THE ROLE OF PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. ________________________________________ Kenneth Nathan Moates Certificate of Approval: _________________________ _________________________ Achilles A. Armenakis Stanley G. Harris, Chair Pursell Professor Torchmark Professor Management Management _________________________ _________________________ H. S. Feild George T. Flowers Torchmark Professor Interim Dean Management Graduate School PERSPECTIVE TAKING AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE Kenneth Nathan Moates A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama December 17, 2007 iii PERSPECTIVE TAKING AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE Kenneth Nathan Moates Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ______________________________ Kenneth Nathan Moates ______________________________ Date of Graduation iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT PERSPECTIVE TAKING AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE Kenneth Nathan Moates Doctor of Philosophy, December 17, 2007 (M.S., Auburn University, 2004) (B.S., Auburn University, 2000) (A.S., Wallace Community College, 1998) 90 Typed Pages Directed by Stanley G. Harris A two-part model is proposed to investigate the relationship between dyad- specific perspective taking and leader-member exchange (LMX). In addition, a series of dispositional and situational antecedents of dyad-specific perspective taking are investigated. Vertical dyads (supervisor/subordinate pairs) from a healthcare organization form the sample, and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is used for the analysis. Supervisor dyad-specific perspective taking was positively related to both supervisor and subordinate assessments of LMX, and two variables assessing experiential overlap were found to correlate with both supervisor and subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking. Both limitations of the current study and directions for future research are discussed. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee members (Stan, Junior, and Achilles) for sticking with me through a long and often tedious process, and for their insight into the content and structure of this project. I would also like to thank my family and friends, who have provided support to me throughout the last several years. Above all, thanks to my wonderful wife Brandy, for her constant love and understanding. vi Style Manual: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). (2001). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Computer Software: Microsoft Office Word 2003 SPSS 15.0 HLM 6 for Windows (Student Edition) vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 Perspective Taking .....................................................................................................2 Leader-Member Exchange .........................................................................................9 Hypotheses ...............................................................................................................11 Additional Hypotheses .............................................................................................19 CHAPTER 2. METHOD ...................................................................................................23 Sample and Procedure..............................................................................................23 Measures ..................................................................................................................24 Analyses ...................................................................................................................30 CHAPTER 3. RESULTS ...................................................................................................32 Main Model Results .................................................................................................32 CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................46 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................56 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................60 Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................................61 Appendix 2 ...............................................................................................................63 . Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................................65 viii Appendix 4 ...............................................................................................................70 Appendix 5 ...............................................................................................................76 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 ...............................................................................................................................22 Table 2 ...............................................................................................................................33 Table 3 ...............................................................................................................................35 Table 4 ...............................................................................................................................37 Table 5 ...............................................................................................................................38 Table 6 ...............................................................................................................................39 Table 7 ...............................................................................................................................41 Table 8 ...............................................................................................................................42 Table 9 ...............................................................................................................................43 Table 10 .............................................................................................................................45 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Theoretical Model ..............................................................................................12 1 I. INTRODUCTION Weick (1979b) recommended that managers should ?complicate [themselves]? (p. 61). The context of this advice was Weick?s exploration of improved managerial decision making ability through the observation and integration of multiple perspectives and pieces of information in service of a more effective problem solving style. Likewise, Covey?s (1989) 7 Habits of Highly Effective People includes language that seems to point those striving for self-improvement towards a more complicated, less self-centered worldview. Research in emotional intelligence has positively linked empathy and the ability to perceive and communicate emotions with a wide range of interpersonal skills (Schutte et al., 2001). What seems to be a common thread through much of the above theorizing and research is perspective taking. Perspective taking can be defined as the cognitive act of viewing a situation or interaction from the point of view, or perspective, of someone else. Various theories have attempted to explain the experience of taking another?s perspective. No matter the theoretical background, researchers and theorists agree that perspective taking is a fundamental building block of social interaction (Parker & Axtell, 2001). Though the study of perspective taking has long been an important part of cognitive and developmental psychology (Kegan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1972), it has received far less attention in organizational studies. Notable exceptions include Fisher and Torbert (1992), Kuhnert and Lewis (1987), and Parker and Axtell (2001). 2 Regardless of its relative neglect, few constructs seem to have more relevance in the complex social network of the modern organization than the degree to which individuals can take the perspectives of their superiors, subordinates, peers, customers, suppliers, and others when making decisions, solving problems, or interacting with them. In modern organizations, where change and diversity are central issues that members must face on a daily basis, the tool of perspective taking may be a key to understanding leadership. With regard to interpersonal relationships in organizational settings, few topics have received as much attention as leader-member exchange (LMX). In this paper we explore the relationships between perspective taking and LMX. Specifically, I suggest that LMX quality is positively related to the perspective taking dispositions and dyad- specific perspective taking behaviors of supervisors and subordinates. A better understanding of the act of transcending the self to empathize with others in pursuit of more effective social exchange should have wide implications for the study of all workplace interactions, not just the supervisor/subordinate dyad with which the present work is concerned. Perspective Taking Perspective taking involves the ability to consider and appreciate the perceptions and viewpoints of others and ?see the world through their eyes.? As individuals take the perspectives of others, they understand others? behaviors in a way closer to how they understand their own behaviors. As Davis, Conklin, Smith, and Luce (1996) have pointed out, ?self/target overlap? occurs when we take another?s perspective, and the perceived 3 other becomes more self-like. This partial merging of self and other is the change in mental representation that lies at the heart of perspective taking. Theoretical Background After an exhaustive look at the seminal research in complicated understanding (a broad term that includes perspective taking related constructs), Bartunek, Gordon, and Weathersby (1983) identified three main streams of theoretical approaches to the subject complementarity, cognitive complexity, and adult development all of which incorporate the idea of perspective taking. The principle of complementarity (e.g., Bohr, 1950) is based on the necessity of diverse perspectives in fully understanding a complex world. Complementarity, simply put, means that a proper conceptualization of some complicated situations or concepts often requires more than one theoretical foundation or framework. In organizational studies, an example would be provided by the various theories of motivation. The cognitive complexity approach (e.g., Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961) emphasizes that worldview complexity is dependent on the ability to simultaneously hold multiple perspectives. Cognitive complexity comprises two dimensions; differentiation and integration. Differentiation involves the capacity for recognizing multiple dimensions in a group of stimuli while integration involves the comprehension of the relationships among such multiple dimensions (Bartunek et al., 1983). Both differentiation and integration allow individuals to understand their environments in more detailed, connected ways. Finally, adult development theories such as those of Kohlberg (1969) and Kegan (1982) have focused on ever-increasingly complex perspective taking capacities as an 4 important component of human development toward cognitive and social maturity. The developmental work of Piaget (e.g., 1972, 1954, 1932) represented some of the earliest on perspective taking. Piaget suggested the idea of perspective taking as a way of explaining one aspect of childhood development, spatial reasoning (Piaget & Inhelder, 1968). In a series of studies, Piaget exhibited that children of different ages (and therefore levels of cognitive complexity) viewed their environments in vastly different ways. In one experiment, known as the ?three mountain test,? Piaget and Inhelder (1968) demonstrated that children in an earlier stage of development were unable to accurately describe the view of objects from orientations other than their own. In other words, part of seeing the world as a fully developed adult involves an understanding of the relativity of perspective, a cognitive ability which young children lack. As children grow and develop more complex and complete cognitive maps of the world, their ability to ?see the world through the eyes of others? is an integral component of interpersonal understanding. In Kohlberg?s (1969) stage theory of moral reasoning, another antecedent of modern perspective taking theories can be found. Kohlberg suggested that as people cognitively develop, they move through six increasingly complex stages of moral reasoning. As individuals progress through these stages, the child-like self-centered egotism of earlier stages is left in favor of a more outwardly focused, moral reasoning stage in which decision making is based on principles of right and wrong which take into account the interests (perspectives) of others. So again, in Kohlberg we see an emphasis placed on the development of perspective taking ability as a hallmark of social development. 5 A later perspective taking theory is the constructive/developmental theory of Robert Kegan (1982). Kegan?s theory (which is rooted firmly in both Piaget and Kohlberg) concerns the degree to which people are able to separate themselves from their own immediate perspective, and are able to view it objectively as one of many pieces of relevant information in a given context. This perspective taking capacity allows individuals to incorporate the world views of others into their own conceptualizations of reality. Kegan?s theory is also a stage theory, with individuals progressing though increasing levels of perspective taking ability as they mature. Perspective Taking in Organizational Studies In the organizational studies literature, Kegan?s constructive/developmental theory has been incorporated into the literature on managerial effectiveness (Kuhnert and Russell, 1990), organizational development (Fisher & Torbert, 1992), and leadership style (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) focused on the relationship between Kegan?s constructive/developmental theory and transactional and transformational leadership styles. Specifically, they proposed that, as a person?s perspective taking capacity increases, their leadership style moves from low level transactional (Burns, 1978), through high level transactional (Burns, 1978), to transformational (Bass, 1985). In other words, Kuhnert and Lewis postulated that the greater a leader?s perspective taking capacity, the more complex is their leadership style. Other applications of perspective taking in organizational studies have included Weick?s (1979a) and Harris?s (1994) work on sensemaking. In particular, Weick?s discussion of ?mental debates? relates well to the view of perspective taking as the ability to hold diverse viewpoints at once to aid problem solving and sensemaking. In his work 6 on individual sensemaking and culture, Harris extended Weick?s mental debate perspective to describe the individual act of responding to culture (Harris, 1994). In describing the sensemaking process of individual organizational members, Harris theorized that the mental act of understanding the viewpoints of others is a basic component of social sensemaking. Thus, an association is made between the capacity to see the world from someone else?s perspective and the methods by which the cultural fabric of an organization is constructed in the minds of its members. Parker and Axtell (2001) extended the perspective taking literature by examining the relationship between perspective taking capacity and horizontal, peer-level employee interactions. Their study assessed the perspective taking behaviors of 141 front-line manufacturing employees to test the hypothesis that their perspective taking behaviors would have a positive relationship with their interaction with upstream and downstream production line peers. Results showed a positive correlation between perspective taking and contextual performance. Specifically, Parker and Axtell found that employee perspective taking resulted in higher ratings of those employees as being helpful and cooperative as rated by peers outside their work group. Parker and Axtell also explored possible antecedents of perspective taking, finding evidence that peer interaction created social opportunities to increase familiarity and was positively associated with perspective taking. Their examination of contributors to perspective taking and demonstration of the positive role perspective taking plays in higher contextual performance contribute to a clearer understanding of peer-level workplace interactions. Whereas Parker and Axtell focused on horizontal (i.e., same-level employee) interactions, the main goal of the 7 present work is to expand the exploration into vertical dyadic relationships (i.e., supervisor/subordinate interactions). A secondary goal of this dissertation is to explore the distinction between the general perspective taking capacity discussed in stage theories of cognitive development (i.e., Kegan, 1982) and the taking of a specific individual?s perspective in a given circumstance as evidenced by cognitive-affective outcomes such as empathy (i.e., Parker & Axtell, 2001). This distinction is an important one in order to understand the trait-like, developmental aspect of perspective taking versus the context-specific choices we make to take another?s perspective in a given situation. This distinction between general perspective taking capacity and specific perspective taking acts is explored further in the following discussion on the assessment of perspective taking. Assessing Perspective Taking How is perspective taking manifested so that it can be noted and assessed? Interestingly, the theories employing perspective taking espoused by Kuhnert and Lewis (1987), Harris (1994), and Weick (1979a) have apparently not been tested empirically. Perhaps a reason for this involves difficulties with the assessment of perspective taking. On whole, the difficulty posed by operationalizing perspective taking in order to measure it may be one reason it has not gained widespread coverage within the organizational literature. There have been two main approaches to measuring perspective taking evidenced in the literature; semi-structured subject/object interviews and cognitive/affective state surveys. The subject/object interview (Kegan, 1982) methodology is used specifically to determine which of Kegan?s stages a subject occupies. As stated earlier, the main 8 attribute of Kegan?s stage progression is a shift in perspective taking. The subject/object interview consists of discussing some life event of the respondent in an effort to determine on what level individuals ??describe their level of interpersonal understanding? (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987, p. 654). Specifically, the interviewer listens for the invoking of others? perspectives in the subject?s narrative. This method is both time consuming and dependent on the theoretical soundness of each interviewer?s technique. This method also assesses perspective taking capacity instead of perspective taking outcomes, as does the survey methodology described below. An example of the cognitive-affective state survey methodology can be found in the work of Parker and Axtell (2001). Parker and Axtell, in an attempt to simplify the measurement of perspective taking, focused on the immediate manifestations of perspective taking. Specifically, Parker and Axtell assessed perspective taking relative to two cognitive-affective outcomes; empathy and making positive attributions about some other?s behavior. This method involves administering a survey including items regarding individuals? thoughts and feelings toward some other individual (in Parker and Axtell this other individual was a peer-level co-worker) along one or more perspective taking-related dimensions. Researchers using survey methodologies (e.g., Aron, Aron, Tudor & Nelson, 1991, and Parker & Axtell, 2001) have typically focused on two manifestations of perspective taking: (a) feelings of empathy and (b) making positive attributions about the individual whose perspective is being taken. Empathy reflects the affective experience of someone else?s position or circumstance; the individual can feel or appreciate how the other person feels. Making positive attributions about another person is the result of the self/other overlap inherent in perspective taking and has its basis in the self-serving bias. 9 The self serving bias (e.g., Bernstein, Stephan, & Davis, 1979) reflects a tendency for people to maintain positive self esteem by attributing their misdeeds and failures to external antecedents and their triumphs to personal effort and characteristics. Because of the empathy implied in perspective taking and the self/other overlap, individuals are more likely to appreciate the other and judge them and their behavior less stringently and therefore more positively. At present, it appears the survey approach is the most efficient for assessing perspective taking since this method allows for a level of consistency and standardization of collection which is impossible with the use of the subject/object interview methodology. Leader-Member Exchange The purpose of this dissertation is to extend perspective taking research into a new area of inquiry; namely the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship. Since perspective taking is a dyadic phenomenon, it seems well-suited for extension into LMX theory. LMX theory differs from other conceptions of leadership (such as dispositional or contextual models) in that it focuses on the nature and quality of specific supervisor/subordinate dyad relationships. LMX theory postulates that finite resources are differentially distributed by leaders to their followers (Gerstner & Day, 1997). This differential distribution results in some employees receiving more desired resources, and others fewer, less desired resources. High quality LMX relationships are typically characterized as including valued emotional and social exchanges resulting in a favored ?in group? status, while other ?out group? employees receive fewer, and/or less valuable rewards. High quality LMX relationships are commonly characterized as being rich with social interactions which result in trust and mutual respect. Low quality LMX 10 relationships are characterized as being focused around economic exchanges, which tend to result in low trust. LMX Outcomes Researchers have paid much attention to the outcomes associated with LMX quality. Sparrowe and Liden noted, ?the quality of the member?s exchange relationship with the leader, which is based on the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources, is pivotal in determining the member?s fate within the organization? (1997, p. 522). In their meta-analysis, Gerstner and Day (1997) identified several key correlates of LMX quality. These included subordinate job performance, satisfaction with supervision, overall job satisfaction, organizational commitment, role conflict (negatively related), role clarity, member competence, and turnover intentions (also negatively related). The results of their meta-analysis underline the importance of LMX in determining important workplace outcomes. Further evidence of the importance of LMX can be found in research which has linked LMX quality with subordinate communication satisfaction across multiple organizational contexts (Mueller & Lee, 2002). LMX Antecedents Given that LMX quality influences the status and performance of employees, it is important to examine the variables that contribute to variance in LMX quality. One of the most widely investigated set of potential LMX antecedents has been demographics, and more specifically, relational demographics. Gerstner and Day (1997), using meta- analysis, found that simple demographics (age, gender, etc.) were not related to LMX quality. However, they pointed out the potential of relational demography in further understanding the origins of LMX quality. 11 Relational demography (Epitropaki & Martin, 1999; Tsui & O?Reilly, 1989) refers to the similarity between individuals. Tsui and O?Reilly (1989) investigated the role demographic difference played in the perceptions of leaders and subordinates. They concluded that relational demographics (such as race, gender, age, education, and job tenure differences) were related to perceptual outcomes in the relationship. In particular, the greater the demographic differences between supervisor and subordinate, the lower the ratings of those supervisors? and subordinates? interactions were. The current study explores the role of supervisor and subordinate perspective taking as possible antecedents of high quality LMX relationships. Hypotheses Building off perspective taking research and theory, I will now explore ways in which perspective taking might contribute to the quality of LMX. Specifically, I propose and test the relationships portrayed in the model shown in Figure 1. The basic assumption at the core of the model is that perspective taking (as manifested by empathy and positive attribution) is positively related to high quality LMX relationships. As shown in Figure 1, I feel it important to examine both the supervisor?s and subordinate?s assessment of LMX quality. Research demonstrates that subordinates and their supervisors do not always agree on the LMX quality of their dyadic relationship (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986). Given this, my theoretical model (from left to right) shows both dispositional and situational antecedents for supervisors and subordinates making contributions to those individual?s dyadic ?specific? perspective taking, with 12 Figure 1 Theoretical Model Supervisor Perspective Taking (of Subordinate?s perspective) Subordinate Perspective Taking (of Supervisor?s perspective) Subordinate Perceived LMX Quality Supervisor Perceived LMX Quality H1a H1b H2a H2b Supervisor Dispositional Antecedents Perspective Taking Tendency (H3a) Dispositional Empathy (H4a) Situational Antecedents Demographic Similarity (H5a) Position Overlap (H6) Interaction Frequency (H7a) Subordinate Dispositional Antecedents Perspective Taking Tendency (H3b) Dispositional Empathy (H4b) Situational Antecedents Demographic Similarity (H5b) Interaction Frequency (H7b) LMX Agree- ment H8 13 these dyad partner-specific mental outcomes influencing the quality of their relationship, as assessed here by LMX. Perspective Taking and LMX Quality In Kuhnert and Lewis (1987), one finds a specific theory of perspective taking, Kegan?s (1982) constructive/developmental theory, proposed as a contributing factor in leadership style. Specifically, Kuhnert and Lewis suggested that supervisors? perspective taking capacity (how many perspectives they are able to hold simultaneously) is manifested in the degree to which their leadership styles are characterized as transactional versus transformational. The authors argue that managers who take others? perspectives as part of their own perspective (Kegan stage 3) are likely to engage in transactions of higher quality, involving ?non-concrete? rewards such as emotional support, mutual respect, and trust. Managers who are unable to effectively integrate others? perspectives into their own (Kegan stage 2), are more likely to have transactions of a lower quality with their subordinates, based on ?concrete? rewards such as pay increases, benefits, or other tangible outcomes. This non-concrete/concrete distinction parallels the distinction in the LMX literature describing the differences between high and low quality LMX. When this theoretical melding of perspective taking theory is placed within the context of LMX literature on high and low quality LMX relationships, Hypothesis 1 emerges: Hypothesis 1a: The extent to which supervisors take their subordinates? perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the supervisor. 14 Hypothesis 1b: The extent to which supervisors take their subordinates? perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the subordinate. LMX relationships are dyadic, and therefore, the subordinate dimension of such a relationship should be addressed as well. In the same way that higher supervisor perspective taking is proposed to be related to higher quality LMX relationships, subordinates who engage in perspective taking should also have higher quality LMX relationships with their supervisors, since they should be able to better understand the world view of their supervisor. Though they generally have less power within the supervisor/subordinate relationship, subordinates still have some control over the quality and nature of exchanges. Therefore, subordinates who take the perspective of their supervisor should interact with them with more empathy and understanding than would subordinates who do not take the perspective of their supervisors. Such interactions should contribute to higher level LMX exchanges. Hypothesis 2a: The extent to which subordinates take their supervisor?s perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the subordinate. Hypothesis 2b: The extent to which subordinates take their supervisor?s perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the supervisor. Perspective Taking Antecedents If it is true that perspective taking is a major cognitive component which helps determine the quality and nature of a wide range of social interactions, the question of 15 where perspective taking comes from is an important one. Is perspective taking a relatively consistent way of perceiving the world which we engage in regardless of specific circumstance, or can environmental factors affect our tendency to take someone?s perspective? The perspective taking literature seems to suggest that both may be true. It seems that dispositional antecedents may explain one?s basic perspective taking capacity, while a set of situational antecedents may explain the interaction-specific perspective taking of a given individual in a given context. Whereas developmental researchers have focused on the more enduring between-subjects dispositional antecedents (e.g., Eisenberg et. al., 1994), researchers studying empathic response to a given set of stimuli have focused on situational antecedents (e.g., Parker & Axtell, 2001). Dispositional antecedents of specific perspective taking. Given the seeming distinction between theory regarding perspective taking as a generalized disposition (Bartunek, et. al., 1983; Kegan, 1983), and theory regarding perspective taking as a mental behavior that is relationship-specific (Parker & Axtell, 2001), I have attempted to create a model that includes and relates both dispositional and relationship-specific incarnations of perspective taking. Hypotheses 3 and 4 address the relationship between dispositional and relationship-specific perspective taking. Two dispositions, perspective taking tendency and empathic concern drawn from Davis? multidimensional measure of empathy, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, are well suited to capture the dispositional groundings of perspective taking behaviors. Perspective taking tendency refers to an individual?s general, enduring proclivity to take the perspective of others. Empathic concern (heretofore referred to as ?dispositional empathy?) is described by Davis as the basic level of empathy experienced by an 16 individual across all of their interpersonal relationships. The relationship between specific perspective taking and the disposition to take the perspective of others is similar to the relationship between the general capacity a given individual has for effective communication practices (across all individuals with whom communications occur), and the act of engaging in effective communication practices with any given individual in any given circumstance. Thus, the following hypotheses predict a relationship between perspective taking (H3) and empathy (H4) as general dispositions and perspective taking as a dyad-specific outcome. Hypothesis 3a: Supervisor perspective taking tendency will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking within a specific dyad. Hypothesis 3b: Subordinate perspective taking tendency will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking within a specific dyad. Hypothesis 4a: Supervisor dispositional empathy will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking within a specific dyad. Hypothesis 4b: Subordinate dispositional empathy will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking within a specific dyad. Situational antecedents of perspective taking. Several aspects of the situation and context of the dyad, including demographic similarity, job overlap (whether a supervisor has ever done the same job as his/her subordinate), and the amount of interaction the dyad has, should facilitate the act of specific perspective taking. These antecedents should work to ease the perspective taking process for the members of a dyad ? it is easier to take the perspective of someone similar to you, whom you know well, or you spend more time with (Parker & Axtell, 2001). 17 Hypothesis 5 addresses the role demographic similarity may play in encouraging perspective taking in a given dyad. In effect, the mental merging of self and other underlying perspective taking should be facilitated by the interpersonal overlap at the heart of demographic similarity. This notion finds support in the attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Lyden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), which holds that similarities between individuals lead to individual attraction. Similarly, Epitropaki and Martin (1999) hypothesized that relational demographics (age, organizational tenure, and gender) serve as moderators of the relationship between LMX and employees? work attitudes and well- being. The only one of these three demographic factors that their results supported as a moderator was organizational tenure. Green, Anderson and Shivers (1996) found that larger gender differences between supervisors and subordinates were associated with lower LMX ratings. Since the current investigation seeks to investigate not just the potential relationships between perspective taking and LMX, but also possible perspective taking antecedents, four relational demographic variables were included in our model. Hypothesis 5a: Demographic similarity (gender, ethnicity, age, and education) between the supervisor and subordinate in a given dyad will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking within that dyad. Hypothesis 5b: Demographic similarity (gender, ethnicity, age, and education) between the supervisor and subordinate in a given dyad will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking within that dyad. Position overlap has also been investigated as an antecedent of perspective taking in relationships (Parker & Axtell, 2001). Position overlap concerns the extent to which 18 supervisors have ever been employed in the same position as the subordinate they manage. Parker and Axtell (2001), for instance, used a position overlap variable to test their hypothesis that coworkers take one another?s perspectives more often when they have worked in their coworker?s position. Parker and Axtell found no support for this hypothesis. However, since the present study is focused on vertical dyads as opposed to horizontal dyads, I applied their rationale to my model, with the idea that if managers have been in the same job as those who they supervise, they will be more likely to be able to empathize with circumstances facing those employees. Hypothesis 6: Supervisors who have done the same job as a given subordinate will engage in more perspective taking behaviors with that subordinate, than those who have never done the same job as their subordinate. Similarly to position overlap, the frequency of interaction between two individuals has been linked with their taking one another?s perspectives. For example, Parker and Axtell (2001) found linkages between perspective taking and the frequency of peer-level interactions. The theoretical underpinning of their hypothesis include both Haan, Smith and Block?s (1968) view that an individual?s moral development may be fostered by interactions with others, and Mohrman and Cohen?s (1995) assertion that collaboration and interaction with others aids in perceiving those others? perspectives. Hypothesis 7a: Interaction frequency within a given dyad will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking behaviors within that dyad. Hypothesis 7b: Interaction frequency within a given dyad will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking behaviors within that dyad. 19 Perspective Taking and LMX Dyad Agreement LMX quality can be assessed from both the supervisor and subordinate perspective. When the members of a given dyad are both measured on their perceptions of LMX quality, the similarity of their measures may be represented by correlating the two responses. Within-dyad correlations of LMX agreement have ranged from .50 (Graen & Cashman, 1975) to .29 (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986). Gerstner and Day?s (1997) meta analytic review of LMX studies yielded a .29 average sample weighted correlation. To date, no strong explanation of this low level of correspondence has emerged. I suggest that the degree to which the parties agree may depend on both?s perspective taking abilities. This would seem likely since a supervisor or subordinate with well-developed perspective taking are more ?in touch? with the viewpoints of others. In this case, that ?other viewpoint? would include assessments of the dyad relationship, here LMX. Hypothesis 8: The extent to which employees take the perspective of their supervisor and the extent to which supervisors take the perspective of their subordinates will both have a positive relationship with supervisor/subordinate LMX agreement. Additional Hypotheses In addition to the main hypotheses formulated above, and portrayed in Figure 1, I identified two secondary hypotheses for further exploration. Contextual Performance Contextual performance is a two-dimensional construct that includes interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. Whereas job dedication concerns task performance, interpersonal facilitation concerns the interpersonal dimension of employee performance, 20 such as encouraging communications and helping behaviors. Parker and Axtell (2001) found a positive relationship between peer-level perspective taking and contextual performance. The basic rationale behind their inclusion of contextual performance was that an individual?s taking of another?s perspective would likely have an effect on important workplace behaviors such as contextual performance. I will attempt to extend this line of inquiry by assessing the relationship between supervisor and subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking and subordinate contextual performance. This would help establish the link between perspective taking and important workplace outcomes. Since interpersonal facilitation is the dimension of contextual performance associated with helping behaviors in the work environment, it seems likely that an individual?s perspective taking tendency and dispositional empathy will be related to this aspect of contextual performance, while job dedication (the other dimension of contextual performance, concerned with the level of proactivity and tenacity with which a job in carried out), will not be related to these dispositional antecedents. Hypothesis 9a: Perspective taking tendency will be positively related to interpersonal facilitation, but job dedication will not. Hypothesis 9b: Dispositional empathy will be positively related to interpersonal facilitation, but job dedication will not. Openness to Organizational Change In a broad sense, perspective taking capacity concerns an individual?s ability to hold multiple points of view simultaneously. Given this ability, periods of conflict and change would seem to be more easily comprehended and endured by individuals who are able to perceive the multitude of interests in a given situation. In other words, an 21 individual?s capacity to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously to create a more complex worldview might translate into less anxiety as a result of periods of dramatic change. For instance, Parker and Axtell (2001) hypothesized that individuals with a flexible role orientation would be more likely to take the perspectives of their coworkers. For this reason, the second additional hypothesis will explore the relationship between supervisor and subordinate dispositional perspective taking and those individuals? openness to change. Hypothesis 10a: Subordinate perspective taking tendency will be positively related to subordinate openness to change. Hypothesis 10b: Subordinate dispositional empathy will be positively related to subordinate openness to change. All hypotheses are summarized in Table 1. 22 Table 1: Summary of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1a The extent to which supervisors take their subordinates? perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the supervisor. Hypothesis 1b The extent to which supervisors take their subordinates? perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the subordinate. Hypothesis 2a The extent to which subordinates take their supervisor?s perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the subordinate. Hypothesis 2b The extent to which subordinates take their supervisor?s perspective will be positively related to the dyad?s LMX quality as assessed by the supervisor. Hypothesis 3a Supervisor perspective taking tendency will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking within a specific dyad. Hypothesis 3b Subordinate perspective taking tendency will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking within a specific dyad. Hypothesis 4a Supervisor dispositional empathy will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking within a specific dyad. Hypothesis 4b Subordinate dispositional empathy will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking within a specific dyad. Hypothesis 5a Demographic similarity (gender, ethnicity, age, and education) between the supervisor and subordinate in a given dyad will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking within that dyad. Hypothesis 5b Demographic similarity (gender, ethnicity, age, and education) between the supervisor and subordinate in a given dyad will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking within that dyad. Hypothesis 6 Supervisors who have done the same job as a given subordinate will engage in more perspective taking behaviors with that subordinate, than those who have never done the same job as their subordinate. Hypothesis 7a Interaction frequency within a given dyad will be positively related to supervisor perspective taking behaviors within that dyad. Hypothesis 7b Interaction frequency within a given dyad will be positively related to subordinate perspective taking behaviors within that dyad. Hypothesis 8 The extent to which employees take the perspective of their supervisor and the extent to which supervisors take the perspective of their subordinates will both have a positive relationship with supervisor/subordinate LMX agreement. Hypothesis 9a Perspective taking tendency will be positively related to interpersonal facilitation, but job dedication will not. Hypothesis 9b Dispositional empathy will be positively related to interpersonal facilitation, but job dedication will not. Hypothesis 10a Subordinate perspective taking tendency will be positively related to subordinate openness to change. Hypothesis 10b Subordinate dispositional empathy will be positively related to subordinate openness to change. 23 II. METHOD Sample and Procedure The research was conducted within a large hospital in the southeastern United States. Individuals invited to participate included a wide range of employees including nursing staff, administrative staff, and support staff from all hierarchical levels in the hospital (from the CEO, down to employees without supervisory responsibilities). A list of all possible participants was given to me, from which I randomly chose 5 subordinates for each of the 28 supervisor on the list using a random number generator. (If a given supervisor had 5 or fewer subordinates, all of their subordinates were included.) Survey packets were distributed through intraorganizational mail to 28 supervisors and a random group of 2-5 of their immediate subordinates (a total of 146 subordinates were sampled). In each packet was a letter describing the research (see Appendices 1 and 2). The packets given to supervisors also contained one set of self- assessment instruments and a set of instruments that were to be completed for each of their two to five subordinates (see Appendix 3). Subordinate packets contained one set of general self-report items and a set of questions concerning their relationship with their supervisor (see Appendix 4). Code numbers were assigned to each dyad and placed on surveys so that dyads could be paired for analysis. After completion, surveys were returned in pre-stamped envelopes. 24 Our final sample consisted of 106 unique supervisor/subordinate dyads. The 106 dyads represented 73% of the 146 possible dyads from which information was requested. (Of the 28 supervisors from whom we requested information, 23 completed and returned the surveys.) Data were collected across three supervisory levels in the organization (100% supervisor response rates at level 1 and level 2, and 78.26% at level 3.) This created a few situations in which individuals were a subordinate in one dyad, and a supervisor in another. In order to ensure that each participant only held one role in the data set, supervisors were not allowed to be a subordinate in another dyad and any such dyads were removed from the data. This process resulted in a final dyad count of 91 dyads across 23 supervisors. The number of dyads each supervisor was a member of ranged from 1 to 9, with an average of 3.96. Of the 22 supervisors providing demographics, 86% were women, 90% were Caucasian, and 35% had completed at least some graduate work as part of their education. Of the 90 subordinates reporting demographics, 83% were women, 85% were Caucasian, and 11% reported ?some graduate work? as the highest level of education they had attained. Measures Unless otherwise noted, responses to all questionnaire items comprising the scales described below were made on a seven point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The items comprising each scale are provided in Appendix 5. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Leader-member exchange (LMX), from both the supervisor and subordinate perspectives, was assessed using the LMX7 measure (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982). This measure has been widely used in research and includes items from multiple 25 historical LMX measures (Gerstner & Day?s, 1997). Gerstner and Day?s meta-analysis reported historical alphas of .78 for supervisors and .89 for subordinates. LMX7 items were used for both leader and member assessments of LMX, by switching the words leader and follower for each member of the relationship (Gerstner & Day, 1997). (The term leader is replaced with the term immediate supervisor, while the term follower is replaced with the term employee for this study.) Example items from the supervisor survey include: ?I understand the work problems and needs of this employee? and ?Regardless of how much formal authority I have built into my position, I would be inclined to use my available power to help this employee solve his/her work problems.? Parallel examples from the subordinate survey include: ?My immediate supervisor understands my work problems and needs? and ?Regardless of how much formal authority my immediate supervisor has built into his/her position, he/she would be inclined to use his/her available power to help me solve problems in my work.? Coefficient alpha reliability for the supervisor scale was .74 and .92 for the subordinate scale. LMX Agreement The degree to which supervisors and their subordinates agreed in their rating of dyad LMX was assessed by computing the absolute value difference between supervisor and subordinate assessments of LMX for each dyad. Dyad-Specific Perspective Taking Supervisors reported their degree of perspective taking with each of their sampled subordinates (supervisor subordinate-specific perspective taking) and subordinates reported their perspective taking with their supervisor (subordinate supervisor-specific 26 perspective taking) using a measure derived from Parker and Axtell?s (2001) six item measure of internal supplier perspective taking. In their study, they reported a coefficient alpha of .78 for items relating to empathy and .71 for items relating to positive attribution making. Since their measure was focused on vertical relationships, the stem ?my suppliers? in their items was replaced with the stem ?this employee? for the supervisor survey and ?my supervisor? for the employee survey. Example items from the supervisor survey include: ?I feel concerned for this employee if s/he is under pressure? and ?This employee usually does the best s/he can, given the circumstances.? Coefficient alpha reliability for the resulting scales were .75 for supervisor self-reports and .84 for subordinate self-reports. Perspective Taking Tendency Perspective taking tendency for both supervisors and subordinates was measured using the self-report, seven-item perspective taking subscale from Davis? (1980) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Together, the four subscales of the IRI have collectively demonstrated internal reliabilities ranging from .71 to .77 and test-retest reliabilities ranging from .62 to .71 (Davis, 1983). In the present study,the two reversed- scored items (i.e., ?I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the ?other guy?s? point of view? and ?If I know I?m right about something, I don?t waste much time listening to other people?s arguments?) were not included in the final scale creation due to poor internal reliability. The final five-item scale had a coefficient alpha reliability including both supervisors and subordinates responses of .70. Example items include: ?I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both? and ?When I?m upset at someone, I usually try to ?put myself in his shoes? for a while.? 27 Dispositional Empathy As with perspective taking tendency, both supervisor and subordinate dispositional empathy were measured using the self-report, seven-item empathic concern subscale from Davis? (1980) IRI. Coefficient alpha reliability for the resulting scale was .87. Example items include: ?I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me? and ?When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.? Position Overlap Position overlap was assessed from supervisors with regard to each of their employees with an item similar to one employed by Parker and Axtell (2001) to assess whether respondents had ever ?carried out? the same job as a peer. In the present study, the information was only collected from the supervisor, since it is unlikely that a subordinate would have previously held their supervisor?s position. Our revised item was: ?Have you ever held the same job currently held by this employee?? (scored yes = 1; no = 0). Frequency of Interaction Frequency of interaction was assessed by subordinates for their supervisors, again using a modified version of the peer-level frequency of interaction scale used by Parker and Axtell (2001). This item was only collected from subordinates since an effort was made to reduce, as much as possible, the overall number of questions proposed to supervisors. Our item was: ?Estimate in hours and minutes how often you interact (both at work and socially) with this subordinate in a typical day.? ___ hours and ___ minutes.? For analyses, hours and minutes were combined to create a measure of total minutes. 28 Gender Difference Both supervisors and subordinates were asked to provide information on their gender. Same sex dyads were coded 0 and mixed sex dyads coded 1. Ethnicity Difference Both supervisors and subordinates were asked to identify their ethnicity using the following checklist: How do you classify yourself? ___ Caucasian (White), ___ African- American (Black), ___ Asian-American, ___ Hispanic-American, ___ Native American, ___ Pacific Islander, ___ Other. If members of a dyad reported being the same ethnicity, they were scored 0. If their ethnicity was different, they received a score of 1. Age Difference Supervisors and subordinates were asked to indicate their age range using a set of ten ordinal age ranges, starting with range 1 for 18-25, and progressing in five-year increments up to range 10 for 65-70. Age difference was computed by taking the absolute value of the difference of the age range category of a given dyad?s supervisor and subordinate, resulting in a number between 0 and 9. (Though this method to collect age information results in less specific data, it was done so on the insistence of the sample organization as a means to preserve confidentiality.) Education Difference Supervisors and subordinates indicated the highest level of education they had attained using the following ranking scale: What is the highest level of school you have completed? ___ some high school, ___ high school graduate/GED, ___ some college, ___ Associate?s Degree, ___ Bachelor?s Degree, ___ graduate work. To compute education difference, the absolute difference between the rankings provided by the dyad 29 members was computed such that scores ranged from 0 to 5 and higher scores indicated greater education difference. Ability to Cope with Change A self-report scale was used to assess a given supervisor and subordinate?s ability to cope with organizational change. The scale was introduced in Judge, Thorensen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999) and includes 12 items. Responses were given on a 7-point scale (ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). The scale developers reported an alpha of .77 for self-report usage. In the current study, the original word company was replaced with the word hospital where needed to reduce confusion for respondents. The Cronbach?s alpha for the scale was .72. Example items include: ?I see the rapid changes occurring in this hospital as opening up new career opportunities for me.? and ?Deep changes ultimately better the hospital.? Subordinate Contextual Performance Contextual performance for each subordinate was assessed by their supervisor using Van Scotter, Motowildo, and Cross? 15-item scale. This scale divides contextual performance into interpersonal facilitation (7 items) and job dedication (8 items). The two subscales were reported by Van Scotter et al. (2000) to have reliabilities of .89 and .74 respectively. Cronbach?s alphas for this study were .88 and .91 respectively. Supervisors rate how likely (on a 7-cell Likert response format: 1 = extremely unlikely; 7 = extremely likely) a given subordinate is to: ??praise coworkers when they are successful.? (interpersonal facilitation example) and ??persist in in overcoming obstacles to complete a task.? (job dedication example). 30 Analyses All items used to assess perspective taking tendency, dispositional empathy, dyad perspective taking, and leader-member exchange were entered into a confirmatory factor analysis. This factor analysis seemed appropriate as a way to make sure that there was not a significant amount of concept overlap, since variables such as dyad-specific perspective taking and leader-member exchange could be argued to too closely map the same conceptual ground. Four competing models were used. Model 1 (the theoretical model) entered each of the four measures listed above as a separate factor. The chi-squared goodness of fit test confirmed this model (X = 76.528, df = 48 (Kline, 1998). Using the widely used norm of X2/df < 3 (Kline, 1998) as an indicator of goodness of fit, the four factor model has an acceptable level of goodness of fit (X2/df = 1.59). Additionally, the theoretical model?s standardized root mean squared residual, or SRMR, (.0648) and comparative fit index, or CFI, (.957) indicate a good fit given they meet common standards (SRMR < .08, and CFI > .95) (Kline, 1998). Three comparison models were entered in order to assess whether the four factors included in Model 1 could be combined in fewer factors. Model 2 was the same as Model 1 with the exception that perspective taking tendency and dispositional empathy were entered as a single factor, given that these two variables were subscales taken from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (SRMR = .1105, cfi = .869). The change in chi-squared for this model was significantly worse than the theoretical model (p < .001). Model 3, which combined dyad-specific perspective taking and leader-member exchange into one factor (SRMR = .0912, CFI = .896) was also significantly worse than the theoretical model (p < .001), as was Model 4, which combined perspective taking tendency and 31 dispositional empathy into one factor, while also combining dyad-specific perspective taking and leader-member exchange into one factor (SRMR = ..1270, CFI = .807. Therefore, the results from these three CFA models support the use of these variables as four distinct constructs. My data were multilevel; subordinates were nested within dyads and supervisors were common across several dyads. Thus, because the demographic and dispositional attributes of supervisors were shared across their dyads the assumption of independence necessary for standard ordinary least squared regression analysis is violated (Luke, 2004). Therefore the hypothesized relationships presented above (and shown in Figure 1), were tested using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) and the student edition of HLM 6 (Scientific Software International, Inc., 2002). HLM accommodates correlated error structures found in multilevel data and provides the estimation of more appropriate, unbiased errors (Luke, 2004). Hypotheses 1 ? 9 were tested using separate HLM models for each hypothesized relationship. Only bivariate correlations were used to test hypotheses 10a and b, because these hypotheses only concerned the supervisors and did not involve multilevel data. 32 III. RESULTS The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study variables are shown in Table 2. Examination of the pattern of intercorrelations offers preliminary insights into the level of support for our hypotheses. Main Model Results Supervisor Perspective Taking and LMX Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between a supervisor?s dyad- specific perspective taking and that supervisor?s dyad-specific assessment of LMX (H1a) and their subordinate?s dyad-specific assessment of LMX (H1b). Consistent with H1a and b and shown in Table 3, supervisors? subordinate-specific perspective taking was positively related with their assessment of LMX (?10 = .67, p < .001) and subordinates? assessment of LMX (?10 = .48, p < .01). Subordinate Perspective Taking and LMX Hypothesis 2 used subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking as the predictor for both supervisor (H2a) and subordinate (H2b) assessments of LMX. As shown in Table 3 and consistent with H2a, subordinates? supervisor-specific perspective taking as positively related with their own assessment of LMX in their dyad (?10 = .87, p < .001). H2b was not supported as subordinates? supervisor-specific perspective taking was not related to their supervisor?s LMX assessment (?10 = .11, n.s.). 33 Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Subordinate perspective taking tendency 5.7 .92 2 Subordinate dispositional empathy 5.54 .83 .27** 3 Subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking 5.68 .88 .17 .29** 4 Subordinate assessment of LMX 5.76 1.08 .11 .11 .72** 5 Supervisor perspective taking tendency 5.97 .58 .00 .14 .07 .11 6 Supervisor dispositional empathy 5.89 .71 -.08 .18 .13 .14 .43** 7 Supervisor dyad-specific perspective taking 5.93 .73 -.12 .06 .18 .28** .46** .28** 8 Supervisor assessment of LMX 6.2 .64 -.1 .09 .18 .3** .36** .03 9 Gender difference .17 .38 .06 -.05 .07 .14 .01 .03 10 Ethnicity difference .19 .39 -.07 -.25* -.22* -.13 -.03 -.28* 11 Age difference 1.86 1.6 -.09 -.02 .03 .07 .05 -.09 12 Education difference 1.12 .96 -.13 .06 -.34** -.29** -.11 -.36** 13 Position overlap 1.44 .5 -.04 -.15 -.24* -.23* -.09 -.28** 14 Frequency of daily interaction 171.5 180.4 -.13 .1 .15 .3** .03 .05 15 Dyad LMX agreement .81 .83 -.11 .05 -.51** -.76** -.1 -.19 16 Subordinate Interpersonal Facilitation 6.06 .77 -.02 .15 .29* .35** .00 .13 17 Subordinate Job Dedication 5.86 .98 -.06 .1 .29** .43** .34** .07 18 Supervisor Openness to Change 4.99 .42 .1 .0 .02 -.06 -.55** -.37 19 Subordinate Openness to Change 4.66 .71 .34** .14 .22* .17 -.13 -.16 * p < .05; ** p < .01; Notes: N ranged from 82 to 91. LMX = leader-member exchange 34 Table 2. (continued) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .76** 9 .21 .04 10 -.12 .04 .01 11 .14 .0 .04 .1 12 -.18 -.08 -.25* .2 .09 13 -.20 -.13 .08 -.18 .0 .35** 14 .11 .09 .00 -.17 -.02 .00 -.33** 15 -.04 .04 -.1 .22* -.1 .21 -.29** -.22* 16 .55** .49** .05 -.29** .13 -.14 .14 .03 -.13 17 .79** .75** .17 -.51** .08 -.13 .12 .16 -.15 .62** 18 -.38** -.33** -.07 .12 -.1 .15 -.12 .03 .04 .01 -.13 19 -.19 -.13 .06 .08 -.03 .03 -.15 .05 .01 -.09 -.03 .34** 35 Table 3 Perspective Taking and LMX: Hierarchical Linear Models and Results Parameter Estimates Model ?00 ?10 ?2 in rij Hypothesis 1a L1: SupervisorLMXij = ?0j + ?1j(SupervisorSPTij) + rij 6.22*** .67*** .11 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 1b L1: SubordinateLMXij = ?0j + ?1j(SupervisorSPTij) + rij 5.78*** .48** .19 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 2a L1: SubordinateLMXij = ?0j + ?1j(SubordinateSPTij) + rij 5.76*** .87*** .48 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 2b L1: SupervisorLMXij = ?0j + ?1j(SubordinateSPTij) + rij 6.23*** .11 .19 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Notes: LI = Level 1, L2 = Level 2, SupervisorLMX = Supervisor?s assessment of dyad LMX, SubordinateLMX = Subordinate?s assessment of dyad LMX, SupervisorSPT = Supervisor?s dyad-specific perspective taking, SubordinateSPT = Subordinate?s dyad- specific perspective taking. All predictors were entered grand mean centered. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 N = 91 (Level 1), 23 (Level 2) 36 Dispositions and Perspective Taking Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted positive relationships between two dispositions, perspective taking tendency and dispositional empathy, and dyad-specific perspective taking. Since H3a and H4a focus on supervisor dispositions and supervisors span multiple dyads, these dispositions are considered Level 2 variables and, as shown in Table 4, are entered into the HLM as such. Because subordinate dispositions are unique to only one dyad, they remain Level 1 predictors. Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between perspective taking tendency and dyad-specific perspective taking, and as shown in Table 4 was supported for supervisors (H3a: ?01 = .58, p < .05) but not subordinates (H3b: ?10 = .16, n.s.). Hypothesis 4 predicted a relationship between dispositional empathy and dyad-specific perspective taking and was supported for subordinates (H4b: ?10 = .3, p < .01), but not for supervisors (H4a: ?01 = .06, n.s.). Demographic Similarity and Perspective Taking Hypotheses 5a and 5b predicted a positive relationship between the levels of demographic similarity within a dyad (specifically gender, ethnicity, age, and education), and dyad-specific perspective taking. In the HLM results shown in Tables 5 and 6, only educational difference was significantly related to both supervisor dyad-specific perspective taking (?10 = -.09, p < .05) and subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking (?10 = -.3, p < .05), indicating greater educational differences were related to lower perspective taking. No other demographic similarities were related to perspective taking, therefore offering only partial support for Hypotheses 5. 37 Table 4 Dispositions and Perspective Taking: Hierarchical Linear Models and Results Parameter Estimates Model ?00 ?01 ?10 ?2 in rij Hypothesis 3a L1: SupervisorSPTj = ?0j + rij 5.95*** .58* .2 L2: ?0j = ?00 + ?01(SupervisorPTTij) + U0j Hypothesis 3b L1: SubordinateSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(SubordinatePTTij) + rij 5.68*** .16 .67 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 4a L1: SupervisorSPTij = ?0j + rij 5.95*** .06 .2 L2: ?0j = ?00 + ?01(SupervisorDEij) + U0j Hypothesis 4b L1: SubordinateSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(SubordinateDEij) + rij 5.69*** .3** .65 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Notes: LI = Level 1, L2 = Level 2, SupervisorSPT = Supervisor?s dyad-specific perspective taking, SubordinateSPT = Subordinate?s dyad-specific perspective taking, SupervisorPTT = Supervisor?s perspective taking tendency, SubordinatePTT = Subordinate?s perspective taking tendency, SUPDE = Supervisor?s dispositional empathy, SubordinateDE = Subordinate?s dispositional empathy. All predictors were entered grand mean centered. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 N = 91 (Level 1), 23 (Level 2) 38 Table 5 Demographic Similarity and Perspective Taking: Hierarchical Linear Models and Results Parameter Estimates Model ?00 ?10 ?2 in rij Hypothesis 5a (Gender difference) L1: SupervisorSPTj = ?0j + ?1j(GDRij) + rij 5.91*** .16 .2 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 5a (Ethnicity) L1: SupervisorSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(ETHij) + rij 5.96*** -.13 .2 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 5a (Age) L1: SupervisorSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(AGEij) + rij 5.94*** .05 .19 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 5a (Education difference) L1: SupervisorSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(EDUij) + rij 5.94*** -.09* .19 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Notes: LI = Level 1, L2 = Level 2, SupervisorSPT = Supervisor?s dyad-specific perspective taking, GDR = Gender difference, ETH = Ethnicity difference, AGE = Age difference, EDU = Education difference. All predictors were entered grand mean centered except gender and ethnicity, which were entered uncentered. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 N = 91 (Level 1), 23 (Level 2) 39 Table 6 Demographic Similarity and Perspective Taking: Hierarchical Linear Models and Results Parameter Estimates Model ?00 ?10 ?2 in rij Hypothesis 5b (Gender difference) L1: SubordinateSPTj = ?0j + ?1j(GDRij) + rij 5.66*** .22 .71 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 5b (Ethnicity) L1: SubordinateSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(ETHij) + rij 5.77*** -.45 .75 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 5b (Age) L1: SubordinateSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(AGEij) + rij 5.69*** .0 .72 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 5b (Education) L1: SubordinateSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(EDUij) + rij 5.68*** -.3* .7 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Notes: LI = Level 1, L2 = Level 2, SubordinateSPT = Subordinate?s dyad-specific perspective taking, GDR = Gender difference, ETH = Ethnicity difference, AGE = Age difference, EDU = Education difference. All predictors were entered grand mean centered except gender, which were entered uncentered. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 N = 91 (Level 1), 23 (Level 2) 40 Position Overlap and Perspective Taking Hypothesis 6 predicted a positive relationship between position overlap (whether the supervisor in a given dyad has ever held the job currently held by the subordinate in that same dyad) and supervisor dyad-specific perspective taking. As shown in the HLM analysis shown in Table 7, Hypothesis 6 was supported (?10 = .22, p < .01). Interaction Frequency and Perspective Taking Hypotheses 7a and 7b predicted positive relationships between the frequency of supervisor/subordinate interaction and supervisor and subordinate specific perspective taking. The HLM analysis shown in Table 7 does not support Hypothesis 7 for supervisors (H7a: ?10 = .00, n.s.) or subordinates (H7b: ?10 = .00, n.s.). Dyad LMX Agreement and Perspective Taking Hypothesis 8 examined the relationship between the specific perspective taking of the members of a given dyad and the agreement within that dyad regarding the supervisor and subordinate ratings of LMX quality. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported by the HLM analysis shown in Table 8, in that subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking was negatively related to dyad LMX agreement (?10 = -.45, p < .01), while supervisor subordinate-specific perspective taking was non-significant. This suggests that higher subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking was associated with greater agreement with their supervisor on the quality of LMX in the relationship. Contextual Performance Hypothesis 9 addressed the relationship between subordinate contextual performance and subordinate perspective taking tendency. As shown in Table 9, subordinate perspective taking tendency was not related with either dimension of 41 Table 7 Situational Antecedents and Perspective Taking: Hierarchical Linear Models and Results Parameter Estimates Model ?00 ?10 ?2 in rij Hypothesis 6 L1: SupervisorSPTj = ?0j + ?1j(POij) + rij 5.83*** .22* .2 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 7a L1: SupervisorSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(IFij) + rij 5.98*** .0 .2 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 7b L1: SubordinateSPTij = ?0j + ?1j(IFij) + rij 5.72*** .0 .63 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Notes: LI = Level 1, L2 = Level 2, SupervisorSPT = Supervisor?s dyad-specific perspective taking, SubordinateSPT = Subordinate?s dyad-specific perspective taking, PO = Position overlap, IF = Interaction frequency. All predictors were entered grand mean centered except position overlap, which was entered uncentered. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 N = 91 (Level 1), 23 (Level 2) 42 Table 8 LMX Agreement and Perspective Taking: Hierarchical Linear Models and Results Parameter Estimates Model ?00 ?10 ?2 in rij Hypothesis 8a L1: LMXAGMTj = ?0j + ?1j(SupervisorSPTij) + rij .8*** -.11 .5 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 8b L1: LMXAGMTij = ?0j + ?1j(SubordinateSPTij) + rij .81*** -.45** .37 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Notes: LI = Level 1, L2 = Level 2, LMXAGMT = the difference between a given dyad?s members? scores of LMX, SupervisorSPT = Supervisor?s dyad-specific perspective taking, SubordinateSPT = Subordinate?s dyad-specific perspective taking. All predictors were entered grand mean centered. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 N = 91 (Level 1), 23 (Level 2) 43 Table 9 Contextual Performance and Perspective Taking: Hierarchical Linear Models and Results Parameter Estimates Model ?00 ?10 ?2 in rij Hypothesis 9a L1: SubordinateIFj = ?0j + ?1j(SubordinatePTTij) + rij 6.08*** .02 .42 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Hypothesis 9b L1: SubordinateJDij = ?0j + ?1j(SubordinatePTTij) + rij 5.89*** -.04 .67 L2: ?0j = ?00 + U0j L2: ?1j = ?10 + U1j Notes: LI = Level 1, L2 = Level 2, SubordinateIF = Subordinate?s Interpersonal Facilitation, SubordinatePTT = Subordinate?s perspective taking tendency, SubordinateJD = Subordinate?s job dedication. All predictors were entered grand mean centered. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 N = 91 (Level 1), 23 (Level 2) 44 contextual performance (interpersonal facilitation (Hypothesis 9a; ?10 = .02, n.s.), and job dedication (Hypothesis 9b; ?10 = -.04, n.s.). Perspective Taking Dispositions and Openness to Organizational Change Hypotheses 10 dealt with the relationship between a subordinate?s perspective taking tendency (10a) and dispositional empathy (10b) and their openness to organizational change. As shown in Table 2, Hypothesis 10a was supported (r = .34, p< .01), yet Hypothesis 10b was not supported (r = .14, n.s.). Given these results, the notion that perspective taking tendency is related to openness to change across individuals in general was supported, while the same relationship between openness to change and dispositional empathy was not supported. All results are summarized in Table 10. 45 Table 10. Summary of Results Hypothesis Results Summery Hypothesis 1a Supported Hypothesis 1b Supported Hypothesis 2a Supported Hypothesis 2b Not Supported Hypothesis 3a Supported Hypothesis 3b Not Supported Hypothesis 4a Not Supported Hypothesis 4b Supported Hypothesis 5a Partially Supported Hypothesis 5b Partially Supported Hypothesis 6 Partially Supported Hypothesis 7a Not Supported Hypothesis 7b Not Supported Hypothesis 8 Partially Supported Hypothesis 9a Not Supported Hypothesis 9b Not Supported Hypothesis 10a Partially Supported Hypothesis 10b Not Supported 46 IV. DISCUSSION My goal in the current study was to better understand the potential of perspective taking as an antecedent of high quality leader-member relationships, while gaining important insight into the dimensionality and origin of perspective taking in vertical dyadic relationships. The first of these two main goals serves to expand our understanding of why some supervisors have more effective, mutually pleasing, interactions with one subordinate versus another. In our case, dyad-member specific perspective taking is the hypothesized antecedent. The second goal may allow for an expansion of the perspective taking literature, in that we have examined a variety of dispositional and situational antecedents of dyad-specific perspective taking. In other words, what factors contribute to how much you take the perspective of your supervisors or subordinates? Model Examination The relationships found using HLM in the present study can be summed up in terms of four outcome variables: supervisor and subordinate assessments of LMX and their dyad-specific perspective taking. The right half of Figure 1 (Hypotheses 1 and 2) can be thought of as the ?front part? of the model, which uses supervisor and subordinate dyad-specific perspective taking as predictor variables and supervisor and subordinate assessments of LMX as dependent variables. Both supervisor and subordinate specific perspective taking were positively related to supervisors? assessment of LMX. This 47 finding simultaneously expands the literature of both variables, in that this is, to our knowledge, the first time that these two constructs have been shown to relate in the management literature. The originators of the dyad-specific perspective taking scale used here, Parker and Axtell (2002), used this scale to examine peer-level interactions. This dissertation extends their work by examining the effects that relationship-specific perspective taking can have in vertical dyads ? here supervisor/subordinate couplings. One of the most interesting findings from this portion of my model was that while subordinate assessments of LMX was predicted by both supervisor and subordinate dyad- specific perspective taking, supervisor LMX was predicted only by supervisor dyad- specific perspective taking. These results suggest that while subordinates? assessment of dyad relationship quality (here, LMX) is influenced by both their and their own supervisor?s dyad-specific perspective taking, only a supervisor?s own assessment of their own dyad-specific perspective taking impacts their assessment of relationship quality. The implications of my findings regarding the ?front end? of my model suggest that taking the perspective of a subordinate has a positive impact on that subordinate?s assessment of relationship quality. Thus, as high LMX is seen as a positive feature of vertical dyadic relationships, supervisors may be well served to actively take the perspectives of their followers. This may take the form of more concrete efforts to map the interests of one?s constituents, or through the more subtle cognitive act of ?putting yourself in the other person?s shoes.? Hypotheses 3-7 (as seen on the left side of Figure 1) can be seen as various antecedents to dyad-specific perspective taking. Supervisor and subordinate specific 48 perspective taking were the outcome variables in all of these hypotheses. These potential antecedents were divided into two categories: dispositional (i. e., perspective taking tendency, and dispositional empathy) and situational (i. e., demographic similarity, position overlap, and interaction frequency). Each of these sets of antecedents was included in my model in an attempt to explain the origins of dyad-specific perspective taking. Dispositional antecedents are brought to each dyad of which an individual is a part. In contrast to these dispositional antecedents, situational antecedents vary according to the characteristics of each dyadic relationship. Dispositional antecedents were not consistent predictors of dyad-specific perspective taking for supervisors or subordinates. While a supervisor?s general perspective taking tendency was positively related to that supervisor?s specific perspective taking, a subordinate?s dispositional empathy was positively related to that subordinate?s specific perspective taking. Since these two antecedents (perspective taking tendency and dispositional empathy) are subscales taken from a single instrument (Davis? Interpersonal Reactivity Index, 1980), perhaps the fact that these variables do not share the same relationship to dyad-specific perspective taking in all cases could be considered evidence that these constructs may lead to different subsequent mental acts. In other words, perhaps these results provide evidence of discriminant validity for these two subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index in that an individual may tend to take perspectives while not feeling empathy in some situation. At the least, however, these results are the first, to my knowledge, to establish a link between a dispositional (individual-level) perspective taking predisposition, and a relational (dyad-based) perspective taking outcome. This is important since most studies investigating 49 perspective taking regard it as either a dispositional attribute or a relationship-specific outcome ? while not including both of these potential constructs in models. As with the dispositional antecedents of dyad-specific perspective taking, results for situational antecedents were mixed. Of the six situational antecedents (gender difference, ethnicity difference, age difference, educational difference, position overlap, and interaction frequency), only position overlap and education difference found support as predictors. Position overlap and education difference have an interesting conceptual parallel in that while position overlap (whether a supervisor has ever held the job of his/her subordinate) can be understood to lead to dyad-specific perspective taking because the supervisor has ?walked in the subordinate?s shoes? before, and is therefore willing to ?see things from their perspective,? education difference may also lead to dyad-specific perspective taking as a result of the similarly shared past experience of college graduation or post-graduate work. In other words, both of these variables mark a commonly held past experience. Perhaps these two variables are also distinct from the other situational antecedents (which could also be construed as representing common experiences) in that prior educational and/or work experiences could plausibly be a common topic of workplace conversation (thereby creating a sense of self/other overlap) to an extent that variables such as gender or age are not. Contextual Performance and Openness to Change Discussion Hypotheses 9 and 10 are not a part of the formal model shown in Figure 1, but were included as secondary hypotheses which occurred to the researcher during the course of my investigation. 50 Hypothesis 9 addressed the potential relationship between a subordinate?s supervisor-specific perspective taking and two dimensions of contextual performance (interpersonal facilitation and job dedication). Neither of these dimensions was related to a subordinate?s supervisor-specific perspective taking, thus leading to the conclusion that a subordinate?s taking of his supervisor?s perspective is not related to their supervisor?s assessment of their contextual performance. One explanation for the lack of a relationship between subordinate supervisor-specific perspective taking and interpersonal facilitation may be that while supervisor-specific perspective taking concerns thoughts about one?s supervisor, interpersonal facilitation is directed toward one?s coworkers/peers. The lack of evidence for a relationship between supervisor-specific perspective taking and job dedication may also have to do with the domain assessed by this dimension of contextual performance as well, since job dedication concerns task accomplishment rather than the type of interpersonal regard assessed by specific perspective taking. Hypotheses 10a predicted a positive relationship between subordinate perspective taking tendency and that subordinate?s openness to organizational change. This hypothesis was supported which makes sense given that an individual?s positive attitude toward potential change could potentially result from their capacity to imagine a wide variety of potential personal outcomes of that change, at least some of them optimistic. This imagining of multiple hypothetical outcomes sounds similar to the ability to take multiple perspectives which is a foundational concept of perspective taking (Kegan, 1982). The fact that Hypothesis 10b (predicting a positive relationship between a subordinate?s dispositional empathy and their openness to organizational change) was not supported by my findings may be due to the fact that the domain assessed by 51 dispositional empathy may be more ?person-specific,? while perspective taking tendency might be construed as more general, therefore resulting in a weak relationship with an imagined organizational change, which is situational rather than personal. It should also be noted that I attempted to test for mediation using the relationships shown in Figure 1. The way the model is presented seems to suggest that specific perspective taking may mediate the relationships between both dispositional and situational antecedents and leader-member exchange. In order to test this potential relationship, a relationship between the antecedents and LMX must first be demonstrated. Of the seven antecedents which displayed a significant relationship with one or both specific perspective taking variables, none of these antecedents were significantly related to LMX. Thus, the conditions for mediation were not met. Though it is yet unclear why this is, one may speculate that the relationship between a given antecedent and LMX may be of a more distal nature than I anticipated, or that a variety of other variables may mediate the relationships in a way which I did not anticipate. Another important outcome of the study is the establishment, through the CFA included above in the Method chapter, that both dispositional antecedents of perspective taking (perspective taking tendency and dispositional empathy) loaded as separate factors from specific perspective taking. To my knowledge, this is the first time these three variables have been examined in the same study. This is important because it supports our suggestion the there is a distinct dispositional and relationship-specific aspect of perspective taking at work in each interaction. 52 Study Considerations and Future Directions There were several considerations to point out regarding the current study. The first consideration is that of sample size. While articles have been published using multilevel modeling with similar sample sizes in the management literature (e.g., Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003), a larger sample size is preferred for such analyses. A related concern is the homogeneity of our sample. As noted above, the vast percentage of respondents were Caucasian females, and while the fact that this study was conducted within a healthcare organization may help explain these characteristics of the data, a goal of future investigations should be to replicate our results using a more diverse sample. In addition, only one organization was used in this study. Thus, future investigations into these constructs would certainly benefit in terms of both the statistical robustness of their results and the generalizability of their findings if they were conducted in a variety of settings, using a much larger sample size. Another consideration involves the use of multiple dyads consisting of the same supervisor. While the number of dyads containing shared supervisor members was kept relatively low (an average of less than 4), and HLM was used to accommodate the nonindependence present in the data, a dataset consisting of completely unique members would provide more options for data analysis (such as Structural Equation Modeling). Perhaps the most important consideration is the number of variables I have included in this investigation. Specifically, attempting to include as many appropriate variables as possible as specific perspective taking antecedents is a daunting process. The balance between a comprehensive body of survey elements and overall survey length created limitations as to how many antecedents (such as personality dimensions and/or 53 attitudes) could be included. While significant results with a larger number of the proposed antecedents would have certainly been preferred, these results provide a starting point for further analysis. Future topics that may be investigated as antecedents of dyad- specific perspective taking may include emotional intelligence, I.Q. difference, a wide variety of personality dimensions, liking, problem solving style, and the sharing of values. A final consideration of note is that while my theoretical model (Figure 1) suggests causality, these analyses did not assess causality. Though the flow of the model makes conceptual sense, the nonindependent nature and size of my dataset created problems in testing for mediating and causal relationships. Hopefully, future investigations will be able to more accurately test the entire model as it is presented here, rather than as individual hypotheses. Conclusion The implications of this study for the perspective taking literature can be summarized in two areas: 1. LMX as a related construct, and 2. insight into perspective taking antecedents. By exploring LMX as a related concept, I have simultaneously expanded the understanding of what variables may contribute to high quality supervisor/subordinate relationships and expanded the peer-level impact of perspective taking (Parker & Axtell, 2001) into supervisor/subordinate linkages. I see this dissertation as a first step towards ultimately testing whether a causal relationship exists between these two variables such that your taking of a supervisor or subordinate?s perspective actually leads to an increase in the quality of your relationship with that vertical dyad member. The other main contribution of this dissertation is in terms of expanding the 54 literature regarding perspective taking antecedents. In addition to exploring some of Parker and Axtell?s peer-level perspective taking antecedents into the supervisor/subordinate domain, I have added antecedents such as dispositional dimensions as perspective taking tendency and dispositional empathy to the perspective taking discourse. The later is important in that one of the lingering questions in the perspective taking literature has been whether the concept is a general disposition applied across all an individual?s relationships (Kegan, 1982; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987), or a mental outome which varies widely given situational variance (Parker & Axtell, 2001). Though not all of my hypothesized relationships were supported in this study, my model does take into account both the dispositional and situational aspects of perspective taking, and thus seeks to resolve the above ambiguity by suggesting that separate dimensions (one dealing with dispositions and one dealing with relationship-specific variables) interact to yield a certain level of perspective taking of a given person in a given situation. While the considerations listed above should be addressed in future studies of these constructs to ensure the replicability of these results, my wish is to begin a dialog regarding perspective taking as an important variable in interpersonal relations. It seems clear that the degree to which we are able to ?see? a situation from another?s perspective profoundly impacts our interactions with that individual. In particular, this dissertation has attempted to establish the role perspective taking has in vertical dyad members? assessments of an important relationship-based outcome, namely leader-member exchange. While my results were limited in their scope, my hope is that I have at least 55 begun a discussion regarding the importance of the human capacity to cognitively ?complicate themselves? (Weick, 1979b, p. 61) in the modern organizational context. 56 REFERENCES Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60; 241-253. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bartunek, J.M., Gordon, J.R., & Weathersby, R.P. (1983). Developing ?complicated understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, Vol.8, No.2, 273-284. Bernstein, W.M., Stephan, W.G., & Davis, M.H. (1979). Explaining attributions for achievement: A path analytic approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1810-1821. Bohr, N. (1950). On the notion of causality and complementarity. Science, 11, 51-54. Bryk, A. S. & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press. Covey, S. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective, New York: Simon & Schuster. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy, JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol.10. Davis, M.H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.70, No.4, 713-726. Epitropaki, O. & Martin, R. (1999). The impact of relational demography on the quality of leader-member exchanges and employees? work attitudes and well being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 237-240. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., O?Boyle, & Suhm K. (1994). The relations of Emotionality and regulation to dispositional and 57 situational empathy-related responding, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 4, 776-797. Fisher, D. & Torbert, W. (1991). Transforming managerial practice: Beyond the achiever stage. Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 5, 143-173, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.82, No.6, 827-844. Green, G., Anderson S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influence on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214. Graen, G.B. & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt and L.L.Larson (Eds.) Leadership Frontiers, Kent, OH: Kent State University, 143-165. Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109- 131. Haan, N., Smith, B., & Block, J. (1968). Moral reasoning of young adults: Political-social behavior, family background, and personality correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 183-201. Harris, S. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, 309-321. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D.E., & Schroder, H.M. (1961). Conceptual systems and Personality Organization. New York: Wiley. Hofmann, D., Morgeson, F., & Gerras, S. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 1, 170-178. Judge, T., Thoreson, C., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self, Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press. 58 Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guilford Press; New York. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D.A. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of socialization theory and research: 347-480, San Diego, CA; Academic Press. Kuhnert, K. W. & Russell, C.J. (1990). Using constructive developmental theory and biodata to bridge the gap between personnel selection and leadership. Journal of Management, Vol.16, No.3, 595-607. Kuhnert, K.W. & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, Vol.12, No.4, 648-657. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwll, D. (1983). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674. Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mohrman, S. A. & Cohen, S. G. (1995). When people get out of the box; New relationships, new systems. In A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work : 365-410. Jossey-Bass. Mueller, B.H. & Lee, J. (2002). Leader-member exchange and organizational communication Satisfaction in multiple contexts. The Journal of Business Communication, Vol.39, No. 2, 220-244. Parker, S.K. & Axtell, C.M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.44, No. 5, 1085-1100. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. London: Paul Kegan. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of realityin the child. New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1968). The psychology of the child, New York, Basic Books. Scandura, T.A., Graen, G.B., & Novak, M.A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584. 59 Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Bobik, C., Coston, T., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., Rhodes, E., & Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations, The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 523-536. Scientific Software International, Inc. (2002). HLM 6: Student edition. Sparrowe, R.T. & Liden, R.C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, Vol.22, No.2, 522-552. Tsui, A.S. & O?Reilly, C.A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.32, No.2, 402-423. Von Scotter, J., Motowildo, S., & Cross, T. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 526-535. Weick, K. (1979a). Cognitive processes in organizations. In B.M. Staw (Ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.1, Greenwich, CT: JAI, 41-79. Weick, K. (1979b). The social psychology of organizing, (2nd ed.) Reading MA: Addison- Wesley. 60 APPENDICES 61 Appendix 1 Information Letter to Supervisors Dear Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center Supervisor, Hello, my name is Nathan Moates, I am a doctoral student at Auburn University. I would like to invite you to participate in a study of the supervisor/employee relationships at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center. The research project is entitled ?Perspective Taking and Leader/Member Exchange.? In an effort to follow up on some of the issues noted in the recent Employee Opinion Survey, and in an ongoing effort to become a better place to work, Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center management has asked me, working under the direction of Dr. Stanley G. Harris, Professor of Management at Auburn University, to conduct this study. This study is part of an employee development program designed to increase employee satisfaction and identify opportunities for organizational improvement. In order to offer solutions and provide opportunities for improvement, it is important to better understand the factors which affect the quality of supervisor/employee relationships. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes to complete. In order to obtain an understanding of the entire organization, 500 employees were randomly chosen to be asked to participate. In order to participate in the study, you will need to complete the survey included in this packet and return it in the stamped return envelope provided. As a supervisor/manager, the first part of the survey (?About You?) includes questions about you and your thoughts and attitudes. The second part of the survey asks questions about five of your subordinates that were randomly selected. These subordinates? names are listed on the Subordinate Identification Sheet included in this packet. After you have completed each survey, discard the Subordinate Identification Sheet. In order to assure your anonymity, do not write your name or your supervisor?s name on the survey. Your participation is voluntary. As stated above, any information you provide in connection with this study is anonymous. While information collected through your participation may be part of generalized, aggregated themes that will be reported to hospital leadership, the responses of individual respondents will not be identifiable by me or Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center leadership. If you have any questions, please contact either me or Professor Stanley Harris. Either of us will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. K. Nathan Moates Stanley G. Harris, PhD (229) 241-7993 (334) 844-6519 knmoates@valdosta.edu harris@business.auburn.edu Your participation in this project is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at any time. If you choose not to participate, it will not jeopardize your future relations with 62 Auburn University. In addition, your participation will have no bearing on your employment or performance evaluations with your employer. Since there is no way to identify individual information, you will not be able to withdraw your responses once I receive them. For more information regarding your rights as a research participant you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu . HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, THE DATA YOU PROVIDE WILL SERVE AS YOUR AGREEMENT TO DO SO. THIS LETTER IS YOURS TO KEEP. Thank you for your time, K. Nathan Moates December 12, 2005 Auburn University 63 Appendix 2 Information Letter to Subordinates Dear Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center Employee, Hello, my name is Nathan Moates, I am a doctoral student at Auburn University. I would like to invite you to participate in a study of the supervisor/employee relationships at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center. The research project is entitled ?Perspective Taking and Leader/Member Exchange.? In an effort to follow up on some of the issues noted in the recent Employee Opinion Survey, and in an ongoing effort to become a better place to work, Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center management has asked me, working under the direction of Dr. Stanley G. Harris, Professor of Management at Auburn University, to conduct this study. This study is part of an employee development program designed to increase employee satisfaction and identify opportunities for organizational improvement. In order to offer solutions and provide opportunities for improvement, it is important to better understand the factors which affect the quality of supervisor/employee relationships. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes to complete. In order to obtain an understanding of the entire organization, 500 employees were randomly chosen to be asked to participate. In order to participate in the study, you will need to complete the survey included in this packet and return it in the stamped return envelope provided. The first part of the survey asks questions about you and your thoughts and attitudes. The second part of the survey asks questions about one of your supervisors, whose name is listed on the Supervisor Identification Sheet included in this packet. After you have completed the survey, discard the Supervisor Identification Sheet. In order to assure your anonymity, do not write your name or your supervisor?s name on the survey. Your participation is voluntary. As stated above, any information you provide in connection with this study is anonymous. While information collected through your participation may be part of generalized, aggregated themes that will be reported to hospital leadership, the responses of individual respondents will not be identifiable by me or Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center leadership. If you have any questions, please contact either me or Professor Stanley Harris. Either of us will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. K. Nathan Moates Stanley G. Harris, PhD (229) 241-7993 (334) 844-6519 knmoates@valdosta.edu harris@business.auburn.edu Your participation in this project is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at any time. If you choose not to participate, it will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University. In addition, your participation will have no bearing on your 64 employment or performance evaluations with your employer. Since there is no way to identify individual information, you will not be able to withdraw your responses once I receive them. For more information regarding your rights as a research participant you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu . HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, THE DATA YOU PROVIDE WILL SERVE AS YOUR AGREEMENT TO DO SO. THIS LETTER IS YOURS TO KEEP. Thank you for your time, K. Nathan Moates December 12, 2005 Auburn University 65 Appendix 3 Supervisor Instrument SUPERVISOR AND EMPLOYEE INTERACTION SURVEY GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS This survey is being used to gather information on supervisor-employee interactions. Your individual responses to this survey are extremely important, and are COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS? there is no way to match the code number on this survey to your name. Furthermore, no one in your organization will have access to your survey responses. It is important that you answer each question frankly and honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. Please read each statement carefully and respond to each based on your own personal knowledge, opinions, and beliefs. Please follow these steps in completing the survey: 1. Complete the ?About You? section (Questions 1-30). 2. Complete the five ?About Your Subordinates? sections, each of which is in regard to a different Subordinate, who are listed #1, #2, etc. on the Subordinate Identification Sheet which is included in this packet. 3. In order to assure your anonymity, after completing the above steps, discard the Subordinate Identification Sheet, which has the Subordinate?s names on it 4. Place all the completed survey in the included stamped return envelope, and mail. In order to assure your anonymity, please discard the envelope in which you received this packet, which has your name printed on it, when finished. Do not put your name or your subordinate?s name on this survey or return envelope. Thank You for Your Valuable Participation. 66 ABOUT YOU. using the scale shown below, indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements by circling the appropriate response. 1 I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the ?other guy?s? point of view. 1 7 2 I try to look at everybody?s side of a disagreement before I make a decision. 1 7 3 I sometimes try to understand others better by imagining how things look from their perspective. 1 7 4 If I know I?m right about something, I don?t waste much time listening to other people's arguments. 1 7 5 I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. 1 7 6 When I?m upset at someone, I usually try to ?put myself in their shoes? for a while. 1 7 7 Before criticizing someone, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. 1 7 8 I often have kind, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. 1 7 9 I often feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. 1 7 10 When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel somewhat protective towards them. 1 7 11 Other people?s misfortunes usually disturb me a great deal. 1 7 12 When I see someone being treated unfairly, I usually feel pity for them. 1 7 13 I am often quite moved by things I see happen. 1 7 14 I would describe myself as a pretty sympathetic person. 1 7 15 When dramatic changes happen in this hospital, I feel I handle them with ease. 1 7 16 I have been a leader of transformation efforts within this hospital. 1 7 17 The rapid changes that have been occurring within this hospital are sometimes beyond the ability of those within the hospital to manage. 1 7 18 Rapid change is something to adapt to, but not something to embrace. 1 7 19 When changes happen in this hospital, I react by managing the change rather than complaining about it. 1 7 20 The changes occurring within this hospital cause me stress. 1 7 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree 4 = Neutral 5 = Slightly Agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree 67 21 I see the rapid changes occurring in this hospital as opening up new career opportunities for me. 1 7 22 Deep changes ultimately better the hospital. 1 7 23 Organizational change presents opportunities to make overdue changes in this hospital. 1 7 24 When changes are announced, I try to react in a problem solving, rather than an emotional mode. 1 7 25 I often find myself leading change efforts in this hospital. 1 7 26 I think I cope with change better than most of those with whom I work. 1 7 Please answer the following demographic questions so that we may better understand which factors may have an effect on your relationship with your supervisor. (Check the appropriate responses.) 27 Are you? ____ Male ____Female 28 How do you classify yourself? ____ Caucasian (White) ____ African-American (Black) ____ Asian-American ____ Hispanic-American ____ Native American ____ Pacific Islander ____ Other 29 What is your age? _____ 18-25 _____ 26-30 _____ 31-35 _____ 36-40 _____ 41-45 _____ 46-50 _____ 51-55 _____ 56-60 _____ 61-65 _____ 66-70 30 What is the highest level of school you have completed? ____ some high school ____ high school graduate/GED ____ some college ____ ____ Associate?s Degree ____ Bachelor?s Degree ____ graduate work 68 ABOUT SUBORDINATE # X. using the scale shown below, indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your subordinate #1 by circling the appropriate response. YOUR SUBORDINATE #X is the person listed #X on the Subordinate Identification Sheet included in this packet. 1 I feel concerned for this employee if s/he is under pressure. 1 7 2 It pleases me to see this employee doing well. 1 7 3 I understand the problems this employee experiences. 1 7 4 This employee usually does the best s/he can, given the circumstances. 1 7 5 If this employee makes mistakes, it's usually not his/her fault. 1 7 6 This employee works just as hard as I do. 1 7 7 I know how satisfied or dissatisfied this employee is with what I do. 1 7 8 I understand the work problems and needs of this employee. 1 7 9 I feel I recognize the potential of this employee. 1 7 10 Regardless of how much formal authority I have built into my position, I would be inclined to use my available power to help this employee solve problems in his/her work. 1 7 11 Again, regardless of how much formal authority I have, this employee can count on me to ?rescue? them at my expense when s/he really needs it. 1 7 12 This employee has confidence in my decisions such that they would defend and justify them even if I was not present to do so. 1 7 13 I would characterize my relationship with this employee as being effective. 1 7 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Slightly Disagree; 4 = Neutral; 5 = Slightly Agree; 6 = Agree; 7 = Strongly Agree 69 Using the scale below, how likely is SUBORDINATE #X to? 14 praise coworkers when they are successful? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 support or encourage a coworker with a personal problem? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 talk to others before taking actions that might affect them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17 say things to make people feel good about themselves or the work group? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 encourage others to overcome their differences and get along? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 treat others fairly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 help someone without being asked? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 put in extra hours to get work done? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 pay close attention to important details? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23 work harder than necessary? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24 ask for a challenging work assignment? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25 exercise personal discipline and self-control? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26 take the initiative to solve a work problem? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27 persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28 tackle a difficult work assignment with enthusiasm? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29 Have you ever held the same job currently held by this employee? Yes No THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY! IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT: Nathan Moates Department of Management Auburn University (229) 241-7993 knmoates@valdosta.edu 1 = Extremely Unlikely; 2 = Unlikely; 3 = Slightly Unlikely; 4 = Neutral; 5 = Slightly Likely; 6 = Likely; 7 = Extremely Likely 70 Appendix 4 Subordinate Instrument SUPERVISOR AND EMPLOYEE INTERACTION SURVEY GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS This survey is being used to gather information on supervisor-employee interactions. Your individual responses to this survey are extremely important, and are COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS? there is no way to match the code number on this survey to your name. Furthermore, no one in your organization will have access to your survey responses. It is important that you answer each question frankly and honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. Please read each statement carefully and respond to each based on your own personal knowledge, opinions, and beliefs. Please follow these steps in completing the survey: 5. Complete the ?About You? section (pages 2-3). 6. Complete the ?About Your Supervisor? section (pages 4-6). (The Supervisor we are requesting your responses about is the person whose name appears on the Supervisor Identification Sheet, included in this packet.) 7. In order to assure your anonymity, after completing the above steps, discard the Supervisor Identification Sheet which has your Supervisor?s name on it. 8. Place the completed survey in the included stamped return envelope, and mail. In order to assure your anonymity, please discard the envelope in which you received this packet, which has your name printed on it, when finished. Do not put your name or your supervisor?s name on this survey or return envelope. Thank You for Your Valuable Participation. 71 ABOUT YOU. using the scale shown below, indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about yourself by circling the appropriate response. 1 I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the ?other guy?s? point of view. 1 7 2 I try to look at everybody?s side of a disagreement before I make a decision. 1 7 3 I sometimes try to understand others better by imagining how things look from their perspective. 1 7 4 If I know I?m right about something, I don?t waste much time listening to other people's arguments. 1 7 5 I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. 1 7 6 When I?m upset at someone, I usually try to ?put myself in their shoes? for a while. 1 7 7 Before criticizing someone, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. 1 7 8 I often have kind, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. 1 7 9 I often feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. 1 7 10 When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel somewhat protective towards them. 1 7 11 Other people?s misfortunes usually disturb me a great deal. 1 7 12 When I see someone being treated unfairly, I usually feel pity for them. 1 7 13 I am often quite moved by things I see happen. 1 7 14 I would describe myself as a pretty sympathetic person. 1 7 15 When dramatic changes happen in this hospital, I feel I handle them with ease. 1 7 16 I have been a leader of transformation efforts within this hospital. 1 7 17 The rapid changes that have been occurring within this hospital are sometimes beyond the ability of those within the hospital to manage. 1 7 18 Rapid change is something to adapt to, but not something to embrace. 1 7 19 When changes happen in this hospital, I react by managing the change rather than complaining about it. 1 7 20 The changes occurring within this hospital cause me stress. 1 7 21 I see the rapid changes occurring in this hospital as opening up new career opportunities for me. 1 7 22 Deep changes ultimately better the hospital. 1 7 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree 4 = Neutral 5 = Slightly Agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree 72 23 Organizational change presents opportunities to make overdue changes in this hospital. 1 7 24 When changes are announced, I try to react in a problem solving, rather than an emotional mode. 1 7 25 I often find myself leading change efforts in this hospital. 1 7 26 I think I cope with change better than most of those with whom I work. 1 7 Please answer the following demographic questions so that we may better understand which factors may have an effect on your relationship with your supervisor. (Check the appropriate response.) 27 Are you? ____ Male ____Female 28 How do you classify yourself? ____ Caucasian (White) ____ African-American (Black) ____ Asian-American ____ Hispanic-American ____ Native American ____ Pacific Islander ____ Other 29 What is your age? _____ 18-25 _____ 26-30 _____ 31-35 _____ 36-40 _____ 41-45 _____ 46- 50 _____ 51- 55 _____ 56- 60 _____ 61- 65 _____ 66- 70 30 What is the highest level of school you have completed? ____ some high school ____ high school graduate/GED ____ some college ____ ____ Associate?s Degree ____ Bachelor?s Degree ____ graduate work 73 ABOUT YOUR SUPERVISOR. using the scale shown below, indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your supervisor by circling the appropriate response. YOUR SUPERVISOR is the person listed on the Supervisor Identification Sheet included in this packet. 1 I feel concerned for my supervisor if s/he is under pressure. 1 7 2 It pleases me to see my supervisor doing well. 1 7 3 I understand the problems my supervisor experiences. 1 7 4 My supervisor usually does the best s/he can, given the circumstances. 1 7 5 If my supervisor makes mistakes, it's usually not his/her fault. 1 7 6 My supervisor works just as hard as I do. 1 7 7 I know how satisfied or dissatisfied my supervisor is with what I do. 1 7 8 My supervisor understands my work problems and needs. 1 7 9 My supervisor recognizes my potential. 1 7 10 Regardless of how much formal authority my supervisor has built into his/her position, he/she would be inclined to use his/her available power to help me solve problems in my work. 1 7 11 Again, regardless of how much formal authority my supervisor has, I can count on him/her to ?rescue? me at his/her expense when I really need it. 1 7 12 I have confidence in my supervisor?s decisions such that I would defend and justify them even if he/she was not present to do so. 1 7 13 I would characterize my relationship with my supervisor as being effective. 1 7 14 My supervisor feels concerned for me if I am under pressure. 1 7 15 It pleases my supervisor to see me doing well. 1 7 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree 4 = Neutral 5 = Slightly Agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree 74 Using the same scale shown below, indicate by circling the appropriate number the degree to which you feel YOUR SUPERVISOR? My Supervisor? 16 understands the problems I experience. 1 7 17 thinks I usually do the best I can, given the circumstances. 1 7 18 thinks when I make mistakes, it's usually not my fault. 1 7 19 thinks I work just as hard as s/he does. 1 7 20 instills pride in me for being associated with him/her. 1 7 21 goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group. 1 7 22 acts in ways that builds my respect. 1 7 23 displays a sense of power and confidence. 1 7 24 talks about their most important values and beliefs. 1 7 25 specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 7 26 considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. 1 7 27 emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. 1 7 28 talks optimistically about the future. 1 7 29 talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 1 7 30 articulates a compelling vision of the future. 1 7 31 expresses confidence that goals will be achieved. 1 7 32 re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate. 1 7 33 seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. 1 7 34 gets me to look at problems from many different angles. 1 7 35 suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. 1 7 36 spends time teaching and coaching. 1 7 37 treats me as an individual rather than just a member of a group. 1 7 38 helps me to develop my strengths. 1 7 39 considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. 1 7 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree 4 = Neutral 5 = Slightly Agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree 75 40 provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts. 1 7 41 discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets. 1 7 42 makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved. 1 7 43 expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations. 1 7 44 focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards. 1 7 45 concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures. 1 7 46 keeps track of all mistakes. 1 7 47 directs my attention toward failures to meet standards. 1 7 48 fails to interfere until problems become serious. 1 7 49 waits for things to go wrong before taking action. 1 7 50 shows that he/she is a firm believer in ?If it ain?t broke, don?t fix it." 1 7 51 demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action. 1 7 52 avoids getting involved when important issues arise. 1 7 53 is absent when needed. 1 7 54 avoids making decisions. 1 7 55 delays responding to urgent questions. 1 7 56 How long have you been supervised by this supervisor? 57 Estimate in hours and minutes how often you interact (both at work and socially) with this supervisor in a typical day: ____ hours and ____ minutes THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY! IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT: Nathan Moates Department of Management Auburn University (229) 241-7993 knmoates@valdosta.edu 76 Appendix 5 Scale Items LMX Supervisor Scale 1. I know how satisfied or dissatisfied this employee is with what I do. 2. I understand the work problems and needs of this employee. 3. I feel I recognize the potential of this employee. 4. Regardless of how much formal authority I have built into my position, I would be inclined to use my available power to help this employee solve his/her work problems. 5. Again, regardless of how much formal authority I have, this employee can count on me to ?bail him/her out? at my expense when he/she really needs it. 6. This employee has confidence in my decisions such that he/she would defend and justify them even if I were not present to do so. 7. My relationship with this employee is effective. LMX Subordinate Scale Items 1. I know how satisfied or dissatisfied my immediate supervisor is with what I do. 2. My immediate supervisor understands my work problems and needs. 3. My immediate supervisor recognizes my potential. 4. Regardless of how much formal authority my immediate supervisor has built into his/her position, he/she would be inclined to use his/her available power to help me solve problems in my work. 77 5. Again, regardless of how much formal authority my immediate supervisor has, I can count on him/her to ?bail me out? at his/her expense when I really need it. 6. I have confidence in my supervisor?s decisions such that I would defend and justify them even if he/she was not present to do so. 7. I would characterize my relationship with my supervisor as being effective. Supervisor Dyad-Specific Perspective Taking Scale Items 1. I feel concerned for this employee if s/he is under pressure. 2. It pleases me to see this employee doing well. 3. I understand the problems this employee experiences. 4. This employee usually does the best s/he can, given the circumstances. 5. If this employee makes mistakes, it?s usually not his/her fault. 6. This employee works just as hard as I do. Subordinate Dyad-Specific Perspective Taking Scale Items 1. I feel concerned for my supervisor if s/he is under pressure. 2. It pleases me to see my supervisor doing well. 3. I understand the problems my supervisor experiences. 4. My supervisor usually does the best s/he can, given the circumstances. 5. If my supervisor makes mistakes, it?s usually not his/her fault. 6. My supervisor works just as hard as I do. Perspective Taking Tendency Scale Items 1. I try to look at everybody?s side of a disagreement before I make a decision. 78 2. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. 3. I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. 4. When I?m upset at someone, I usually try to ?put myself in his shoes? for a while. 5. Before criticizing someone, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. Dispositional Empathy Scale Items 1. I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. 2. Sometimes I don?t feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. (reverse scored) 3. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them. 4. Other people?s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal. (reverse scored) 5. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don?t feel very much pity for them. (reverse scored) 6. I am often quite touched by things I see happen. 7. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. Openness to Change Scale Items 1. When dramatic changes happen to this hospital, I feel I handle them with ease. 2. I have been a leader of transformation efforts within this hospital. 79 3. The rapid changes that have been occurring within this hospital are sometimes beyond the ability of those within the hospital to manage. (reverse scored) 4. Rapid change is something to adapt to, but not something to embrace. (reverse scored) 5. When changes happen in this hospital, I react by trying to manage the change rather than complain about it. 6. The changes occurring in this hospital cause me stress. (reverse scored) 7. I see the rapid changes occurring in this hospital as opening up new career opportunities for me. 8. Deep changes ultimately better the hospital. 9. Environmental turbulence presents opportunities to make overdue changes in this hospital. 10. When changes are announced, I try to react in a problem solving, rather than an emotional, mode. 11. I often find myself leading change efforts in this hospital. 12. I think I cope with change better than most of those with whom I work. Interpersonal Facilitation Scale Items How likely is this employee to? 1. praise coworkers when they are successful 2. support or encourage a coworker with a personal problem 3. talk to others before taking actions that might affect them 4. say things to make people feel good about themselves or the work group 5. encourage others to overcome their differences and get along 80 6. treat others fairly 7. help someone without being asked Job Dedication Scale Items How likely is this employee to? put in extra hours to get work done 1. pay close attention to important details 2. work harder than necessary 3. ask for a challenging work assignment 4. exercise personal discipline and self-control 5. take the initiative to solve a work problem 6. persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task 7. tackle a difficult work assignment with enthusiasm