic strain of negative events, social support was better accounted for as amediator in the stressor-distress association.

Second, the hypothesis is also based on the notion that low-quality LMX rela-tionships are characterized by a low level of trust, respect, and liking. When peopleare confronted with role ambiguity or role conflict, they may reduce the number ofcommunication channels used for exchanging information and withdraw from therole senders (usually a leader) who bring about role stress, which impairs the abil-ity to receive and give social support (cf., Hannaway, 1985; Hermann, 1963). Suchcircumstances lead to mistrust, low respect, and lack of liking toward supervisors(Erera, 1992), which are characteristic of low-quality LMX. These facts suggestthat employees who experience role ambiguity and conflict will be less likelyto seek after social opportunities to foster high-quality LMX relationships. Giventhat role stressors and LMX have been found consistently to have an impact on jobsatisfaction and turnover intention, the focus of this article will investigate whetherLMX mediates the effects of role stressors on job satisfaction and turnover inten-tion. In 173 retail salespeople, Firth et al. (2004) in Australia found that socialsupport from supervisors mediated the impact of stressors on job satisfaction andintention to quit.

Based on these theoretical frameworks and empirical studies, we propose thefollowing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Leader-member exchange mediates the relationshipbetween role ambiguity and job attitudes (job satisfaction and turnoverintention).

H1b: Leader-member exchange mediates the relationship between role con-flict and job attitudes (job satisfaction and turnover intention).

Method

Sample and Procedure

Participants in the study were employees from multiple organizations ina major city located in northern China. They enrolled in weekend psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


courses offered by a Chinese university in the same city. Questionnaires were firstdistributed to 187 participants. Each participant was asked to complete a singlesurvey containing measures of role ambiguity, role conflict, the Leader-MemberExchange (LMX-7) scale, job satisfaction and turnover intention during class timein exchange for course credit. To increase the accuracy of the response, partici-pants were assured that the research work was done purely for research purposeand each survey was anonymous.

One hundred and sixty two usable responses were obtained, giving a responserate of 86.6%. Of the participants, 35.4% were male and 74.7% participantsranged in age from 21 to 30 years. Most were in private sector companies (83.6%)and 23.3% participants got an undergraduate degree. Organization size rangedfrom less than 50 persons (28.0%) to over 500 persons (28.6%). Sixty percent ofrespondents were employees with no leadership responsibility.

Measures

To measure the constructs of interest, we collected data from the participantsthemselves. All materials used in the present study were in Chinese. The Englishitems were translated into Chinese using a translation-back-translation procedure(Brislin, 1980). Two graduate students who major in English translated the Englishquestionnaires into Chinese. Then, the researchers discussed the Chinese and theEnglish version with the two translators, making sure that the translations did notshow substantive differences in meanings of the items. One I-O psychology grad-uate student studying overseas translated the Chinese version back to English toassure equivalence. Questionnaires were also piloted with several native Chinesespeakers, and any questions or concerns raised were resolved to ensure that theywould be meaningful for the Chinese samples.

Role stressors. Role ambiguity and role conflict were measured using the StressDiagnostic Survey developed by Ivancevich and Matteson (1980; see Fields,2002). Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Ivancevich and Matteson (1980)found acceptable construct validity and strong reliability for scales in the StressDiagnostic Survey (see Fields, 2002). A sample item from Role Ambiguity scaleis “My job duties and work objectives are unclear to me.” A sample item fromRole Conflict scale is “I work on unnecessary tasks or projects.” The results ofCFA showed an acceptable fit to a two-factor model (χ2 = 70.95; df = 34; χ2 /

df = 2.09, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.08). For role ambiguity and roleconflict scale, the alpha coefficients were .72 and .67, respectively. Cronbach’salpha ranges from 0 to 1 and alpha value of .60 or less indicates unsatisfactoryinternal reliability (Malhotra & Birks, 2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Leader-member exchange. Employees were asked to rate the LMX relationshipwith their supervisor using the seven-item LMX scale (LMX-7; Scandura &Graen, 1984) refined by Hui, Law, and Chen (1999). This measure reflects theextent to which employees believe that they form a high-quality relationship withtheir supervisors and is recommended to assess an overall (i.e., unidimensional)exchange quality (Greguras & Ford, 2006). Its validity has been successfully repli-cated in the Chinese context (e.g., Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999). A sample item was“My supervisor would be personally inclined to use his or her power to help mesolve problems in my work.”A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used with higher scores representing higherquality exchanges. The results of CFA showed an acceptable fit to a one-factormodel (χ2 = 28.52; df = 13; χ2 / df = 2.19, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA =0.08). The reliability was 0.82.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed by a 6-item index (see Tsui,Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Respondents indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale,ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to questions such as “I amsatisfied with the nature of the work I perform.” The results of CFA showed anacceptable fit to a one-factor model (χ2 = 16.33; df = 8; χ2 / df = 2.04, CFI =0.98, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08). The internal consistency reliability in thepresent study was 0.84. A higher score represents greater job satisfaction.

Turnover intention. Intention to leave was measured using the following singleitem which is “I am currently looking for or considering a new job (with anotheremployer.)” Reponses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Theitem was adapted from a previous single measure of turnover intention used in theliteratures (e.g., Camp, 1994; Lambert, Hogana, & Bartona, 2001).

Control variables. We controlled for age and organizational tenure in the analysis.These control variables were included since they have been shown to affect jobsatisfaction and turnover intention (e.g., Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Harris,Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2009).

Age was measured using a single item that asked respondents to indicate theirage group. Categorized alternative responses were: (0) less than 20; (1) 21–30;(2) 31–40; and (3) 41 and over. Since only 3 participants were over 41 years old,we merged group three with group two into 31 years and over.

Organizational tenure was measured by an ordinal scale, ranging from 0 (lessthan one year) to 3 (more than 5 years) as work experience because it is the mostfrequently used as time-based operationalization of this construct (Ng & Feldman,2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed with SPSS16.0 software package.Regression analysis was the primary statistical tool used to examine the medi-ation hypotheses. Supplementary analyses were also used by including severalcontrol variables such as age and organizational tenure to examine whether thesecontrol variables had any influence on the results of job satisfaction and turnoverintention.

Before investigating the hypothesized relations, we examined the degree ofmulticollinearity between all independent variables by using the variable inflationfactor (VIF). The variables had consistent VIFS of 1.14-2.30, well below the cut-off of 10. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that distinct interpretations ofthe connection are allowed between the variables in the present study.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Bivariate correlations were examined to determine whether job satisfactionand turnover intention were correlated with socio-demographic variables. Resultsindicate that job satisfaction was not related to gender (r (167) = .09), education(r (166) = .10), sector (r (166) = –.01), organization size (r (164) = –.04) andjob grade (r (164) = .08), but was significantly positively correlated with age (r(167) = .22, p < .01) and organizational tenure (r (165) = .19 p < .05). Turnoverintention was not related to gender (r (170) = –.03), education (r (168) = −.06),sector (r (169) = .03), organization size (r (167) = .05), or job grade (r (167) =–.09), but was marginally correlated with age (r (170) = –.14, p = .07) and sig-nificantly related to organizational tenure (r (168) = –.16, p < .05). Consistentwith previous research (Griffeth et al., 2000; Harris et al., 2009), our results alsoshowed that age and organizational tenure were correlated with job satisfactionand turnover intention.

The means, standard deviations, and correlations are shown in Table 1.As expected, role ambiguity and role conflict appeared to be negatively relatedto LMX (r = –.34, p < .01; r = –.31, p < .01) and the outcome variable of jobsatisfaction (r = –.28, p < .01; r = –.31, p < .01). Both role ambiguity and roleconflict were positively correlated with turnover intention (r = .16, p < .05; r =.19, p < .05). These results suggest that participants who face role ambiguity orrole conflict tend to report low LMX, decreased job satisfaction and high intentionto leave. As predicted, LMX was positively related to job satisfaction (r = .52, p <

.01) and negatively correlated with turnover intention (r = –.19, p < .05). Roleambiguity and role conflict were significantly correlated with each other (r = .73,p < .01), which was similar to the correlation (r = .71, p < .01) that Nelson, Basu,and Purdie (1998) found using the same scale.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficients Alphas, andCorrelations Between Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age groupa 1.13 0.49 —2. Tenureb 1.26 1.04 .49∗∗ —3. Role ambiguity 2.31 0.68 −.15∗ −.20∗∗ (.72)4. Role conflict 2.36 0.69 −.15∗ −.17∗ .73∗∗ (.67)5. LMX 3.62 0.60 .16∗ .21∗∗ −.34∗∗ −.31∗∗ (.82)6. Job satisfaction 3.07 0.80 .22∗∗ .19∗ −.28∗∗ −.31∗∗ .52∗∗ (.84)7. Turnover

intention3.76 0.98 −.14+ −.16∗ .16∗ .19∗ −.19∗ −.44∗∗

Note. N = 162–178. Figures in parentheses are coefficient alpha. LMX = leader-memberexchange.a0 = less than 20 years; 1 = 20–30 years; 2 = 31 or more.b0 = < 1 years; 1 = 1–3 years; 2 = 3–5 years; 3 = >5 years.+p <.10, two-tailed. ∗p < .05, two-tailed. ∗∗p < .01, two-tailed.

Test of the Hypothesized Model

We employed the procedures developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) to eval-uate the mediating role of LMX in the relationship between role stressors and jobattitudes. First, the predictor variables (role ambiguity and role conflict) must berelated to the mediator (LMX). As shown in Table 1, this condition was met.Second, the predictor variables must be related to the outcome variables (jobsatisfaction and turnover intention). As shown in Table 1, this condition is sup-ported by the negative correlations between role stressors and job satisfaction andthe positive correlations between role stressors and turnover intention. Third, themediator variable must be related to the outcome variables. As shown in Table 1,LMX was related to job satisfaction and turnover intention. Fourth, after con-trolling for the effects of the mediator on outcomes, the relations between thepredictor variables and the outcome variables must be significantly reduced ordisappear.

To examine the fourth condition, we conducted three steps to predict job satis-faction and turnover intention separately. First, we entered age and organizationaltenure. Second, we entered role stressors (one for each regression). Finally, weentered LMX. The results were reported in Table 2 and Table 3.

As is shown in Table 2, when leader-member exchange was added to themodels, the regression coefficients of the relationships between role ambiguityand the outcome variables changed from –.23 (p < .01) in the second step to–.10 (p > .05) in the third for job satisfaction and from .15 (p = .05) to .10 (p >

.05) for turnover intention. Moreover, while the effect of role ambiguity decreased,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


TABLE 2. Mediated Results of Regression Analyses of LMX in the RoleAmbiguity-Job Attitudes Relationships

Job satisfaction Turnover intention LMXStep andvariables 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2

1. Age grouptenure

.14 .13 .11 −.10 −.09 −.08 .06 .04

.12 .06 .00 −.17+ −.14 −.12 .17+ .122. Role

ambiguity−.23∗∗ −.10 .15+ .10 −.25∗∗

3. LMX .47∗∗ −.21∗R2 .05∗ .10∗∗ .29∗∗ .06∗ .08+ .11∗ .04∗ .10∗∗Adjusted R2 .04∗ .08∗∗ .27∗∗ .04∗ .06+ .09∗ .03∗ .09∗∗δR2 .05∗ .05∗∗ .19∗∗ .06∗ .02+ .04∗ .04∗ .06∗∗

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are reported for the respective regression steps,including socio-demographics (step 1), socio-demographics and role ambiguity (step 2), andsocio-demographics, role ambiguity and leader-member exchange (step 3).Standardized betas are reported from the regression equation.LMX = leader-member exchange.+p < .10, two-tailed. ∗p < .05, two-tailed. ∗∗p < .01, two-tailed.

TABLE 3. Mediated Results of Regression Analyses of LMX in the RoleConflict—Job Attitudes Relationships

Job satisfaction Turnover intention LMXStep andvariables 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2

1. Age grouptenure

.12 .11 .10 −.09 −.08 −.08 .05 .03

.12 .07 .00 −.17+ −.14 −.11 .17+ .132. Role

conflict−.28∗∗ −.14∗ .18∗ .12 −.29∗∗

3. LMX .46∗∗ −.21∗R2 .04∗ .12∗∗ .30∗∗ .05∗ .08∗ .12∗ .04∗ .12∗∗Adjusted R2 .03∗ .10∗∗ .28∗∗ .04∗ .07∗ .10∗ .03∗ .10∗∗δR2 .04∗ .07∗∗ .18∗∗ .05∗ .03∗ .04∗ .04∗ .08∗∗

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are reported for the respective regression steps,including socio-demographics (step1), socio-demographics and role conflict (step2), andsocio-demographics, role conflict and LMX (step 3).Standardized betas are reported from the regression equation.LMX = leader-member exchange.+p < .10, two-tailed. ∗p < .05, two-tailed. ∗∗p < .01, two-tailed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


leader-member exchange as a mediator had a significant, unique effect on theoutcome variables. A Sobel test revealed that leader-member exchange mediatedthe effects of role ambiguity on job satisfaction (Z = –4.02, p < .01) and turnoverintention (Z = 2.03, p < .05). Therefore, H1a was supported in our sample.

In addition, as is shown in Table 3, with respect to role conflict, the regressioncoefficients changed from –.28 (p < .01) in the second step to –.14 (p < .05) in thethird for job satisfaction and from .18 (p < .05) to .12 (p > .05) for turnover inten-tion when we added leader-member exchange to the models. Moreover, althoughthe effect of role conflict decreased, leader-member exchange as a mediator hada significant, unique effect on the outcome variable. A Sobel test revealed thatleader-member exchange mediated the effects of role conflict on job satisfaction(Z = –3.29, p < .01) and turnover intention (Z = 2.11, p < .05). Therefore, H1bwas supported.

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to examine the effect of LMX in therelationship between role stressors and job attitudes among employees in China.While previous research has shown that role stressors affect job attitudes, themechanisms through which it occurred were less clear. We offer insight intothe question by showing how LMX influences this relationship. Specifically, wefound that LMX mediated the relationship between role stressors and job attitudes.This result is important because it adds to our knowledge about the interveningvariables between role stressors and job attitudes.

The Mediating Role of LMX

It is notable that we found evidence to support the mediating effect ofLMX in role stressors-job attitudes. Our result was consistent with Firth et al.(2004)’s conclusion that emotional support from supervisors mediated the impactof stressors on job satisfaction and intention to quit in a 173 retail salespeoplein Australia. Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) also showed that employees’ per-ceived support from the organization mediated the relationship between stress andjob satisfaction.

Our results support the social support deteriorated model, that is, chronicstressors lead to decline in social support, which then leads to psychological dis-tress, impairment or maladjustment. This model posits that low social supportserved as a potential mediator of the relationship between stressors and psycholog-ical outcomes (e.g., Seeds, Harkness, & Quilty, 2010). One cross-sectional studyfound that social support mediated the relation between a stressor (i.e., economicstress) and maternal depression in low-income women (Gjesfjeld, Greeno, Kim, &Anderson, 2010). Kaniasty and Norris (1993) also found that the mediating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


effects of social support were limited to support exchanges associated primarilywith nonkin network members. Although the mediating role of social supportis hypothesized by the social support deterioration model (e.g., Barrera, 1986;Kaniasty & Norris, 1993; Norris & Kaniasty, 1996), we are unable to test thismodel directly in our study because our data are cross-sectional.

Moreover, role ambiguity and conflict, because they are treated as deterrentsto achieving valued outcomes, evoke negative emotions like discomfort, angerand anxiety (e.g., Glazer & Beehr, 2005; Rodell & Judge, 2009), which lead tolow-quality LMX relationships (e.g., Dulebohn, et al., 2012). This gives us thecue that role stressors might affect LMX through negative emotions. Researchersmight be interested in building and testing an emotion-based explanation for therelationship between role stressors and LMX.

The mediating effect of LMX on job attitudes is inconsistent with some previ-ous studies showing that social support played a buffering role in the relationshipbetween work stressors and strains (e.g., Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999;Zickar, Balzer, Aziz, & Wryobeck, 2008), which might be related to our sam-pling. Researchers found in middle managers from 21 nations that the extent ofrole ambiguity and role conflict varied more by country than other characteris-tics and they were related to power distance and individualism (Peterson et al.,1995). Thus, in China, where there is a greater reliance on authority and collec-tivism (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002), the relationship between role stressors andLMX may be different from that in the west. Besides, leadership and motivationmodels which are established and most widely applied in the west do not seemto work equally in China (e.g., Hofstede, 1993). This may be another possibleexplanation for the present result.

Research Limitations and Future Directions

As with any research, there are some limitations to our study that shouldbe recognized. First, cross-sectional data for this study were collected at onepoint in time, which makes it impossible to assess the causality between the vari-ables. Future studies should examine whether the relationship remains constant byusing longitudinal and experimental research designs, which could help to test thedirection of causality.

Another limitation is that the data collected were based on self-reportedassessments and hence the observed relationships may be inflated due to common-method bias. However, the results showed that the correlations between roleambiguity, role conflict, LMX, and job attitudes (job satisfaction and turnoverintention) were modest, suggesting that common method bias may not beproblematic. Nevertheless, future research could address the problem of common-method bias by using multiple methods of data collection, including objectiveand subjective measures of stressors to determine the validity of the subjectiveappraisals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Several interesting questions emerge for future research. A general point ofinterest is whether these results can be generalized to larger Chinese samples orsamples from another country. Great caution should be exercised before drawingconclusions from estimates based on small samples.

Researchers might also consider examining the influence of LMX in the con-text of other job stressors. Another interesting issue is that LMX used in this studywas unidimensional. While the concepts of role ambiguity and role conflict focuson the multidimensional characterization of roles, the relationship between LMXmeasured via a multidimensional scale and role stressors deserves continued study(Dienesch & Liden, 1986).

Practical Implications

This study has practical implications for managers and employees. The resultsshowed that LMX relationships at the workplace appear to bridge associationsbetween role stressors and job attitudes. Thus, it can be stated that LMX improve-ment programs if implemented by organizations may have a preventive function.Interventions to help improve the LMX quality of employees who face rolestressors would serve to increase job satisfaction and reduce turnover intention.

For managers, they should attempt to facilitate the development of a harmo-nious and supportive culture at the workplace (Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009).Managers may want to consider steps to reduce role ambiguity and conflict, forexample, providing clear and specific objectives and goals for employees (decreas-ing role ambiguity) or reconciling conflicting task requirements (reducing roleconflict).

For employees, they should first think consciously about the LMX qual-ity and try to enhance the communication and exchange with their managers(Li & Tu, 2011). Employees can learn stress management strategies (e.g., learnto arrange task priorities) and receive training on how to build and maintain a highquality relationship with the supervisors, especially when facing role stressors(Thomas & Lankau, 2009). By doing so, they could perhaps prevent a decline injob satisfaction and an increase in turnover intention.

In conclusion, the current study extends our understanding of the relationsamong role stressors (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) and job attitudes (i.e.,job satisfaction and turnover intention) by exploring leader-member exchange andexpanding the analysis into a sample of Chinese employees. This research hasshown support for the mediating role of leader-member exchange between rolestressors and job attitudes. Such knowledge may help to inform the stress interven-tion training programs and strategies employed by managers and organizations,and potentially reduce the costs associated with role stressors. Taken together, itseems that it is not only the exposure to role ambiguity and role conflict but thelow relationship quality of leader-member exchange that is responsible for lowjob satisfaction and high turnover intention.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


AUTHOR NOTES

Rui-Ping Zhang is affiliated with the Institute of Developmental Psychology,Beijing Normal University. Li Tsingan is affiliated with the Institute of DevelopmentalPsychology, Beijing Normal University. Long-Ping Zhang is affiliated with the Instituteof Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University.

REFERENCES

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinctionin social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models.American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 413–445.

Brislin, R. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H.C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp.389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Camp, S. D. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfac-tion on turnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279–305.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizationalcommitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 75, 339–356.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: Acritique and further development. The Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., &Ferris, G. R.(2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange:Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38,1715–1759.

Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationshipsof role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta- analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 96, 619–32.

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrin-sic career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceivedorganizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305–332.

Erera, I. P. (1992). Social support under conditions of organizational ambiguity. HumanRelations, 45, 247–264.

Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales fororganizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Firth, L., Mellor, D. J., Moore, K.A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduceemployee intention to quit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 170–187.

Fried, Y., Shirom, A., Gilboa, S. & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects ofjob satisfaction and propensity to leave on role stress-job performance relationships:Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal ofStress Management, 15, 305–328.

Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in theexperience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102–110.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta–analytic review of leader–member exchangetheory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). A meta–analysis of work demandstressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. PersonnelPsychology, 61, 227–271.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Gjesfjeld, C. D., Greeno, C. G., Kim, K. H., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Economic stress,social support, and maternal depression: Is social support deterioration occurring? SocialWork Research, 34, 135–143.

Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressors acrossfour countries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 467–487.

Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2004). Personal and situational determinants of relationship-specific perceptions of social support. Social Behavior and Personality, 32,459–476.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl–Bien, M., (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, 6,219–247.

Greguras, G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensionality of super-visor and subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 79, 433–465.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents andcorrelates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications forthe next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.

Hang-Yue, N., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2005). Work role stressors and turnover intentions:A study of professional clergy in Hong Kong. The International Journal of HumanResource Management, 16, 2133–2146.

Hannaway, J. (1985). Managerial behavior, uncertainty and hierarchy: A prelude to asynthesis. Human Relations, 38, 1085–1100.

Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., & Brouer, R. L. (2009).LMX and subordinate political skill:Direct and interactive effects on turnover Intentions and job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 39, 2373–2395.

Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2005). Easing the strain: The buffer role of super-visors in the perceptions of politics–strain relationship. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 78, 337–354.

Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leaders-member exchange andempowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, andperformance. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 371–382.

Hermann, C. F. (1963). Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of organiza-tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 61–82.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive, 7,81–94.

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., & Cronkite, R. C. (1999). Resource loss,resource gain, and depressive symptoms: A 10-year model. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 77, 620–629.

Hui, C., Law K., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects ofnegative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role andextra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 77, 3–21.

Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective.Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of researchon role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 36, 16–78.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality ofleader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction.Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Kaniasty, K., & Norris, F. (1993). A test of the support deterioration model in the contextof natural disaster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 395–408.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY:Wiley.

Kim, K. I., & Organ, D. W. (1982). Determinants of leader-subordinate exchange relation-ships. Group Organization Management, 7, 77–89.

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriateperformance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54,71–99.

Lambert, E. G., Hogana, N. Y., & Bartona, S. M. (2001). The impact of job satisfactionon turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample ofworkers. The Social Science Journal, 38, 233–250.

Lepore, S. J., Evans, G. W., & Schneider, M. L. (1991). Dynamic role of social support inthe link between chronic stress and psychological distress. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 61, 899–909.

Li, Y. P., & Tu, Y. D. (2011). Does high LMX quality benefit subordinate’s career success?A moderated mediation study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43, 941–952.

Lyons, T. F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 99–110.

Malhotra, N. K. & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: An applied approach (3rdEuropean ed.). Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall, Financial Times.

Nelson, D., Basu, R., & Purdie, R. (1998). An examination of exchange quality andwork stressors in leader–follower dyads. International Journal of Stress Management, 5,103–112.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to jobperformance? Personnel Psychology, 62, 89–134.

Norris, F., & Kaniasty, K. (1996). Perceived and received social support in times of stress:A test of the social support deterioration deterrence model. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 71, 499–511.

Örtqvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analyticreview. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 399–422.

Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., . . .Viedge,C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy ofManagement Journal, 38, 429–452.

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, andwithdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454.

Quittner, A. L., Glueckauf, R. L., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Chronic parenting stress:Moderating versus mediating effects of social support. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59, 1266–1278.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complexorganizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? Themediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenshipand counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1438–1451.

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–memberexchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69, 428–436.

Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Antecedents and consequencesof role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10,35–58.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Zenk, S. N., Parker, E. A., Lichtenstein, R., Shellman-Weir,S., & Klem, A. B. (2006). Psychosocial stress and social support as mediators of rela-tionships between income, length of residence and depressive symptoms among AfricanAmerican women on Detroit’s eastside. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 510–522.

Seeds, P. M., Harkness, K. L., & Quilty, L. C. (2010). Parental maltreatment, bullying,and adolescent depression: Evidence for the mediating role of perceived social support.Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 681–692.

Snyder, R. A., & Bruning, N. S. (1985). Quality of vertical dyad linkages: Congruence ofsupervisor and subordinate competence and role stress as explanatory variables. GroupOrganization Management, 10, 81–94.

Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and men-toring on socialization, roles stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48,417–432.

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demographyand organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.

Vandenberghe, C., Panaccio, A., Bentein, K., Mignonac, K., & Roussel, P. (2010).Assessing longitudinal change of and dynamic relationships among role stressors,job attitudes, turnover intention, and well-being in neophyte newcomers. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 32, 652–671.

Villanueva, D., & Djurkovic, N. (2009). Occupational stress and intention to leaveamong employees in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of StressManagement, 16, 124–137.

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the processof work stress: A meta–analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334.

Volmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Reciprocal relationshipsbetween leader–member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction: A cross-lagged analysis.Applied Psychology, 60, 522–545.

Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M., (2009).Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizationalsupport. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 254–262.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D. X., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-memberexchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and fol-lowers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of ManagementJournal, 48, 420–432.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational supportand leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40, 82–111.

Yap, M. B. H., & Devilly, G. J. (2004). The role of perceived social support in crimevictimisation. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 1–14.

Zickar, M. J., Balzer, W. K., Aziz, S., & Wryobeck, J. M. (2008). The moderating role ofsocial support between role stressors and job attitudes among Roman Catholic priests.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2903–2923.

Received August 26, 2012Accepted February 4, 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:41

05

Mar

ch 2

014

2. zhang et al. (2013) role stressors and job attitudes - a mediated model of lmx

Documents