The Impact of Leader-Member Exchange on General Self-Efficacy: Evidence from China

Extant research has witnessed an increasing interest in understanding antecedents and outcomes of General Self-Efficacy (GSE); however, academic studies have not yet explored the role of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) in giving rise to GSE. By drawing on Social Comparative Theory, the current study aims to examine the impact of LMX on GSE. The current study used a cross-sectional research design with survey methodology. Data were collected from 114 students in three universities in the eastern region of China. The findings indicated that LMX did not predict GSE, β = - .12, t(112) = -1.26, p = .21. To conclude, the current study might be essential for building the basics for comprehending how LMX affects GSE among university students in the eastern region of China.

Extant research has witnessed an increasing interest in understanding antecedents and outcomes of General Self-Efficacy (GSE); however, academic studies have not yet explored the role of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) in giving rise to GSE.By drawing on Social Comparative Theory, the current study aims to examine the impact of LMX on GSE.The current study used a cross-sectional research design with survey methodology.Data were collected from 114 students in three universities in the eastern region of China.The findings indicated that LMX did not predict GSE, β = -.12,t(112) = -1.26,p = .21.To conclude, the current study might be essential for building the basics for comprehending how LMX affects GSE among university students in the eastern region of China.
One of the most fruitful areas of self-efficacy study has focused on general self-efficacy (GSE).According to a definition provided by Eden (2001, p. 73), GSE is defined as "one's belief in one's overall competence to effect requisite performances across a wide variety of achievement situations."In other words, GSE emphasizes individuals' strong and all-encompassing beliefs about their capacities to deal with hardship and stress in the face of new obstacles and demands (Volz et al., 2018).It should be noted, however, that there have been few attempts to establish a direct relationship between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and GSE.The current work seeks to uncover a novel antecedent of GSE by concentrating on how LMX influences GSE.The research question that guides the current study is: Does LMX predict GSE among university students in the eastern region of China?The remainder of this study is organized as follows.A brief review of the literature is followed by an explanation of the methodology used.The findings of the current study are then presented, followed by a discussion and a conclusion.

LITERATURE REVIEW General Self-Efficacy
Factors found to be influencing GSE have been explored in several studies (Chen et al.,2019;Gourlay et al., 2022).For example, one study conducted by Gourlay et al. (2022) examined the trend impact of psychological processes on adolescents and young women in Kenya.The findings of their research showed that Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe (DREAMS) did not predict self-efficacy among a cohort of 1500 girls and young women aged between 13 and 22 in Kenyan settings (Gourlay et al., 2022).In another cross-sectional and correlational study, Chen et al.(2019) found that there was a positive relationship between Self-regulated learning ability, metacognitive ability, and GSE among college students in China.
Several studies have also recognized the critical role played by GSE in diminishing negative attitudes and behaviors.For example, according to Volz et al. (2018), patients from two German inpatient rehabilitation centers who believed in their GSE to deal with adversity in new and stressful situations were less likely to manifest depressive symptoms after stroke.In another study conducted by Li et al.(2022), patients who were 60 years or older and had higher overall self-efficacy were found to be less vulnerable to experiencing fragility, possibly because older adults were generally better able to adapt to stress and changes in life optimistically.Research conducted by Chen et al.(2019) has also shown that strong views about managing stress or overcoming obstacles in life were typically held by students who exhibited high levels of GSE when it came to creating learning objectives, choosing resources, and self-evaluation.
Given the significant influence that individuals' psychological states had on GSE (Chen et al., 2019;Gourlay et al., 2022), which in turn influenced a variety of attitudes and behaviors (Li et al., 2022;Volz et al., 2018), it follows that a large number of researchers have focused heavily on GSE's mediating role in organizational behavior studies (Cheng et al., 2020;Long et al., 2021;Stephanou & Tsoni, 2019).For example, in a cross-sectional study, Cheng et al. (2020) found that GSE mediated the relationship between the source of meaning in life and prosocial behaviors among 799 nursing students from three vocational colleges in China.
Although extant research has witnessed an increasing interest in understanding antecedents and outcomes of GSE as well as the role played by GSE as a mediator, few studies have reported the effect of leadership styles, in particular, the LMX on GSE.To explore this relationship, GSE was designated as the dependent variable in the current study to examine the impact of LMX on GSE among university students in the eastern region of China.

Leader-Member Exchange
According to Northouse (2021), LMX refers to two types of vertical linkages that exist between a leader and their followers: the first type of vertical linkage is considered to be an in-group that is formed based on strong support and social connection, and the second type of linkage is considered to be an outgroup that is established based on formal role responsibilities.Although several cross-sectional studies have examined the role of GSE as moderators and mediators, most of the extant research has been conducted to empirically and theoretically examine the impact of LMX on individuals' attitudes and behaviors (Mumtaz et al., 2022;Park et al., 2020;Tziner et al., 2020).For example, driven by the intrinsic tendency of internalized motivation, medical workers in China with higher scores in LMX would also have higher flow at work characterized by concentration and pleasure in intrinsic work motivation (Li et al., 2023).Likewise, motivated by the internal tendency to reciprocate, Israeli workers who were in-group members in their relationship with their leaders had been noted to be more active in completing tasks beyond the formal job description (Tziner et al.,2020).Further, according to Toscano (2022), when employees as in-group members in LMX relationships with their leaders feel well supported throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, they would perceive to have more trust and respect as well as deeper mutual bonding with their leaders, which could increase the satisfaction of their overall online work experience.
However, it is evident that academic studies, thus far, have not yet explored the role of LMX in giving rise to GSE.To address this gap in the literature, the current study aims to examine the influence of LMX on GSE.The researcher posits that when university students in the eastern region of China receive strong support and have social connections from their leaders, they are likely to form strong beliefs about their competency in handling difficult and stressful tasks in challenging situations.

Hypothesis Development
The researcher provides the following rationale or theoretical reasoning for this proposition.Homans (1958) proposed the Social Exchange Theory based on psychological theories and economic principles to explain the social structure of small groups in which people gain profits during interaction.According to the Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958), individuals' interdependences are deemed as the defining feature of social exchange, and individuals frequently engage in exchanges to obtain favorable outcomes for themselves (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).If good relationships can be established between a leader and their followers through the formation of ingroup members ties, then subordinates may get more tangible and intangible resources from leaders, such as job promotion and emotional support.These resources and supports can help assist followers in developing more positive psychological states, allowing them to better execute the work tasks assigned by the leaders.
The researcher's proposition is consistent with the previous study conducted by Heijden and Spurk (2019), which empirically demonstrated that academic staff in high-quality LMX relationships would reciprocate to their supervisors by positively responding to hard work through seeking novel working strategies.The findings of the study conducted by Zhang et al. (2023) also showed that because followers with low-quality LMX believed they could not receive the same level of benefits from their leaders as followers with highquality LMX, their psychological feelings would not only trigger negative emotional reactions toward their leaders, but increase their willingness to leave the organization.Additionally, it was also noted that followers with highquality LMX are more likely to feel that they can acquire significant work resources and higher status in organizations than followers with low -quality LMX (Liang et al., 2022).These perceptions about job resources and higher prestige in organizations can lead high-quality LMX followers to perceive that they encounter less environmental pressure at work (Liang et al., 2022).As a consequence, the researcher thus proposes the following hypothesis: H1: LMX positively predicts GSE.

METHODOLOGY Population and Sample
The current study used a non-experimental quantitative design with survey methodology.A convenient sampling sample method was utilized.The population for the current study was university students in the eastern region of China.Data were collected from 114 students in three universities in the eastern part of China.Based on the expected medium effect size of .15,power of .80,and a significance level of α= .05(Cohen, 1992), a sample size of 114 is sufficient to conduct a simple regression analysis for the current study.

Measure
The researcher created Chinese versions of measures for LMX by following Brislin's (1980) translation-back-translation procedure.To measure LMX, the LMX Scale developed by Liden and Graen (1995), was employed.The LMX scale has one dimension with seven items.The LMX utilizes a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.The score of the LMX scale is computed by summing responses across items and ranges from 7 to 35.The mean or average score of the LMX Scale is calculated by dividing the score of the LMX Scale by seven, which is the number of items on the AL Scale.Previous research showed that the LMX scale had acceptable validity and reliability.For the current study, Cronbach's alpha for the LMX scale was .76,indicating a high degree of internal consistency among the items on the scale (Yockey, 2018, p. 106).The means of the individual items ranged from 3.23 to 3.60, with a mean on the total scale of 23.20 (SD = 4.73).Overall, the participants' responses on the scale indicated that they possessed a moderate degree of LMX.The mean and standard deviation of the items of the LMX scale are provided in Table 1.The researcher created Chinese versions of measures for GSE by following Brislin's (1980) translation-back-translation procedure.To measure GSE, the GSE Scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem(1995), was employed.The GSE scale has one dimension with 10 items.The GSE utilizes a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 5 = exactly true.The score of the GSE scale is computed by summing responses across items and ranges from 1 to 10.The mean or average score of the GSE Scale is calculated by dividing the score of the GSE Scale by 10, which is the number of items on the GSE Scale.Previous research showed that the GSE scale had acceptable validity and reliability.For the current study, Cronbach's alpha for the GSE scale was .78,indicating a high degree of internal consistency among the items on the scale (Yockey, 2018, p. 106).The means of the individual items ranged from 3.02 to 3.38, with a mean on the total scale of 31.45 (SD = 7.30).Overall, the participants' responses on the scale indicated that they possessed a high degree of GSE.The mean and standard deviation of the items of the GSE scale are provided in Table 2.

RESEARCH RESULT
Table 1 displays the valid observations for the demographic variables.Specifically, with regard to the frequency for each category of Gender, 49(43%) males and 65(57%) females participated in the current study.
With regard to the frequency for each category of Age Group, the majority of the participants who took part in the current study mostly involved 34(29.8%)students who were between 18 and 20 years old, 57(50%) students who were between 21 and 23 years old, and 23(20.2%)students who were between 24 and 26 years old.
With regard to the frequency for each category of Level of Education, there are 89(78.1%)students studying at undergraduate school and 25(21.9%)students studying at graduate school took part in the current study.
In regard to the frequency for each category of Field of Study, the majority of students were studying in the field of Economics & Management and the field of Culture, Art, & Humanity, with 29(25.4%)students and 63(55.3%)students, respectively.Additionally, 22(19.3%)students were studying in the field of Science & Technology.Table 4 presents the sample size (N), minimum and maximum, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for the three items of the LMX.The means for each of the items on the scale ranged from 3.08 to 3.60.Because the skewness statistics of items of the LMX scale were between -0.14 and 0.19, which is less than two (West et al., 1995); and the kurtosis statistic of each item is between -0.94 and -0.58, which is less than seven (West et al., 1995), the data in the sample can be considered to have a normal distribution in the current study.Table 5 presents the sample size (N), minimum and maximum, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for the three items of the GSE.The means for each of the items on the scale ranged from 3.02 to 3.38.Because the skewness statistics of items of the LMX scale were between -0.25 and 0.08, which is less than two (West et al., 1995); and the kurtosis statistic of each item is between -1.27 and -0.87, which is less than seven (West et al., 1995), the data in the sample can be considered to have a normal distribution in the current study.Note.GSE = General Self-Efficacy.Table 7 displays the results of two independent samples t-tests.The results showed that there was not a statistically significant difference in LMX scores between male students and female students.Female students (M = 3.28, SD = 0.65) had the same score of LMX as male students (M = 3.37, SD = 0.70), t(112) = .70,p = .48,d = 0.13.
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine if there were significant differences in LMX among students of different Age Groups.The non-parametric analysis was performed because the variances were not equal for the three Age Groups.
Table 10 displays the results of two independent samples t-tests.The results showed that there is not a statistically significant difference in LMX scores between students from undergraduate schools and students from graduate schools.Students from undergraduate schools (M = 3.30, SD = 0.68) had the same score of LMX as students from graduate schools (M = 3.42, SD = 0.65), t(112) = 0.79, p = .43,d = .18.
The results also showed that there was not a statistically significant difference in GSE scores between students from undergraduate schools and students from graduate schools.Students from undergraduate schools (M = 3.17, SD = 0.74) had the same score of LMX as students from graduate schools (M = 3.07, SD = 0.72), t(112) = .59,p = .55,d = .14.Table 11 and Table 12 display the results for the one-way between subjects ANOVA.The results showed that the LMX scores did not vary based on Field of Study, F(2, 111) = 0.51, p = .61,ɳ 2 = .01.The GSE scores varied based on Field of Study, F(2, 111) = 3.76, p = .03,ɳ 2 = .06.This is a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988, p. 286) and indicates that Field of Study accounted for 6% of the variance in GSE.LSD's post hoc procedure indicated that students from the study field of Science & Technology scored significantly lower than those from the fields of study from Economics & Management and Culture, Art, & Humanity.Note.LMX = Leader-Member Exchange; GSE = General Self-Efficacy.
Table 13 displays the results of the Pearson correlation analysis.The results showed that there is no relationship between LMX and GSE, r(112) = -.12,p = .21.  (Yockey, 2018).As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, because the absolute value of the skewness statistic was less than two and the absolute value of the kurtosis statistic was less than 7 for both LMX and GSE, the scores for both LMX and GSE were treated as being normally distributed (West et al.,1995.As shown in Table 14, a regression analysis was conducted with LMX as the independent variable and GSE as the dependent variable.The researcher rejected H1 that LMX predicted GSE.LMX was not a significant predictor of GSE, β = -.12,t(112) = -1.26,p = .21.

DISCUSSION
The results of the statistical analyses for the demographic variable Gender demonstrated that there was no significant difference in LMX between male and female students.This finding suggests that both male and female students perceive that there is no distinction in how professors treat university students.In other words, professors not only provide equal resources for male and female students to fulfill their learning objectives, but they build equal levels of mutual trust and respect with male and female students.The results of the statistical analyses for the demographic variable Gender also demonstrated that there was no significant difference in GSE between male and female students.This finding suggests that both male and female students have the same level of confidence in coping with difficulties and challenges in their studies at university.
Moreover, the results of the statistical analyses for the demographic variable Level of Education demonstrated that there were no significant differences in LMX and GSE between students from graduate schools and those from undergraduate schools.The results of the statistical analyses for the demographic variable Age Group indicated that there were no significant differences in LMX and GSE among students who were 18-20 years old, 21-23 years old, and 24-26 years old.These findings could be explained by the fact that there isn't a big age gap between graduate and undergraduate students.In particular, because both graduate students and undergraduate students can be regarded as youngsters, there is no obvious difference in the way the professors treat students from undergraduate schools and graduate schools; therefore, there is no difference regarding the impact of LMX on their GSE.
Furthermore, the results of the statistical analyses for the demographic variable Field of Study showed that there was no significant difference in LMX among students from the fields of Science & Technology, Economics & Management, and Culture, Art, & Humanity.These results showed that all students perceive there is no difference in the way professors treat them regardless of which Fields of Study they are studying.However, the results indicated that there were significant differences in GSE among students from the fields of Science &Technology, Economics & Management, and Culture, Art, & Humanity.The results of the Post hoc test using LSD reported that students from the study field of Science & Technology feel less confident in coping with obstacles and challenges in learning than students in the study fields of Economics & Management and Culture, Art, & Humanity.These results may be explained by the consideration that the study field of Science & Technology requires students to have a great level of comprehension, logical thinking, and calculating capacities.Therefore, students studying in the field of Science & Technology are likely to experience increased study pressure and reduced selfefficacy.
Finally, the results revealed that there was no relationship between LMX and GSE.The research question examined whether LMX can predict GSE among university students in the eastern region of China.Based on the simple linear regression analysis results, the researcher rejects H1, suggesting that LMX does not predict GSE.This finding contradicts the empirical study conducted by Zhang et al. (2023), which suggests that because followers with high-quality LMX receive more benefits from their leaders than those with lowquality LMX, it causes followers with high-quality LMX to have positive emotional responses toward their leaders.This finding also contradicts the research conducted by Liang et al. (2022), which suggests that because followers with high-quality LMX receive more benefits from their leaders, it causes followers with high-quality LMX to believe that they would face less work pressure in the workplace.The reason for this is not completely clear, although it could be due to the convenient sampling technique, which may distort the results of the current study (McMillan, 2016, p. 123).In this regard, it is recommended that researchers in the future utilize a random sampling technique to"maximize the sample's representatives by eliminating bias" (Vogt, 2007).Given that this unexpected finding needs to be explained and viewed with caution, it is nevertheless advised that, according to Social comparative theory, educators cultivate close social bonds with their students in order to give them confidence in their ability to handle stress and challenges.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current study examined how LMX affected GSE by drawing on Social Exchange Theory.The simple regression analysis showed that LMX did not predict GSE using a .05level of significance.However, given the bias introduced by the convenient sampling approach in the current study, this finding should be viewed with caution.The current study may be crucial in laying the basis for understanding how LMX impacts GSE.In this regard, the current study is a significant first step toward investigating how LMX affects GSE among university students in the eastern region of China.

ADVANCED RESEARCH
Penelitian ini masih memiliki keterbatasan maka perlu dilakukan penelitian lanjutan terkait topik "The Impact of Leader-Member Exchange on General Self-Efficacy: Evidence from China" to perfect this research, as well as increase insight for readers.
FoS = Field of Study; EM = Economics and Management; CAH = Culture, Art, and Humanity, ST = Science and Technology.

Table 4 .
Descriptive Statistics for items of the LMX Scale

Table 5 .
Descriptive Statistics for items of the GSE Scale

Table 7 .
Results of the Independent-Samples t Tests with LMX and GSE as the Dependent Variables

Table 9 .
Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Test with AL as the Dependent VariableNote.AL = Altruistic Calling; AgeG = Age Group.
Figure 1.Results of the Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test with AL as the Dependent Variable Note.AL = Altruistic Calling; AgeG = Age Group.

Table 8 and
Table

Table 11
Results of the One-Way between Subjects ANOVA with GSE as the Dependent Variables

Table 12
Results of the Independent-Samples t Tests with LMX and GSE as the Dependent Variables

Table 14 .
Results of the Simple Regression Analysis with GSE as the Dependent