To briefly summarize, the findings on leader and subordinate gender influencing LMX are extremely inconsistent. It seems that gender could indeed influence LMX, but in what way, is unfortunately still unclear. It is not yet possible to describe what role gender plays in LMX relationships. With regards to OCB, women are found to show a higher level than men. They are often more invested in their jobs, and have a bigger wish of being involved in the organization. However, the relationship between gender and LMX is not moderated by gender.

Implications

It is quite difficult to describe theoretical and practical implications of this review, as the results are very inconsistent. However, it is possible to conclude that making people aware of gender stereotypes and biases on the work floor, would likely be fruitful. Stereotypes is a topic that has been extensively discussed many times, and often without results. However, maybe discussing leadership specifically, could lead to more. Men and women should be made aware of how role congruity is not always efficient, and that looking past leader and/or subordinate gender in evaluations is important. Once more is known about the role of gender in LMX relationships, scholars could develop trainings, seminars, lectures, etc. that discuss gender-related issues and how to deal with these.

Limitations and future research

As with any review, study, or experiment, there are several limitations to this literature review. First of all, the limitations of the studies discussed obviously affect this review as well. These include the insufficient sizes of samples and their lack of generalizability. In other words, some of the samples were too small and specific. An example of this is the study by Estiri et al., in which the sample only consisted of 380 Iranian hotel employees. The specificity of the culture and job makes that the results of this study cannot be considered representative of other cultures or work fields.
Furthermore, there is unfortunately always a chance of publication bias being present. An example is the review by Goertzen and Fritz (2004), in which was stated that Bauer and Green (1996) were disappointed by their results. These authors stated their disappointment, but it is likely that other authors leave out certain results or information due to such disappointment. Another limitation of the studies discussed is the lack of longitudinal studies, as this type of study is necessary to detect variable patterns over time. Moreover, the lack of control groups of some studies is unfortunate, as control groups are essential for comparison.

On top of the limitations of the studies discussed, the literature review itself has some limi