The Mediating Role of Leader–Member Exchange and Ingratiation in the Relationship Between Self-Monitoring and Job Satisfaction: A Mixed Method Study

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to understand how followers as self-monitors use ingratiation for stronger leader–member exchange (LMX) leading to job satisfaction. The study attempts to show that in an interpersonal setting, the followers will actively attempt to have strong LMX with the leader, and ingratiation will be a useful tool. The research design used concurrent mixed method approach for the triangulation of results. The quantitative study using PROCESS MACRO (model 6) and a sample size of 405 showed serial mediation of ingratiation and LMX. The qualitative study using thematic analysis (sample size = 47) showed that subordinates actively indulge in LMX for stronger bonding with the leader. Triangulation with the qualitative data was added to the methodological rigour in the study. The practical implications of the study lie in looking at the relationship from a followership perspective as to how subordinates, using ingratiation and strong LMX, would enjoy proximity to the leader and greater organizational visibility. The study is unique because first it studies LMX from a subordinate’s perspective’ and second, because it studies self-monitoring which is less researched than other personality dimensions.

Keywords

Self-monitoring job satisfaction ingratiation leader–member exchange mixed method

Introduction

Studies on the influence of personality characteristics in studying work-related behaviour are mainly around the Big Five factors (Goldberg, 1990; Guion & Gottier, 1965; John, 1990) to the almost exclusion of other personality traits. One such personality characteristic that is less studied is self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is a personality trait that refers to the extent to which individuals are willing and able to engage in the expressive control of their self-presentation in public (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1979; Wilmot, 2020). High self-monitors craft their verbal (and non-verbal) self-presentations to engage in information manipulation to present more positive image of them (Fandt & Ferris, 1990) and to tailor expressive behaviour to match social pressures (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982). Low self-monitors seem less willing and able to engage in such appearances. They remain true to their internal dispositions and attitudes, displaying behavioural consistency across situations (Charlier, 2020; Westfall, 2020). Gerstner and Day (1997) emphasized the importance of leader–member exchange (LMX) and observed that having a high-quality relationship with one’s supervisor can positively affect the entire work experience, including performance and affective outcomes. These are achieved with ease by high self-monitors (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004).

Previous studies on LMX have focused on LMX differentiation and its impact on followers’ psychological strain (Diebig et al., 2024), team performance and role engagement (Sobral & Furtado, 2024), job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion (Poetz & Volmer, 2022), job characteristics (Sonnentag & Pundt, 2016) and the effect of LMX on the followers’ well-being (Inceoglu et al., 2018). None of the studies just mentioned focus on LMX from the follower’s perspective. Our study is novel and important because it looks at leadership from the lens of the follower rather than that of the leader.

High-quality LMX is a system of social exchange characterized by mutual trust, respect and reciprocal influence (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Liden & Maslyn, 1998) and is linked to job satisfaction (Ilies et al., 2007).

Leader–member exchange is influenced by culture which is defined as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede, 2001). In the context of LMX, the dimension of power distance seems to matter the most (Botero & van Dyne, 2009; Stander & Rothmann, 2010). As per Hofstede (2011), India is considered a high-power distance culture. It scores 77 out of 100. Employees in high-power distance cultures expect the leader to take action and give orders rather than delegating decision-making authority (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). In these cultures, a supervisor is the one who influences the individual work status. This includes pay raises, promotions and work assignments. Consequently, subordinates make all effort to influence and impress the leader. In this endeavour, self-monitoring trait and strategies like ingratiation to impress the leader will play an important role. Therefore, the objective of the study was to understand LMX from a subordinate’s perspective by studying how subordinates as self-monitors use ingratiation to become effective in the social environment comprising of LMX, leading to job satisfaction.

Our research consisted of two parts. Part one (study 1) was a quantitative study and part two (study 2) was a qualitative study. In study 1, we hypothesized that LMX will mediate the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction. Studies have shown that ingratiation is an important form of upward impression management (Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Ralston, 1985; Shankar et al., 1994). Therefore, we wanted to see if ingratiatory behaviours of subordinates affect the strengthening of LMX for higher job satisfaction. Therefore, we hypothesized that ingratiation along with LMX will serially mediate the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction.

Study 2 was qualitative where semi-structured questions were asked using a survey method. In study 2, we explored the experiences of subordinates who use ingratiation to have strong LMX with their leader. The data gathered were descriptive and analysed thematically. We used concurrent triangulation (Castro et al., 2010) to corroborate finding of study 2 with study 1. The triangulation method not only added to the overall richness of the study, it also helped in overcoming the limitations of common method variance (CMV; which arises in a cross-sectional research study) and added methodological rigour to the study.

The merit of the study lies in: first, studying LMX from the subordinate’s perspective; and second, using the mixed method approach. The result showed that high self-monitors consciously invested in developing more robust bonds with the leader, and ingratiation enabled them to strengthen the LMX. The present research is relevant in furthering the understanding of the mediating role of LMX between self-monitoring and job satisfaction.

Review of Literature

Self-monitoring

According to Snyder (1974), high self-monitors are more embedded in social relationships at work (Sasovova, 2006). High self-monitors tend to be social pragmatists who are chameleon-like in adjusting the public expression of their attitudes and behaviour to fit with the expectations of others. Gangestad and Snyder (2000) suggested that low self-monitors also care about their impressions but only to the extent that the impression is a genuine reflection of the self. Researchers (Day et al., 2002; Kudret et al., 2019) have shown that from among the various outcome variables of self-monitoring, leadership emergence is a significant outcome of subordinates in strengthening the LMX with the leader.

The relationship between self-monitoring and the five-factor model of personality showed that self-monitoring is not significantly related to neuroticism (Chaudhary & Panda, 2019) but is significantly and positively correlated with extra-version (Bono & Vey, 2007) and openness to experience (Wolf et al., 2009). Another study shows weak association with the light triad personality trait of Compassion and no relationship with other components of light triad personality traits like Empathy, Altruism, Presence and Search (Hyanky et al., 2024). Self-monitoring ameliorates workplace ostracism (Wu et al., 2021) and is positively related to emotional labour (Babalola & Nwanzu, 2022). Kim (2020) notes that self-monitoring is closely and positively associated with materialism, appearance management, favourable responses to promotional messages, one’s image via social media and online platforms.

Self-monitoring is presumed to be innate biological drive originating in evolution and reproductive success (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003). At an elementary level, individuals have needs for (a) acceptance and approval; (b) status, power and the control of resources; and (c) predictability and order (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003). These general motive patterns translate into behaviours designed for getting along with other members of the group, getting ahead in terms of achieving status and making sense of the world. These behaviours are also markers of career success and satisfaction at work. Therefore, employees put effort to be in proximity with their leader and enjoy control of resources in their shadow. There are substantial individual differences in how their effort and success are evaluated by others (Hogan & Holland, 2003), and self-monitoring may account for these differences. Therefore, we had two broad research objectives. First, to study LMX from a subordinate’s perspective by focusing on self-monitoring behaviour of subordinates and their use of ingratiation for stronger LMX leading to job satisfaction. Second, to qualitatively explore and understand the experiences of subordinates who use ingratiation to have strong LMX with their leader.

Self-monitoring and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined as a positive emotional state that reflects an affective response to job situation (Locke, 1976). The theoretical approaches explaining job satisfaction are the task characteristics approach (Bhuian & Menguc, 2002; Bhuian et al., 1996; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Hogan & Martell, 1987; Kalra et al., 2023; Reiner & Zhao, 1999; Seers & Graen, 1984; Walsh et al., 1980) and the dispositional approach (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; Staw & Ross, 1985). Studies supporting dispositions and their impact on job satisfaction focus on intrinsic motivation (Savery, 1996; Schonfeld, 2000), positive/negative affectivity (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Simmons et al., 2001), self-esteem (Costa & McCrae, 1994) and need for achievement (Mannheim et al., 1997). Combining the psychoanalytic theory highlighting motive patterns in life and work (Hogan, 1991; Hogan et al., 1985) with the dispositional approaches to job satisfaction (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; Staw & Ross, 1985), it can be hypothesized that those individuals who have been able to get along, get ahead and make sense would be more satisfied with their job. Since self-monitoring traits would engage in the above behaviour, self-monitoring behaviour would be positively related to job satisfaction. Therefore, it is hypothesized that

H₁: High self-monitoring will be positively related to high job satisfaction.

Mediating Role of Ingratiation Between Self-Monitoring and Job Satisfaction

Given that self-monitoring is associated with a desire to portray images that will improve one’s social status, self-monitoring has been extensively examined as an antecedent of impression management (Barbuto & Moss, 2006; Bolino et al., 2016). During social interactions, individuals consciously and unconsciously attempt to control their image (Schlenker, 1980) to exert the desired effect known as impression management. Ingratiation belongs to a class of influence strategies that aims at satisfying personal and organizational goals (Ansari, 1989, 1990; Ansari & Tandon, 1991; Kipnis et al., 1980). Although ingratiation is applied as an upward, downward or lateral strategy, it is used upward more frequently to influence the superior (Allen et al., 1979; Ansari, 1990; Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Ralston, 1985; Shankar et al., 1994). Regarding impression-management research, Snyder and Copeland (1989) indicated that high self-monitors are more likely to tailor the image they present to others to serve their interests best. Gangestad and Snyder (2000) have also explained that individuals who are simply sensitive to defensive expressions of behaviour that communicate passivity and submission by the sender are not self-monitors. While these behaviours could be considered an adaptive response to social cues, they are ineffective in eliciting a socially desirable response from others. Therefore, high self-monitors are sensitive to social cues and actively engage in impression management intended to project a favourable image (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). High self-monitors are also perceived as more capable of using ingratiation tactics, while low self-monitors who attempt to engage in these tactics are perceived as ‘sycophants’ (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Therefore, it is hypothesized that

H₂: Ingratiation mediates the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction.

Mediating Role of LMX Between Self-monitoring and Job Satisfaction

Leader–member exchange theory was introduced during the 1970s and was termed the vertical dyad linkage approach (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). The central tenet of LMX theory is that, through different types of exchanges, leaders differentiate how they treat their followers (Dansereau et al., 1975), leading to different quality relationships between the leader and each follower (Zakiy & Ramadhani, 2024). The development of differential relationships between leaders and their direct subordinates in their working team is referred to as LMX differentiation (Henderson et al., 2009; Hogg et al., 2005; Liden et al., 2006).

Employees with high LMX tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, and naturally, they tend to be more attached and have higher commitment to the organization where they work (Lartey et al., 2019). Under high LMX relationship, leaders tend to provide guidance, support and development opportunities to employees, resulting in higher job satisfaction and stronger attachment to the organization (Audenaert et al., 2021; Garg & Dhar, 2017; Utami & Zakiy, 2020; Zakiy, 2024).

A growing research stream aims to understand how followers’ comparative LMX standing in their group influences their behaviours and attitudes (Zhang et al., 2023). Lee et al. (2025) extended the understanding of how and when LMX social comparison influences followers’ work behaviour.

Scholars have attempted to study LMX through the lens of role theory (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Research has shown that for most individuals, the essence of their experience in organizations is tempered by immediate leaders, who are instrumental in socialization (Ferris et al., 2009; Liden et al., 1993), motivation (Rozikan et al., 2024; Scandura et al., 1986; Utami & Zakiy, 2020), mentoring (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994) and support (Settoon et al., 1996; Tahir et al., 2023; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003; Zakiy, 2024) of their direct reports. Follower characteristics suggested to influence LMX also include personality factors. Gangestad and Snyder (2000) maintained that self-monitoring is characterized by a status enhancement motive or a desire to achieve and enhance status within social structures. The empirical support for this argument is found in the works of Flynn et al. (2006) and Highhouse et al. (2016). By setting forth these assumptions, self-monitoring theory pro-poses a boundary condition and offers an answer to a fundamental dichotomy in psychology: whether behaviour is a function of the individual’s personality traits or of the environmental context. Self-monitoring theory’s answer to this question is that it will depend on one’s self-monitoring (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). The behaviour of high self-monitors will be less dependent on personal-ity, attitudes or values, and instead be a function of situational cues that signal desired social image. In contrast, those lower on self-monitoring do not necessarily adjust their behaviours according to environmental cues, which makes their behaviours more of a function of their personality traits, attitudes or values. High self-monitors are embedded in social relationships at work (Sasovova, 2006) and hence will strengthen the LMX quality. Studies found that leadership styles or behaviours impact job satisfaction (de Vries et al., 1998; Dubinsky et al., 1995; Jones et al., 1996; Landeweerd & Boumans, 1994). Wang, Hu and Dong (2015) showed that LMX mediates self-monitoring-performance relationship. Therefore it is hypothesized that

H₃: LMX mediates the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction.

Serial Mediation of Ingratiation and LMX in the Relationship Between Self-monitoring and Job Satisfaction

To explain the relationship between self-monitoring and ingratiation with LMX, we used Byrne’s reinforcement attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971, 1997; Byrne & Rhamey, 1965) and the norm of reciprocity under the social exchange theory. According to the reinforcement attraction paradigm, self-monitors use ingratiation to encourage closer LMX ties. It is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy, where the positive/negative behaviour in interpersonal relationships leads to subsequent liking/disliking (Curtis & Miller, 1986; Snyder & Swann, 1978). Jufrizen et al. (2023) showed that LMX has a significant effect on performance through work engagement and employee job satisfaction under the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997); when followers show self-monitoring and ingratiatory behaviour towards the leader, the leader, in return, will show positive behaviour towards followers through involving them in in-group activities. Thus, the serial mediation of ingratiation and LMX will strengthen the effect of self-monitoring on job satisfaction. Therefore, it is hypothesized that

H₄: Ingratiation and LMX serially mediate the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction.

Method

The study used a mixed-methods research design. Within mixed methods, the study adopted a convergent parallel design (also referred to as the convergent design), where the quantitative and qualitative studies were conducted independently and simultaneously (Castro et al., 2010; Creswell, 2009). This approach prioritizes both the methods equally and keeps the strands independent during analysis and then mixes the results during the overall interpretation. It is also termed as concurrent triangulation design (Creswell, 2009) because the qualitative and quantitative results in a mixed method study are converged or merged (triangulation) in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem (Creswell et al., 2003).

Research Design for Study 1

For the quantitative study, a cross-sectional data collection method was used in this work. Self-reported questionnaires were used to measure the constructs, test the hypotheses and infer the associations of relationships among the constructs.

Instruments

In study 1, the following data collection tools (instruments) were used:

Self-monitoring: Self-monitoring was measured through a 13-item scale developed by Lennox and Wolfe (1984). It had two subdimensions: ability to modify self-presentation and sensitivity to expressive behaviour of others. The overall reliability of the scale was 0.75.

Leader–member exchange: To measure LMX, the 7-item (single-dimension) LMX scale adapted from Wang et al. (2004) with reliability value 0.92 was used.

Ingratiation: Ingratiation was measured using the 22-item scale of Shankar et al. (1998). The scale was composed of dimensions of (a) other enhancement, (b) self-enhancement, (c) opinion conformity, (c) self-degradation, (d) third party directed and (e) instrumental dependency. The overall reliability of the scale was 0.92.

Job satisfaction: It was measured using the (single-dimension) 10-item scale developed by Macdonald and Maclntyre (1997). The reliability of the scale was 0.77.

All the scales and items were scored on a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

Sample and Procedure

An online questionnaire was mailed to 650 employees employed in various public and private sector organizations from diverse industry sectors in India using the convenience sampling method. After data cleaning, 405 responses were used. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), a sample size of 300 or more is appropriate for running exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The respondents included 115 females (28.4%) and 290 males (71.6%); 242 respondents had up to 5 years of work experience, 67 had between 5 and 10 years of experience and 96 had above 10 years of work experience.

Results: Study 1

Quantitative Study

Exploratory factor analysis was done using SPSS (version 2024). The measurement model's confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using AMOS (version 2024). After initial analysis on SPSS, the following changes were made:

From the scales of self-monitoring, two items were deleted due to poor loading, thus making it an 11-item scale. The reliability was 0.84.

From the ingratiation scale, the dimension of self-enhancement was dropped owing to poor loadings. The final scale had 18 out of 22 items, and the reliability was 0.95.

For the LMX scale and the job satisfaction scale, no changes were made. The reliability of the LMX scale was 0.90 and that of job satisfaction was 0.89.

Table 1 shows the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, mean, standard deviation and correlation of all the variables. All the variables show a significant positive correlation.

Table 1.

KMO, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations for Study 1.

	KMO	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Approx. Chi-Square Value)	df	Mean	Std. Deviation	JS	LMX	SM	Ing
JS	0.917	1818.68***	45	3.721	0.733	1
LMX	0.898	1564.45***	21	3.771	0.813	.705**	1
SM	0.870	1449.63***	55	3.751	0.561	.434**	.420**	1
Ing	0.904	5075.56***	136	2.764	0.887	.195**	.200**	.245**	1

Notes: KMO = Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin; LMX = leader–member exchange; SM = self-monitoring; Ing = ingratiation; JS = job satisfaction.

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level; *** correlation is significant at the .001 level (2-tailed). N = 405.

For the indices of the proposed measurement model (refer to Table 2), the CFA values were as follows: c²/df = 2.1147, GFI = 0.811, TLI = 0.902, CFI = 0.902 and RMSEA = 0.053.

Table 2.

The Measurement Model for the Variables.

	df	CMIN/df	GFI	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
All four variables (JS, LMX, SM and Ing)	915	2.114	0.811	0.909	0.902	0.053

Notes: df = degree of freedom; CMIN = minimum discrepancy of confirmatory factor analysis (c²); GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; LMX = leader–member exchange; SM = self-monitoring; Ing = ingratiation; JS = job satisfaction.

Composite reliability, convergent and divergent validity can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.

Composite Reliability, Convergent and Discriminant Validity.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	JS	Ing	SM	LMX
JS	0.895	0.462	0.582	0.907	0.680
Ing	0.912	0.725	0.121	0.947	0.239	0.851
SM	0.744	0.599	0.359	0.816	0.599	0.348	0.774
LMX	0.898	0.561	0.582	0.916	0.763	0.249	0.520	0.749

Notes: Composite reliability, convergent and divergent validity can be seen in Table 3. The square root of AVE (Average Variance Extracted) is given diagonally in bold in Table 3. CR= composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum shared variance; JS = job satisfaction; Ing = ingratiation; SM = self-monitoring; LMX = leader–member exchange.

Since the study was based on self-reported responses, we checked for CMV. We conducted the Harman single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To rule out CMV using Harman’s single-factor test, the percentage of variance extracted by one factor should be below 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In our study, the single factor explained 24.97% of the variance. Therefore, CMV was not a significant concern in our analysis. PROCESS macro (model 6) was used to test the regression paths and mediation relationship between independent and dependent variables. Table 4 shows regression paths. Except for the path between ingratiation and job satisfaction (path a2), all other paths were found to be significant. The total effect was 0.57 (p < .001), and the direct effect was 0.21 (p < .001).

Table 4.

Path Coefficients of the Structural Model.

Path	Analysis of Effects	β	Std. Error	t Value	p Value
C	Total effect (SM–JS)	0.57	0.06	9.68	***
c-	Direct effects (SM–JS)	0.21	0.05	4.19	***	H₁ supported
a1	SM–IngAll	0.39	0.08	5.07	***
b1	SM–LMX	0.57	0.07	8.51	***
a2	IngAll–JS	0.02	0.03	0.8	.42
b2	LMX–JS	0.57	0.03	16.48	***
a3	IngAll–LMX	0.09	0.04	2.22	.03

Notes: β = regression weight; SE = standard error; SM = self-monitoring; JS = job satisfaction; Ing = ingratiation; LMX = leader–member exchange; t values are computed through the bootstrapping procedure with 504 cases and 10,000 samples; ***p < .000, **p < .001, *p < .05.

Table 5 shows indirect paths for two-stage serial mediation analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Figure 1 shows the path of serial mediation.

Table 5.

Serial Mediation Analysis.

Bootstrapping for Mediation					Remarks
Indirect Effect(s) of X on Y	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI	Remarks
Ind1 SM → IngAll → JS	0.01	0.01	–0.01	0.03	H₂ not supported
Ind2 SM → LMX → JS	0.33	0.05	0.23	0.43	H₃ supported
Ind3 SM → IngAll → LMX → JS	0.02	0.01	0	0.05	H₄ supported

Notes: SE = standard error; LLCI = lower limit confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit confidence interval; LMX = leader–member exchange; JS = job satisfaction; SM = self-monitoring; IngAll = ingratiation.

Figure 1.

Notes: Adapted from Hayes et al. (2011).

In our analytical model, we tested for a three-path mediated effect (Hayes et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2008). We used the analytical approach outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2004) and Shrout and Bolger (2002) to test our mediation hypotheses. In Table 5, we provide estimates of the indirect effects, along with the symmetric and 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals for our path estimates. Figure 1 shows the serial mediation structural path coefficients in the research model. The analysis shows that H₁, which states that self-monitoring is positively related to job satisfaction, is supported (β = 0.21; p < .001; refer to Table 4). H₂, which states that ingratiation mediates the relationship between SM and job satisfaction, is not supported (β = 0.01; refer to Table 5). This is because the causal relation between ingratiation and job satisfaction (Table 4) was not significant (β = 0.02; p = .42). H₃, which states the mediation of LMX in the relationship between SM and job satisfaction, was supported (β = 0.33; refer to Table 5). H₄, stating the serial mediation of ingratiation and LMX in the relationship between SM and job satisfaction, showed partial mediation since the direct relationship was still significant (β = 0.02; refer to Tables 4 and 5).

Indirect effects were tested using the bootstrapping procedure with 10,000 bootstrap samples

Study 2: Qualitative

The qualitative study was carried out to get deeper insights into the nature of experience that subordinates shared with their leaders and how they used ingratiation for strengthening LMX ties.

Data Collection

As part of study 2, an online survey with open-ended questions (semi-structured questions) was carried out. The form was sent to 75 participants. We received completed forms from 47 participants. Of the 47 respondents, 29 were male and 18 were female respondents, 24 respondents were graduates and 23 were postgraduates. Under the category of experience, 17 respondents had up to 5 years of experience, 20 respondents had experience between 6 and 10 years and 10 respondents had experience of 11 years and above. With regard to experience in the present organization, 36 respondents had up to 5 years of experience, 9 respondents had experience between 6 and 10 years and 2 respondents had experience of 11 years and above in the present organization. Under the category of the organization sector, 15 respondents were from IT/ITES/BPR/consulting, 5 respondents were from banking and financial institutions, 4 respondents were from the pharmaceutical sector, 10 were from Heavy industries (shipping, power, aviation and construction) and finally 13 were from the service industry (education, hospitality, retail and consumer).

The open-ended survey included questions related to the formal/informal relationship with the manager/boss, experiences related to self-monitoring one’s behaviour in the organization, experiences of using flattery or any other strategy to impress one’s manager/boss and feelings related to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. We analysed the qualitative data by going through the responses and coding them for the behaviour. Similar codes were placed under the broad themes.

Data Analysis

This study followed the qualitative data analysis procedure. As per qualitative research tradition, data collection, analysis and interpretation were intertwined parallelly (Fischer et al., 2009; Spiggle, 1994). We analysed the data by coding and clustering them into themes based on our research question (Daffa et al., 2022). Additionally, we employed the technique of conceptual content analysis (Berelson, 1952) to determine the frequency of the emerging themes.

Results

Following are the various themes that emerged from the qualitative data.

Leader–Member Exchange and Job Satisfaction

While analysing the data, we categorized respondents who found their relationship with their boss/manager as formal and informal.

Those respondents who found their relationship with their boss as formal reported their relationship as ‘professional’, ‘formal’ and ‘distant’ for various reasons such as ‘locational differences’ or ‘intercultural differences’.

R.23: I prefer to keep distance with my manager and interact only to an extent which is absolutely essential to get my work done, as she tends to be judgemental sometime and forms a perception.

The subordinates who found their relationship with their boss/manager as very close was termed as informal. Such subordinates found their leader ‘open for discussion’, ‘friendly’, ‘supportive’, ‘collaborative’, ‘motivating’ and ‘encouraging’ for skill improvement.

R.6: My relationship with my boss is close. For instance she guides me to grow in the organisation and give me opportunity to handle challenging projects in my organisation also helps me with suggestions when asked

In our data using conceptual content analysis (Berelson, 1952 we found that, 21 out of 47 respondents found the relationship with their manager formal, 22 out of 47 found it informal and 4 out of 47 responded as sometimes formal and sometimes informal.

Most of the respondents felt satisfied with their job (43 out of 47), a few said ‘can’t say’ (4 out of 47) and only one respondent was not satisfied with their job.

The reasons for job satisfaction included ‘autonomy’ to make decisions, ‘flexible working hours’, ‘transparency in working’, ‘new learning and growth opportunities’, ‘culture’ of the organization, ‘fairness at work’ and ‘work life balance’.

Those who responded as ‘can’t say’ or ‘no’ felt that ‘workload was too much’ and ‘limited growth opportunities.

1. Self-Monitoring and Leader-Member-Exchange

The study found that irrespective of whether the subordinates experienced formal or informal connection with their manager, most of them (37 out of 47 respondents) expressed desire to be part of their manager’s core team. The reasons were broadly categorised under three themes.

The first theme was desire to be in manager’s core team arising out of ‘work-related’ needs which included ‘opportunity to be part of key projects’, the manager’s ‘receptivity to new ideas’, ‘opportunities for responsibility and growth under the manager’, ‘professional environment’ and ‘opportunities’ provided by the manager which helped in role modelling the leader.

R.31: Yes, will get an opportunity to know different aspects of each project.

The second theme was the need arising out of leader’s behaviour, which included behaviours such as discipline, no discrimination between members, allowing members to take initiative, staying calm, understanding, trusting and supportive.

R.21: Yes, I would like to work under his team he was very disciplined and punctual he never discriminate in feedback.

The third theme was related to need to be in manager’s team for the ‘access to learning opportunity’, including opportunities to learn ‘technical skills and business knowledge’.

R.34: Yes. Since as a fresher, I’m expected to technically implement whatever is given to us but if I got the chance to work with them, I will be having the business knowledge like process designing and all those things.

The respondents who showed self-monitoring agreed that they consciously ‘managed’ their image at work.

The reasons given were ‘stakeholder management, ‘survival’, ‘getting their work done’ and ‘organizational politics’.

R.8: Yes many of the times when seniors ask something I don’t say anything just to manage the image of HR team.

The low self-monitors perceived themselves as ‘neutral’, ‘data driven’, representing themselves ‘the way they are’ and ‘respecting others’.

R.4: No, I believe in being neutral and present my thoughts across with some good backing and evidence.

Most of the respondents who indulged in self-monitoring (38 out of 47 respondents) did not find self-monitoring stressful. According to them, it was ‘part of their job’, and they were used to it. Those who found it stressful (10 out of 47) felt that they cannot be ‘untrue to themselves’; it is a ‘compromise’ and is ‘not what they would like to do’.

Most of the respondents (34 out of 47 respondents) found that body language was very helpful in understanding the emotions of the boss/manager to support their high/low self-monitoring behaviour, while few (12 out of 47) did not rely on reading emotional cues of the manager/boss for work citing reasons such as ‘people are pretentious at work’ and ‘emotions should not be used to judge a person at work’.

Ingratiation and Leader–Member Exchange

On the question around using ingratiation towards the leader/manager, most of the respondents (25 out of 47) declined using ingratiation, a few (10 out of 47) said that they used it sometimes, and the rest (12 out of 47) accepted using ingratiation.

Participants who reported using flattery claimed that they did so ‘to maintain a good relationship with their managers’. They shared that they frequently ‘complimented their managers for their working style’.

R.14: It is true that flattery works in my organisation and few colleagues are effectively using it.

On the other hand, participants who did not use ingratiation felt that ingratiation was more like ‘not being true to oneself’.

R.38: I do my job honestly and try to win the trust and confidence of my Boss instead of pleasing by wasting valuable energy.

Since a sizable number of respondents (25 out of 47) said that they did not use ingratiation and used phrases like ‘it depends on the relationship we build’, ‘flattery though is practiced, very few are good at it’ shows that most of the respondents were not very open in discussing about the use of ingratiation. It also shows that flattery, though useful, was not appreciated at work, and so the respondents were not open in talking about it.

We have captured the excerpts of the responses in Table 6 for all the broad themes identified.

Table 6.

Key Themes and Excerpts of the Content Analysis.

S. No.	Excerpts
1.	Leader–member exchange and job satisfaction
	The participant with high leader–member exchange revealed that they were generally satisfied with their job and various job conditions. For example, participants with high leader–member exchange reported that their managers were available, took interest in their career growth and cared for their well-being and success. One of the respondents (R.34) shared: ‘I am satisfied with my job’ … ‘my boss has supported me a lot and he trusts me’… ‘my boss is always ready to take my advice before finalizing anything’. Similarly, other participants shared: ‘He has always been supportive throughout and my performance is appreciated. I have the liberty to decide, which eventually leads to better performance. I am very happy’ (R.13). ‘My boss is very supportive and at times he is very informal …. I am pretty satisfied … my boss supports me in my career growth. He has recommended me for promotion in 2019 appraisal’ (R.15). Participants with low leader–member exchange reported very little or no job satisfaction. Participants’ response revealed that their formal relationship with their managers it negatively reflected in their work experiences. In this regard, one participant (R.43) shared: ‘My manager is not supporting in my career growth’ …. ‘I cannot remember my boss ever giving me freedom or empowering me to independently work.’ Similarly, other respondents reported: ‘I have a quite distant relationship with my boss. I would never like to work as part of my manager’s core team. No freedom was ever given to me. There is no fairness regarding compensation. The workload is too much that increases stress in daily work life’ (R.14). ‘I am not satisfied … there are limited growth opportunities …, my manger is not interested in my career growth’ (R.16).
2.	Self-monitoring and leader–member exchange
	High leader–member exchange and job satisfaction: ‘My manager is pretty close. He understands both my personal and work issues and is very supportive’ (R.22). ‘My relationship with my boss is close. For instance, she guides me to grow in the organization and allow me to handle challenging projects …. Yes, I do keep a check on my behavior. At times, when an argument heats up in meetings and the person opposite is talking in a higher volume. I make it a point that I do not raise my voice’ (R.6). ‘Yes, I do manage my impression because like everyone I want to survive in the organization’ (R.9). Low leader–member exchange and job satisfaction: ‘I keep distance with my manager and interact only to an extent which is absolutely essential to get my work done, as she tends to be judgmental sometimes and forms a perception’ (R.23). Low leader–member exchange and self-monitoring: ‘It has been a professional relationship with my manager, it is not very casual …. I don’t try to manage my image, I just try to be myself’ (R.24). ‘I have a very professional relationship with my manager …. I don’t make any pretense about my behavior’ (R.31). Leader–member exchange and ingratiation: ‘I do make my boss feel very experienced and responsible. I guess it all depends on the relationships we build’ (R.7). ‘My boss has good leadership skills. … at many occasions, I have told my boss that he is very good at managing his team’ (R.15). Low leader–member exchange, low ingratiation and low self-monitoring: ‘I have a very formal relationship with my manager …. I don’t engage much in praising my boss for his experience and abilities because I believe ultimately your bosses come to know your intent’ (R.2). ‘For my boss …. I don’t remember any experience where I have praised him’ (R.40).

Of the four types of triangulation process (data, methodological, investigator and theory), we followed the methodological triangulation (Figure 2) where the results of the two studies were analysed for drawing conclusions (Denzin, 2012). In study 2, we found that most respondents made attempts to be in the core team with the boss (a self-monitoring behaviour), and it was satisfying to them (due to opportunities for learning, autonomy and work-life balance). Therefore, study 2 supports the findings of study 1, stating the positive relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction (H₁) and LMX mediating the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction (H₃). In study 2, we found that the respondents in their effort to impress the leader forged strong leader connections and were not averse to using ingratiation. This finding adds more strength to study 1’s findings of the serial mediation of ingratiation and LMX in the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction (H₄). We also found that in study 2, most of the respondents were not very upfront and open in discussing and elaborating on the adoption of ingratiation in connecting with the leader. While they accepted that ingratiation was used by the subordinates to impress the leader, they were reticent and chose not to discuss it at length. The reason maybe that in a high-power distance culture like India (Hofstede, 2011), ingratiation is a necessary evil. This shows that ingratiation was not appreciated but accepted as a practice. This is a possible reason for the insignificant mediation of ingratiation in the relationship of self-monitoring and job satisfaction in study 1 (H₂). The analysis shows that the conclusions drawn from study 1 were corroborated in study 2, thus triangulating the findings for a deeper understanding.

Figure 2.

Triangulation.

Discussion

The present study is a concurrent mixed method study comprising two independent studies, where study 1 was quantitative and study 2 was qualitative in nature. The triangulation of the results showed that the qualitative responses emerging in study 2 supported the findings of study 1.

Study 1 attempted to unravel the complex interplay of LMX between the follower and the leader, where personality variables such as self-monitoring and impression management tactic of ingratiation played an essential role. Study 1 looked at LMX from the subordinates’ perspective using ingratiation as a tool leading to job satisfaction. Study 2 supported this finding. Results indicated that self-monitoring traits led to job satisfaction (H₁ supported). Study 2 showed the respondents’ efforts in forging strong ties with the leader for satisfying outcomes. Our study 1 showed that LMX mediated the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction (H₃ supported). India being a high-power distance culture (Hofstede, 2001), there is an asymmetric power relationship, and upward ingratiation is often tolerated (Bhowmick, 2024). Instrumental dependence proneness of Indian subordinates on their supervisor involves developing a ‘personalized work relationship’ which encourages the usage of ingratiation in strengthening LMX. Therefore, ingratiation together with LMX serially mediated the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction (H₄ supported).

The mediation of ingratiation between self-monitoring and job satisfaction (H₂) was not supported. This is because in the mediation analysis, the causal relation between self-monitoring and ingratiation was significant, but the causal link between ingratiation and job satisfaction was insignificant. The reason is that the studies suggest that ingratiation, or the attempt to gain favour with others, is primarily directed at other individuals, not at oneself (Asadullah et al., 2016). Therefore, ingratiation involves strategic behaviours aimed at influencing someone else’s impression of you, such as flattery or opinion conformity. Job satisfaction would be realized only if flattery aimed at the significant other is effective.

Additionally, studies have also shown some contrary findings showing that ingratiation is mildly pejorative (Pandey, 1978). People accommodate their actions to social norms. Ingratiation involves manipulative intent and deceitful execution which departs from normative expectations (Jones & Jones, 1964). Therefore, ingratiation is seen as an illegitimate side of social interaction and can be energy draining (Klotz et al., 2018). The results of study 2 also show that ingratiation, though practised, was not openly appreciated, but there was ambiguity around its acceptance. This is also because in high-power distance societies (Hofstede, 2011), ingratiation is a necessary evil and is used subtly to win favours and stay in proximity to the leader. This possibly explains the reasons for H₂ not supported in study 1.

The merit of the study lies in the use of the mixed method approach. The analysis of both the studies (quantitative and qualitative) showed that high self-monitors consciously invested in developing more robust bonds with the leader, and ingratiation enabled them to strengthen LMX.

The present research is relevant in furthering the understanding of the mediating role of LMX between self-monitoring and job satisfaction.

The study has made significant contributions in the following ways: First, our study extends the earlier research where self-monitoring is the antecedent of ingratiation (Day et al., 2002; Kudret et al., 2019) to empirically show that ingratiation is also a mediator between self-monitoring and LMX. Second, it shows that followers’ personality trait of self- monitoring plays a role in strengthening LMX with the leader. In this approach, the role of ingratiation in getting the leader’s attention is also significant. Third, the study has also contributed to the theory of job satisfaction by linking the serial mediation of ingratiation and LMX to be more job satisfied. Fourth, the study adds to the body of knowledge of personality theories in general and self-monitoring personality traits in particular by showing how ingratiation and LMX mediate for improved job satisfaction. Fifth, the study was carried out in India and has contextual relevance. Culturally, India is high on power distance (Hofstede, 2011), leading to hierarchical interpersonal relationships at work with limited room for egalitarianism. The power distance in India is as much bottom-up as they are top-down (Tripathi & Vijayan, 2020). Employees with high-power distance orientation tend to accept their top-down relationship with supervisors (Javidan et al., 2006). In India, power does not always imply coercion or authoritarianism. Indians are highly receptive to soft power, be it the charisma of leadership, opinions of experts or the inherent respect for authority figures. At the same time, ingratiation is also perceived as a manipulative means to achieve the end. It is not openly appreciated and is often looked down upon, leading to experiencing an emotional toll by the actor (ingratiator). Therefore, ingratiation when carried out to impress the manager/boss should be done very carefully. When executed effectively, self-monitoring behaviour through ingratiatory tactic shown by subordinate is very useful in not only getting the attention of the leader but also forging closer ties.

Implications

Theoretical Implications

The present study supports the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960) which states that individuals (who are adept at reading social cues) pick up the high LMX cues and subsequently alter their behaviour (using ingratiatory tactics) to please the leader. Therefore, it is highly likely that self-monitoring will lead to high LMX. The study also supports the reinforcement attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971, 1997; Byrne & Rhamey, 1965), whereby the self-monitoring behaviour of followers coupled with ingratiation will increase the likelihood of more robust LMX behaviour by the leader, leading to improved job satisfaction.

Managerial Implications

The study has meaningful implications for managers. Self-monitoring behaviour through ingratiatory tactics shown by subordinates will be beneficial in getting the leader’s attention and making effective relationship leading to the success of teams and stronger LMX in dyads. Ingratiation as a tactic (in LMX) would bridge the psychological gap between the subordinate and the leader.

Organizations can develop structured training programmes that teach productive self-monitoring techniques while discouraging manipulative ingratiation. These programmes should help employees understand the difference between adaptive impression management and excessive ingratiation. Subordinates can be sensitized to deliberate the development of high-quality LMX relationships that are not dependent on ingratiation. Subordinates to be encouraged to develop relationships with their leader through meaningful work assignments and regular feedback sessions. This helps create relationships based on competence rather than flattery, particularly important in high-power distance cultures. Organizations should establish mentoring programmes that pair employees with leaders outside their direct reporting line. Organizations can also establish mentorship programmes that pair high self-monitors with less experienced employees. This allows for the sharing of effective self-monitoring strategies and helps to cultivate ingratiation in a constructive manner. Develop a curriculum that includes role-playing scenarios where employees can practice self-monitoring in various contexts and receive feedback from peers and supervisors. In high-power distance cultures, leaders should be encouraged to adopt an accessible communication style that promotes open dialogue. Managers can hold regular informal gatherings (e.g., coffee chats) where employees can share insights and express their concerns without fear of repercussions, fostering a more trustful LMX and reducing reliance on ingratiation.

All the above measures can lead to improved employee performance, higher job satisfaction and stronger organizational commitment by fostering positive relationships and understanding individual needs. A strong bond can lead to feelings of being valued, get favourable performance evaluations, promotions and higher positive exchange in relationships leading to career achievements. It can also lead to reduced turnover, mitigate conflicts, increase engagement, improved organizational learning and innovation.

Therefore self-monitors through ingratiation and strong LMX would enjoy the proximity to the corridors of power and greater organizational visibility too. Self-monitoring has emerged as an important and relevant trait in understanding individual behaviour, finding application in fields as diverse as educational psychology, health psychology, marketing and management. In the field of management, personality has been shown to significantly affect the performance of top managers (House et al., 1991), as well as the performance of occupants of boundary-spanning positions (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982a).

Limitation and Future Scope

The study was carried out in multiple organizations. Pooling of data from different organizations represents a limitation because group-specific variables may be operating in the samples from different organizations (Byrne et al., 1989). Combining data from different organizations may also reduce the chance that these unique factors will restrict the findings to the conditions in a single organization. India is diverse, and our results may not generalize to all Indian organizations. For example, the nature of the organizations (i.e., public vs private) the respondents worked for, may have influenced their responses on job satisfaction and subordinates’ perception of LMX. The study did not use the organization’s objective measure of performance and employee satisfaction data. Such external indicators can add more robustness to the conclusions drawn. Therefore, future studies should compare the organizational performance metric of subordinates indulging in self-monitoring and ingratiation with those who do not indulge in such acts to understand better the extent of explaining high LMX for job satisfaction.

Apart from this, future studies can expand the scope of research in LMX in multiple ways. First, studies can test the research model across cultures to test generalizability. Second, future studies can also test the reciprocal relationship between self-monitoring, ingratiation and LMX. This will help in understanding whether the quality of LMX determines the outcomes or whether other directions of effect also exist. Third, studies can focus on the effect of self-monitoring and ingratiation in both positive and negative dyadic relationships between the leader and the member or the supervisor and the subordinate. Fourth, future research can also focus on the dark side of the nexus of LMX, self-monitoring and ingratiation leading to counterproductive performance. Finally, future research should incorporate strategic contingency variables such as economic, technological and political forces that act upon organizations and leaders in different cultures that may support the prevalence of behaviour of self-monitoring and ingratiation for stronger LMX, leading to job satisfaction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study advances our understanding of the interplay between leader–member exchange (LMX), self-monitoring and ingratiation in the context of job satisfaction. The findings reveal that self-monitoring positively influences job satisfaction, with ingratiation serving as a significant mediator between self-monitoring and LMX. Although the mediation of ingratiation alone was not supported, the combination of ingratiation and LMX was found to enhance the relationship between self-monitoring and job satisfaction. Theoretical contributions include extending existing research on self-monitoring and ingratiation, while managerial implications emphasize the value of these personality traits in strengthening leader–subordinate relationships especially in high-power distance societies like India. Future research could further explore the reciprocal dynamics of these variables across diverse cultural and organizational settings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Allen

R. W.

, Madison

D. L.

, Porter

L. W.

, Renwick

P. A.

, & Mayes

B. T.

(1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164852

Ansari

M. A.

(1989). Effects of leader sex, subordinate sex, and subordinate performance on the use of influence strategies. Sex Roles, 20, 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287725

Ansari

M. A.

(1990). Managing people at work. Sage Publications.

Ansari

M. A.

, & Kapoor

(1987). Organizational context and upward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90004-5

Ansari

M. A.

, & Tandon

(1991). Organizational climate as a moderator of the relationship between leadership styles and influence strategies. Management and Labor Studies, 16(4), 175–187.

Asadullah

M. A.

, Haider

, Pablos Heredero

C. D.

, & Musaddiq

(2016). Effect of ingratiation on supervisor satisfaction through helping behavior: A moderated mediation model. Intangible Capital, 12(5), 1157–1191.

Audenaert

, Van der Heijden

, Rombaut

, & Van Thielen

(2021). The role of feedback quality and organizational cynicism for affective commitment through leader–member exchange. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41, 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x20923010

Babalola

S. S.

, & Nwanzu

C. L.

(2022). The moderating role of gender in the effect of self-monitoring personality trait on emotional labor strategies. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2046679. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2046679

Barbuto

J. E.

Jr. , & Moss

J. A.

(2006). Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influence tactics: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(3), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190601200303

10.

Berelson

(1952). Content analysis in communication research. Free Press.

11.

Bhowmick

(2024). The Boss is Always Right: Does Ingratiation Always work? ETHR World. Retrieved, 15 March 2025, from https://hr.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/trends/leadership/the-boss-is-always-right-does-upward-ingratiation-always-work/106609491

12.

Bhuian

S. N.

, Al-Shammari

E. S.

, & Jefri

O. A.

(1996). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job characteristics: An empirical study of expatriates in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 6(3/4), 57–80.

13.

Bhuian

S. N.

, & Menguc

(2002). An extension and evaluation of job characteristics, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in an expatriate, guest worker, sales setting. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22(1), 1–11.

14.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206.

15.

Bolino

, Long

, & Turnley

(2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 377–406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062337

16.

Bono

J. E.

, & Vey

M. A.

(2007). Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion, neuroticism, and self-monitoring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.177

17.

Botero

I. C.

, & Van Dyne

(2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104.

18.

Byrne

R. W.

(1997). The technical intelligence hypothesis: An additional evolutionary stimulus to intelligence. In Whiten

& Byrne

(Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence II (pp. 289–311). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511525636.012

19.

Byrne

, & Rhamey

(1965). Magnitude of positive and negative reinforcements as a determinant of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(6), 884–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022656

20.

Byrne

B. M.

, Shavelson

R. J.

, & Muthén

(1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456

21.

Caldwell

D. F.

, & O’Reilly

C. A.

III . (1982). Responses to failure: The effects of choice and responsibility on impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 121–136.

22.

Castro

F. G.

, Kellison

J. G.

, Boyd

S. J.

, & Kopak

(2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382916

23.

Charlier

S. D.

(2020). Self-monitoring. In Zeigler-Hill

& Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 4776–4780). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1176

24.

Chaudhary

, & Panda

(2019). Examining self-monitoring and neuroticism as predictors and self-efficacy as an outcome of authentic leadership. Organization Management Journal, 16(3), 179–192.

25.

Connolly

J. J.

, & Viswesvaran

(2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 265–281.

26.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. , & McCrae

R. R.

(1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In Heatherton

T. F.

& Weinberger

J. L.

(Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21–40). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10143-002

27.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.

28.

Creswell

J. W.

, Tashakkori

, Jensen

K. D.

, & Shapley

K. L.

(2003). Teaching mixed methods research: Practices, dilemmas, and challenges. In Tashakkori

& Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 619–637). Sage Publications.

29.

Cropanzano

, & Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

30.

Curtis

R. C.

, & Miller

(1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2) 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.284

31.

Daffa

M. I.

, Mas’udi

, & Musyrifin

I. M.

(2022). Leaders and whistleblowers: Application of whistleblowing in Islamic financial institutions. Journal of Islamic Economic and Business Research, 2(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.18196/jiebr.v2i1.50

32.

Dansereau

Jr. , Graen

, & Haga

W. J.

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

33.

Davis-Blake

, & Pfeffer

(1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 385–400.

34.

Day

D. V.

, Shleicher

D. J.

, Unckless

A. L.

, & Hiller

N. J.

(2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.390

35.

Denzin

N. K.

(2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186

36.

De Vries

R. E.

, Roe

R. A.

, & Taillieu

T. C.

(1998). Need for supervision: Its impact on leadership effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(4), 486–501.

37.

Diebig

, Gritzka

, Angerer

, Erschens

, Gast

, Gündel

, Hofmann

, Junne

, Schröpel

, & Klasmeier

K. N.

(2024). Leader-member exchange differentiation and followers’ psychological strain: Exploring relations on the individual and on the team-level. Current Psychology, 43(27), 23115–23129.

38.

Dubinsky

A. J.

, Yammarino

F. J.

, Jolson

M. A.

, & Spangler

W. D.

(1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(2), 17–31.

39.

Dulebohn

J. H.

, Bommer

W. H.

, Liden

R. C.

, Brouer

R. L.

, & Ferris

G. R.

(2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.

40.

Fandt

P. M.

, & Ferris

G. R.

(1990). The management of information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), 140–158.

41.

Ferris

G. R.

, Liden

R. C.

, Munyon

T. P.

, Summers

J. K.

, Basik

K. J.

, & Buckley

M. R.

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

42.

Fischer

C. T.

(2009). Bracketing in qualitative research: Conceptual and practical matters. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 583–590.

43.

Flynn

F. J.

, Reagans

R. E.

, Amanatullah

E. T.

, & Ames

D. R.

(2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123

44.

Gangestad

S. W.

, & Snyder

(2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530–555.

45.

Garg

, & Dhar

(2017). Employee service innovative behavior: The roles of leader-member exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy. International Journal of Manpower, 38(2), 242–258.

46.

Gerstner

C. R.

, & Day

D. V.

(1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

47.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216

48.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

49.

Graen

G. B.

(1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Rand McNally.

50.

Graen

, & Cashman

J. F.

(1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership frontiers, 143(165), 86–96.

51.

Graen

G. B.

, & Scandura

T. A.

(1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In Staw

& Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 175–208). JAI Press.

52.

Graen

G. B.

, & Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5Wangetal.,2004

53.

Guion

R. M.

, & Gottier

R. F.

(1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18(2), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1965.tb00273.x

54.

Hackman

J. R.

, & Oldham

G. R.

(1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546

55.

Hayes

A. F.

, Preacher

K. J.

, & Myers

T. A.

(2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In Erik

P. B.

& Holbert

R. L.

(Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 434–465). Routledge.

56.

Henderson

D. J.

, Liden

R. C.

, Glibkowski

B. C.

, & Chaudhry

(2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517–534.

57.

Highhouse

, Brooks

M. E.

& Wang

(2016). Status seeking and manipulative Self-presentation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24(4), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12153

58.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.

59.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

60.

Hogan

E. A.

, & Martell

D. A.

(1987). A confirmatory structural equations analysis of the job characteristics model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(2), 242–263.

61.

Hogan

, & Holland

(2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100

62.

Hogan

, & Warrenfeltz

(2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(1), 74–84.

63.

Hogan

R. T.

(1991). Personality and personality measurement. In Dunnette

M. D.

& Hough

L. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 873–919). Consulting Psychologists Press.

64.

Hogg

M. A.

, Martin

, Epitropaki

, Mankad

, Svensson

, & Weeden

(2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 991–1004.

65.

Hogan

, Jones

. & Cheek

J. M.

(1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to armadillo psychology. In Schlenker

B. R.

(Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 175–198). McGraw-Hill.

66.

Hyanky

, Biswas

, & James

C. S.

(2024). Relationship between light triad of personality and self-monitoring and meaning in life among adults. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 22(03), 023–031. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.22.3.1639

67.

Ilies

, Nahrgang

J. D.

, & Morgeson

F. P.

(2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

68.

Inceoglu

, Thomas

, Chu

, Plans

, & Gerbasi

(2018). Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 29, 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006

69.

Javidan

, Dorfman

P. W.

, De Luque

M. S.

, & House

R. J.

(2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90.

70.

John

O. P.

(1990). The ‘Big Five’ factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In Pervin

(Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 66–100). Guilford Press.

71.

Jones

R. G.

, & Jones

E. E.

(1964). Optimum conformity as an ingratiation tactic. Journal of Personality, 32(3), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1964.tb01351.x

72.

Jones

, Kantak

D. M.

, Futrell

C. M.

, & Johnston

M. W.

(1996). Leader behavior, work-attitudes, and turnover of salespeople: An integrative study. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16(2), 13–23.

73.

Jufrizen

, Harahap

D. S.

, & Khair

(2023). Leader-member exchange and employee performance: Mediating roles of work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of Economics, Business, and Accountancy Ventura, 26(3), 306–322.

74.

Kalra

, Itani

O. S.

, & Sun

(2023). ‘Turning role conflict into performance’: Assessing the moderating role of self-monitoring, manager trust and manager identification, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 33(3), 436–461. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-08-2022-0163

75.

Kim

(2020). Self-monitoring. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0245

76.

Kipnis

, Schmidt

S. M.

, & Wilkinson

(1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440

77.

Klotz

A. C.

, He

, Yam

K. C.

, Bolino

M. C.

, Wei

, & Houston

III . (2018). Good actors but bad apples: Deviant consequences of daily impression management at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1145.

78.

Kudret

, Erdogan

, & Bauer

T. N.

(2019). Self-monitoring personality trait at work: An integrative narrative review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2346

79.

Landeweerd

J. A.

, & Boumans

N. P. G.

(1994). The effect of work dimensions and need for autonomy on nurses’ work satisfaction and health. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(3), 207–217.

80.

Lartey

J. K. S.

, Amponsah-Tawiah

, & Osafo

(2019). The moderating effect of perceived organizational support in the relationship between emotional labour and job attitudes: A study among health professionals. Nursing Open, 6(3), 990–997.

81.

Lee

, Schwarz

, Reh

, Li

, Zheng

, Liu

, & Gopalan

(2025). Upward leader-member exchange social comparison and organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of interpersonal justice and moderating role of competitive climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(1), 91–108.

82.

Lennox

R. D.

, & Wolfe

R. N.

(1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349–1364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1349

83.

Liden

R. C.

, Erdogan

, Wayne

S. J.

, & Sparrowe

R. T.

(2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723–746.

84.

Liden

R. C.

, & Maslyn

J. M.

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

85.

Liden

R. C.

, Wayne

S. J.

, & Stilwell

(1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662

86.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.

87.

Macdonald

, & Maclntyre

(1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), 1–16.

88.

Mannheim

, Baruch

, & Tal

(1997). Alternative models for antecedents and outcomes of work centrality and job satisfaction of high-tech personnel. Human Relations, 50(12), 1537–1562.

89.

McCauley

C. D.

, & Van Velsor

(Eds.). (2004). The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.

90.

Pandey

(1978). Ingratiation: A review of literature and relevance of its study in organizational setting. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 13(3), 381–393. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27765674

91.

Pellegrini

E. K.

, & Scandura

T. A.

(2006). Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 264–279.

92.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Lee

J. Y.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

93.

Poetz

, & Volmer

(2022). A diary study on the moderating role of leader-member exchange on the relationship between job characteristics, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 812103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.812103

94.

Preacher

K. J.

, & Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

95.

Ralston

D. A.

(1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 477–487.

96.

Reiner

M. D.

, & Zhao

(1999). The determinants of job satisfaction among United States air force security police: A test of rival theoretical predictive models. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 5–18.

97.

Rozikan

, Zakiy

, bin Kamarudin

M. F.

, Jadmiko

, & Nurrizqi

S. I.

(2024). Linking perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange to job embeddedness: The role of self-efficacy. E3S Web of Conferences, 571(2024), 01012. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202457101012

98.

Sasovova

(2006). To dislike and to be liked: Self-monitoring, affect-intensive relations and work performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2006(1), 1–6.

99.

Savery

L. K.

(1996). The congruence between the importance of job satisfaction and the perceived level of achievement. Journal of Management Development, 15(6), 18–27.

100.

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(4), 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.579

101.

Scandura

T. A.

, & Schriesheim

C. A.

(1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588–1602.

102.

Schlenker

B. R.

(1980). Impression Management (Vol. 526). Brooks/Cole.

103.

Schonfeld

I. S.

(2000). Short research paper: An updated look at depressive symptoms and job satisfaction in first-year women teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 363–371.

104.

Seers

, & Graen

G. B.

(1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader–member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(3), 283–306.

105.

Settoon

R. P.

, Bennett

, & Liden

R. C.

(1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219

106.

Shankar

, Ansari

M. A.

, & Saxena

(1994). Organizational context and ingratiatory behavior in organizations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(5), 641–647.

107.

Shankar

, Ansari

M. A.

, & Saxena

(1998). Development of a measure of ingratiatory behavior in organizations. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 13(1–2), 13–34.

108.

Shrout

P. E.

, & Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

109.

Simmons

B. L.

, Nelson

D. L.

, & Neal

L. J.

(2001). A comparison of the positive and negative work attitudes of home health care and hospital nurses. Health Care Management Review, 26(3), 63–74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44951030

110.

Snyder

(1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537.

111.

Snyder

(1979). Self-monitoring processes. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85)–128). Academic Press.

112.

Snyder

, & Copeland

(1989). Self-monitoring processes in organizational settings. In Giacalone

R. A.

& Rosenfeld

(Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 7–19). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

113.

Snyder

, & Swann

W. B.

(1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1202–1212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.1202

114.

Sobral

, & Furtado

(2024). Leader-member exchange (LMX). In Bal

P. M.

(Ed.), Elgar encyclopedia of organizational psychology (pp. 377–381). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803921761.00080

115.

Sonnentag

, & Pundt

(2016). “Leader-member exchange from a job-stress perspective” in Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. eds. Bauer

T. N.

and Erdogan

(New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 189–208.

116.

Sparrowe

R. T.

, & Liden

R. C.

(1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522–552.

117.

Spiggle

(1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503.

118.

Stander

M. W.

, & Rothmann

(2010). Psychological empowerment, job insecurity and employee engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(1), 1–8.

119.

Staw

B. M.

, & Ross

(1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.469

120.

Tabachnick

B. G.

, Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics, 6th ed. Pearson.

121.

Tahir

M. I.

, Martini

, Yayuningsih

, Khuan

, Prasetyarini

, Jumintono

Ambarwati, R.

, & Utomo

S. T.

(2023). Exploring the role of leader member exchange on job satisfaction and employee performance: An empirical study in Indonesian MSMEs. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(3), e771. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i3.771

122.

Taylor

A. B.

, MacKinnon

D. P.

, & Tein

J. Y.

(2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241–269.

123.

Thibaut

J. W.

, & Kelley

H. H.

(1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.

124.

Tripathi

, & Vijayan

(2020, June). Power distance: An Indian perspective. https://www.iimb.ac.in/turn_turn/power-distance-indian-perspective.php

125.

Turnley

W. H.

, & Bolino

M. C.

(2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.86.2.351

126.

Uhl-Bien

, & Maslyn

J. M.

(2003). Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29(4), 511–532.

127.

Utami

V. P.

, & Zakiy

(2020). Linking leader member exchange and person supervisor fit with employee performance: The mediating role of employee work engagement. Journal of Leadership in Organizations, 2(2), 121–137.

128.

Walsh

J. T.

, Taber

T. D.

, & Beehr

T. A.

(1980). An integrated model of perceived job characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(2), 252–267.

129.

Wang

, Hu

, & Dong

(2015). Managing personal networks: An examination of how high self-monitors achieve better job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 180–188. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.10.005

130.

Wang

, Niu

X. Y.

, & Luo

S. Q.

(2004). Multi-dimensional leader-member exchange (LMX) and its impact on task performance and contextual performance of employees. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(2), 179–185. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/abstract/abstract2416.shtml

131.

Westfall

R. S.

(2020). Theory of self-esteem. In Carducci

B. J.

, Nave

C. S.

, Mio

J. S.

, & Riggio

R. E.

(Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 381–385). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547143.ch63

132.

Wilmot

M. P.

(2020). Self-monitoring scale. In Zeigler-Hill

& Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 4780–4783). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_82

133.

Wolf

, Spinath

F. M.

, Riemann

, & Angleitner

(2009). Self-monitoring and personality: A behavioural-genetic study. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.040

134.

C. H.

, Kwan

H. K.

, Liu

, & Lee

(2021). When and how favour rendering ameliorates workplace ostracism over time: Moderating effect of self-monitoring and mediating effect of popularity enhancement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(1), 107–131.

135.

Zakiy

(2024). Linking person supervisor fit with employee performance and work engagement: The mediating role of LMX. SAGE Open, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241271183

136.

Zakiy

, & Ramadhani

(2024). Linking perceived supervisor listening with OCBIP in Islamic financial institutions: A multiple mediation approach. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-09-2023-0291

137.

Zhang

, Chen

, & Tang

(2023). When is higher LMX comparison not always effective? The role of team-level LMX disparity and neuroticism. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 32(6), 870–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2259545