In interpreting the findings, we recognize the limitations of our study as followed: First, we used cross-sectional data in the test of the modal. Although leader member exchange (LMX) is positively related to job satisfaction and performance and the effect of leader member exchange on job performance mediated by job satisfaction were shown in additional survey analyses, the remaining linkages need to be interpreted more cautiously. Although we grounded our modal in existing theory and evidence, it is that, for example job satisfaction and performance leads to relate more towards proactive personality. Further research should examine how a leader’s member exchange, job satisfaction and performance could impact proactive personality using different sources of data and different format of data, such as longitudinal data.
Second, the data used in this study was multiple-sourced but all reported. Although self-report of employees’ proactive personality, leader member exchanges (LMX), job satisfaction and performance is quite appropriate, but there are some questions that would be obvious for example employee who do not experience high proactive personality at work and not
56
interested in their job performance level (good or not) and approaching a strategy that expects employee to have a more proactive personality without compensation or willing to work by themselves. Thus, further research is necessary to verify the results of our finding that why employee who do not experience high proactive personality at work and not interested in their job performance level and strategy that can really do for employee to have a more proactive personality without compensation.
Additionally, future research would be interesting to the see how different between general of officer and labor employee proactive personalities and leader member exchange that impact on job satisfaction and performance. We expect to have a certainly different, because officer has high salary and pressure because officer’s social have high competition for advancement in their work. Thus officer might be high proactive personal and low leader member exchange. They might be having high job satisfaction and performance.
This study help leader understand the process in which the impact of a proactive personality and a leader’s member exchange on job satisfaction and performance of the employee automobile service in Thailand. Researcher hopes that this study has benefit for the managerial practices including continue making good relationship and encourage proactive personalities of employees.
57
References
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39,1538–1567.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N., Jr. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62, 217–230.
Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader–employee relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 1–25.
Bryman, A. (1987). The generalizability of leadership theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 129–141.
Bass, B.M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research and managerial application. (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Burris, E. R., Rodgers, M. S., Mannix, E. A., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2009).
Playing favorites: The influence of leaders' inner circle on group processes and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1244–1257.
Cheung, M. F.Y., & Wu, W.- P. (2012). Leader-member exchange and employee work outcomes in Chinese firms: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(1), 65-81.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532-537.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–
462.
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & 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, 46-78.
58
Dienesch, R. M. S., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership:
A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short term project teams. Small Groups Research, 31(3), 328–353.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L. & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta- analysis of antecedent and consequences of leader-member exchange:
Integrating the past with an eyes toward the future. Journal of management, 38, 1715-1759.
Fay, D. & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. It would be interesting to see how different scenarios impact on the perceived service quality. , 14(1), 97-124.
Fisher, C. D. (2000). Moods and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction?
It would be interesting to see how different scenarios impact on the perceived service quality. , 21, 185–202.
Fritz, C. & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at jobstressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35, 94-111.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982b). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and job satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp.
175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
59
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. Leadership Quarterly, 62, 219–247.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior:
Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 31–55.
Griffin, P. (2007). The comfort of competence and the uncertainty of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 87-99.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, Greg R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-276.
House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23 (3): 409-473.
House, R.J. and Mitchell, T.R. 1974. Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3: 81-97.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750–759.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and
citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269-277.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. & Wanberg, C.R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779-794.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, 131–167. Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M.
1997. An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50: 553–585.
Lapierre, L.M., & Hackett, R.D (2007), “Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A test of an
60
integrative model”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 539-554.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Wang, D. X., & Wang, L. H. (2000). Effect of supervisor–
subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 715–730.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange:
An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-73.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory:
The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.
Mardanov, I., Heischmidt, K., & Henson, A. (2008). Leadermember exchange and job satisfaction bond and predicted employee turnover. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 15(2), 159-175.
Masterson, S. S, Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M, & Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 738–748.
Morrison, E.W. 1993a. Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 173-183.
Morrison, E.W. 1993b. Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 57-589.
Ng, T.W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58: 367-408.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416-427.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.
61
Staw, B. M., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2005). The dispositional approach to job attitudes:
More than a mirage, but not yet an oasis. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 26, 59–
78.
Sutton, S A, (2000). A critical review of the transtheoretical model applied to smoking cessation. In P Norman, C Abraham and M Conner (Eds), (2000). Understanding and Changing Health Behaviour: From Health Beliefs to Self-Regulation (pp. 207–225).
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011–1017.
Van Dyne, L. & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 526–535.
Volmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Reciprocal Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Job Satisfaction: A Cross-Lagged Analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(4), 522-545.
Wech, B. A. (2002). Trust Context: Effect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Supervisory Fairness, and JobSatisfaction beyond the Influence of Leader-Member Exchange. Business Society, 41(3), 353-360.
Zorn, T. E. (1995). Bosses and buddies: Constructing and performing simultaneously hierarchical and close friendship relationships. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships (pp. 122–147).
62
Appendix
Questionnaires for leader and subordinates
About study on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, Job Satisfaction, Motivation and Proactive Representative in Worker of Automobile service center
Part 1: General information of respondent