Business
Leader Member Exchange Theory
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory focuses on the unique relationships between leaders and their individual team members. It emphasizes that leaders develop different exchange relationships with each team member, leading to in-groups and out-groups. In-groups receive more attention, resources, and support, while out-groups may experience less favorable treatment.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
12 Key excerpts on "Leader Member Exchange Theory"
eBook - ePubRelational Leadership
Theory, Practice and Development
- Nicholas Clarke(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
This chapter provides an overview of the most researched area of relational leadership from an entity perspective, namely that which has focused on leader–member exchange. The term member in this instance is synonymous with follower. Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory captures the quality of the interpersonal relationship that exists between a leader and a follower, based upon the notion that successive social exchanges in the leadership relationship determine a range of work-related outcomes (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Molm, Collett, & Schaefer, 2007). The theory is one of the most significant for our understanding of leadership in that it places followers, and importantly their perceptions of their leader, central to understanding the consequences or effects of leadership. This is in sharp contrast to previous leadership theories, which tended to assume the effects of leadership were determined primarily by the characteristics (such as personality) or behaviours that leaders displayed. The theory holds that it is how followers perceive these characteristics and behaviours that is key to determining leadership effects, and these occur through the quality of relationship that develops between leaders and followers. An overview is provided as to how high-quality relationships are thought to come about between leaders and followers. Next, findings from research are highlighted which has identified a number of factors (or antecedents) that appear to influence this. This then leads to a discussion on interventions that have been found to improve the quality of leader–member exchange to inform practice in this area.Leader–member exchange (LMX)This theory posits that high-quality leader–member relationships reflect the presence of high levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation between both parties involved in the relationship. Such high degrees of mutuality in these areas result in a situation where leaders provide support well beyond basic contract assistance. Followers then respond with behaviours that exceed those normally expected through typical employment contract requests (Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000; Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). For example, research has demonstrated that followers in high LMX relationships are more likely to respond positively to difficult challenges put to them by leaders. The theory also recognises that leaders do not form the same quality of relationships with all followers. This contrasts with previous notions of leadership that tended to assume leader characteristics and/or behaviours resulted in effective leadership consequences across all followers irrespective of the context.
eBook - PDF- Alan Bryman, David Collinson, Keith Grint, Brad Jackson, Mary Uhl-Bien, Alan Bryman, David Collinson, Keith Grint, Brad Jackson, Mary Uhl-Bien(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications Ltd(Publisher)
23 Leader–Member Exchange: Recent Research Findings and Prospects for the Future S m r i t i A n a n d , J i a H u , R o b e r t C . L i d e n a n d P r a j y a R . V i d y a r t h i INTRODUCTION Leader – member exchange (LMX) theory is rooted in the principle that each leader – follower relationship within a work group is unique, varies in quality, and should be studied as a dyad. LMX theory rejects the practice in other leader-ship approaches of averaging the perceptions that each follower holds of the leader in order to determine leadership style (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Since the inception of LMX theory, a number of studies have shown that the dyadic relationship quality develops quite early, and remains generally stable through the life of the dyad (e.g., Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). The LMX development process is heavily influenced by affect, which contributes toward the growth of mutual trust, liking, and respect. Some of the determinants of LMX are perceived similarity and liking between leader and member, expecta-tions from each other, leader delegation, and member performance (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden et al., 1993). Drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), LMX literature maintains that dyadic relationship quality exerts significant influence on a wide variety of organizational outcomes, such as in-role performance, citizen-ship behaviors, overall job satisfaction, and turnover intentions (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). In this chapter, we review developments in LMX theory and research since the last compre-hensive review by Erdogan and Liden (2002). Therefore, this review is based on empirical and theoretical papers cited in social sciences indexes since 2002.
eBook - PDFEvent Leadership
Theory and Methods for Event Management and Tourism
- Emma Abson(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Goodfellow Publishers(Publisher)
A leader-member exchange (LMX) perspective is one of these key theoretical developments, which has increased in popularity over the last 20 years. In the late 1970s and 1980s, researchers began to find that leaders needed to influence more than just their followers; they also needed to influence their own managers, peers and external stakeholders (Kaplan, 1984; Mintzberg, 1973). This viewpoint was, in effect, a criticism of the transformational leadership style theories; researchers in those areas were not sufficiently concerned with the influence process and the actions or interactions of other team members. One key response to emerge from this criticism is the leader-member exchange theory (Dansereau et al., 1975) and its precursor, the vertical dyad linkage 54 Event Leadership model. Unlike transformational leadership, LMX theory suggests that leaders do not treat all subordinates the same – instead, they develop an exchange with their direct reports, and it is the quality of that exchange that influences performance and effectiveness (Dionne et al., 2014; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995a). This body of work therefore shifts the focus from specific leadership styles towards the view that leadership is an influence process, in which relationships matter. It doesn’t, however, stray far from the dominant discourse in leadership studies because the focus is still on what the leader does and how the leader treats those following them. In LMX, the domains of leadership therefore consist of leader, follower and relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995a), and leadership is viewed “ …as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal ” (Northouse, 2017, p. 7). The central proposition in LMX then is that leaders differentiate the way they treat their follow-ers through the formation of different types of work-related exchanges.
eBook - PDF- George B. Graen, Joan A. Graen(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Information Age Publishing(Publisher)
In return, they shared some duties with the leader, were more committed to the leader, and generally worked harder than LQ LMX followers (Yukl, 1998). Thus, LMX differs from traditional theories of leadership in that it focuses on the dyadic role making interactions between supervisors and subordinates and advocates a large role for followers in workgroup leader-ship. LMX theory rests on the premise that leaders and followers also develop an interpersonal exchange relationship that determines the mutual roles a follower and leader will perform in a work group (Graen, 1976) and that these interpersonal exchange relationships vary across individual followers in a group (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). LMX theory originally took an economic, transac-tional view of dyadic leadership, but refinements of the theory have expanded LMX to include both economic transactional and social trans-formational leadership (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These authors describe the LMX model as a social exchange approach to leadership and describe how supervisors and subordinates develop partnerships that allow for effective leadership to occur. These HQ LMX partnerships (or mature relationships) focus on the role making and the working relation-ship between the supervisor and subordinate and include the three neces-sary dimensions of mutual respect, trust, and obligation. The Leader-Member Exchange Development Process Graen (1976) proposed the first theoretical model of the development of leader-member exchanges. The model integrated work from several areas into a reciprocal causation framework. He proposed that there is an iterative behavioral and attributional process called role making interaction that determines the nature of the LMX. After several iterations of the mutual role making process, the nature of the leader-follower exchange begins to shape both the new leader and follower roles and their unique LMX relationship.
eBook - PDF- George B. Graen(Author)
- 2002(Publication Date)
- Information Age Publishing(Publisher)
In the next section, we expand our examination of leader-ship and workforce diversity by examining leadership at the dyadic level through LMX. LMX AND DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has become one of the most significant advancements in leadership in the past three decades (e.g., Graen, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Spar-rowe, & Wayne, 1997). Focusing on how leaders develop unique relationships with each of their subordinates, LMX challenged the traditional assumption that leaders treat all subordinates in a uni-form manner. Thus, LMX, by its very nature, appears to fit well with contemporary organizational environments characterized by work-force diversity, downsizing and restructuring, resulting in increased manager spans of control, yet the need to craft individual (not col-lective) employment relationships and psychological contracts with each employee. Although LMX theory has been tested empirically in numerous studies and refined over the years, there has been little examination of LMX relative to workforce diversity. There has been some work that has investigated LMX relative to gender similarity (Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; McClane, 1991), more extensive indices of relational demography (Epitropaki & Martin, 1999), and employee disability (Colella & Varma, 2001). However, few if any systematic efforts have been made to investigate the broader considerations of workforce diversity initi-atives as they relate to LMX leadership. Plainly stated, we feel that LMX relationships are at the core of a successful diversity manage-ment initiative. LMX interactions develop and reflect interpersonal relationships. A leader-member exchange represents a relationship involving both members of a dyad involved in interdependent patterns of behavior, sharing outcomes and perceptions (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986). Critical to the effectiveness of diversity initiatives is how LMX relationships develop.
eBook - ePubEffective Leadership
Theory, Cases, and Applications
- Ronald H. Humphrey(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
Do you treat everyone the same, or do you treat your friends and favorite coworkers differently than you treat casual acquaintances or other coworkers? Perhaps you are more open, relaxed, and friendly with your favorite coworkers, perhaps even joke around a little with them and discuss personal issues. Perhaps with other coworkers you are polite, but your interactions are briefer and revolve more closely around specific work tasks. In the same way, leaders may have close, friendly, and personal relationships with some coworkers and subordinates and more formal, impersonal relationships with other teammates or subordinates.Some leadership models assume that leaders have a specific leadership style, for example, a task leadership style, which they use with everyone. In contrast, leader-member exchange (LMX) theorists argue that leaders have individualized, personal relationships with each member of their group (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987). For example, with one group member, the leader may have a very friendly, relationship-oriented relationship. With a second member, the leader may have a moderately friendly connection. And with a third person, the leader may have purely task-oriented interactions. Consequently, leaders use a variety of leadership styles according to the type of relationship they have with each person. LMX researchers use the term dyadic relationship to refer to the one-on-one relationship between a follower and a leader (a dyad consists of two people who are linked in some way).Although leader-member exchange theory focuses on individualized relationships, researchers often collapse the relationships into high and low relationship quality groups. The high quality relationships are often referred to as the in-group or cadre; whereas the low quality relationship groups are referred to as the out-group or hired hands.
No longer available |Learn more- Rahel Rüth(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- WFA Medien Verlag(Publisher)
In 1972 Graen and colleagues first directed the attention of the field of leadership research to the dyadic work relationship between supervisors (leaders) and their subordinates (members). They argued that an Average Leadership Style (ALS), which is the general leadership style of a supervisor towards the group of his subordinates, could not sufficiently explain variations in leader behavior. Building on their observations, Danserau and colleagues (1973) proposed the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model, thus shifting focus from the behavior of a leader towards his “members-in-general” (Dansereau et al., 1973, p. 187), to the behavior of a leader towards a member-in-particular. The concept stresses that the individual personality and situation of members significantly influences the relationship between leader and member. From then on the particular relationships between a leader and each of his assigned members became the basic unit of analysis. The vertical dyad is thereby composed of three defining elements: First, a superior, second, a subordinate and third, a set of exchange relationships between the two (Graen et al., 1977). Focusing on the latter, VDL theory was developed further and emerged to be known as “Leader-Member Exchange” (LMX) theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975). As LMX literature thus studies the exchange relationship between leader and member, the theory is rooted in Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Settoon et al., 1996), which examines social exchanges in various contexts.Although much research has been conducted on LMX since the construct’s development in the 1970s (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Rockstuhl et al., 2012), scholars criticize that little theorizing groundwork has been presented, research has not been consolidated and literature is discordant even about the construct’s basic definition (Schriesheim et al., 1999). However, the majority of studies on LMX agree that the nature of the construct can be described as the quality of the exchange relationship between supervisors and subordinates (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Furthermore, consistency among researchers is found in the construct’s basic assumptions. As the theory is rooted in SET, scholars agree that the interactions between leaders and members are interdependent and contingent on the actions of the respective partner (Blau, 1964; Cropanzo & Mitchell, 2005). This implicates that LMX can be measured along a continuum reaching from high-quality exchange towards low-quality exchange (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). High-quality exchange is thereby marked by feelings of mutual obligation and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Liden et al., 1997) whereas low-quality relationships are defined by a mere economic, formally agreed upon exchange (Blau, 1964). Although researchers agree that high-quality LMX contains reciprocity (Brower et al., 2000), this reciprocity is not necessarily a balanced one. Research states that the assessment of LMX quality can vary between members of a LM-Dyad, with one partner rating it very high while the other partner is considering it to be low (Gerstner & Day, 1997).
eBook - PDF- Linda L. Neider, Chester A. Schriesheim(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Information Age Publishing(Publisher)
High quality leader-member exchanges are characterized as involving subordinates who have good working relationships with leaders. They often know where they stand with the leader in terms of receiving feedback on perfor-mance. Yukl (1998) also stated that the high quality LMX relationship is characterized by a high degree of loyalty and trust. Thibodeaux and Lowe (1996) reported that followers in high leader-member exchange relation-ships also reported experiencing supervisory coaching. This suggests that for the leader to have relationships that go beyond traditional supervision of subordinates high quality leader-member exchange relationships must Leader-member Exchange at the Team Level 79 exist. In a study explicating new directions for mentoring research, McManus and Russell (1997) suggested that obtaining in-group status may be a prerequisite for subordinates to receive coaching from their supervisors. Thus, in a team context, high quality leader member exchange relationships may facilitate the emergence of the LTX process. Thus: Proposition 1: Leader-member exchange will be positively related to the LTX dimension of leader-team cohesiveness. Proposition 2: Leader-member exchange will be positively related to the LTX dimension of leader-team social interaction process. Proposition 3: Leader-member exchange will be positively related to the LTX dimension of leader-team leader-team climate. Team Environment and LTX With the increased use of teams as an intervention strategy for improv-ing organizational effectiveness and work outcomes, leadership approaches that facilitate the development of effective teams continue to be explored. Team members and managers often share decision making responsibility (Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995) and the quality of member exchange (CWX) may influence the confidence that the leader places in the team. Similarly, the quality of team-member exchanges reflects the dynamics within the team.
eBook - PDF- George B. Graen, Joan A. Graen(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Information Age Publishing(Publisher)
In this process, we will review basic concepts about network content and structure, then theorize about how they might influence the leader-member relationship. We will address circumstances within a leader-member exchange relationship that may trigger particular net-working behaviors. Finally, we will produce a set of propositions that encapsulate the premises developed in the chapter. BACKGROUND The negotiated relationship between leaders and followers, or members, lies at the center of leader member exchange (LMX) theory. Leaders and Network Factors in Leader-Member Relationships 65 followers work out their relationship together. Some leaders and their fol-lowers have positive, high quality relationships, but others have compara-tively low quality relationships. Members with high quality relationships may share leadership and receive greater resources than members with lower quality relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The human context surrounding the leader and the member influ-ences formation of their relationship, as does demographic similarity (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996). Additionally, a host of LMX literature shows that leaders who have resources to distribute, or discretion, have a greater ability to manipulate or control the quality of the LMX relationship (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Network theories indicate that interlaced social structures also affect the quality and perceptions of the LMX relationship. They further imply that the nature of the LMX relationship may impact some network-building behaviors by leaders or members. We begin our examination of these net-work effects by discussing attributes of relations such as friendship and advising, then we will move into structural concepts such as clique mem-bership, ego networks, and centrality. In order to apply network theories to leader-member relationships, an explanation of some essential terms will be helpful.
eBook - ePubMaturing Leadership
How Adult Development Impacts Leadership
- Jonathan Reams(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Emerald Publishing Limited(Publisher)
Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 1997 ). The LMX model describes how effective leader–follower dyadic relationships develop over time and through a role-making process and exchange dynamics.LMX theory has been used to study dyadic relationships from four perspectives: (1) differences in LMX relationships within groups (in-group and out-group effect); (2) LMX relationships characteristics and their outcomes; (3) a description of dyadic relationship building; and (4) LMX relationships within groups and networks (Gerstner & Day, 1997 ; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ). The first perspective arose from the work described above that suggested that leaders may treat subordinates differently, that is, inconsistently, and therefore they may become leaders for some group members (in-group members) and not others (out-group members). This finding gave rise to the second perspective, that LMX relationships were worthy of consideration as a viable unit of study. The third stage of LMX research, how leader–follower relationships develop, and especially how high-quality leadership relationships develop, is the theoretical focus of interest here.What are the differences in how high-quality LMX relationships develop over time as compared to low-quality LMX relationships? Higher-quality LMX relationships can be described as those that develop into partnerships, and which have greater levels of mutual respect for the capabilities of the other, anticipation of deep reciprocal trust, and expectation that a mutual obligation will increase with time. They are the more effective and mature leadership relationships and are those in which more effective influence gives rise to more effective outcomes such as greater reciprocal influence, followers taking more initiative, career risks and being better organizational citizens (Crouch & Yetton, 1988 ; Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986 ; Fairhurst, 1993 ; Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989 ; Graen, 1989
- Gerard P. Hodgkinson, J. Kevin Ford, Gerard P. Hodgkinson, J. Kevin Ford(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
The most popular theoretical model to explain LMX development is the “Leadership-Making Model” (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1991; Uhl-Bien and Graen, 1995). This model was based on the earlier Role-Making Model of Leadership proposed by Graen (1976), which in turn was based on Kahn and colleagues’ role theory (see Kahn et al. , 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978). The role theory describes the process through which individuals develop roles via dyadic exchanges (see Graen, 2005, for comparison of different approaches). Three stages make up the Leadership-Making Model: the “stranger stage” (role taking), the “acquaintance stage” (role making), and the “maturity stage” (role routinization) (see also the three-phase model of LMX development by Scandura and Lankau, 1996). The first stage is the stranger stage (role tak-ing), where the leader and subordinate have little knowledge of each other and occupy interdependent roles. The nature of the exchanges between the leader and subordinate are based on the job description and requirements of the work. Leaders provide sufficient resources required for the subordinate to do A R EVIEW OF L EADER –M EMBER E XCHANGE R ESEARCH 57 their work and, in turn, the subordinate only does what his or her job requires. Exchanges are based strictly on the employment contract, and exchange re-ciprocation is essentially immediate. From this situation the leader or subordi-nate might make, “an ‘offer’ for an improved working relationship through career-orientated social exchange” (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 230). The leader or subordinate might initiate social exchanges that can lead to a relationship that goes beyond the stranger stage, e.g., the leader might give a challenging task to the subordinate. Whether or not the subordinate accepts this “offer,” the relationship can move to the second stage of development. The acquaintance stage (role making) is when the nature of the leader– subordinate relationship becomes defined.
eBook - PDF- Terri A. Scandura, Edwin Mouriño(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Information Age Publishing(Publisher)
J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leader–mem- ber exchange approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 243–263. Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderon & M. F. Petersom (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 188 J. H. STEPHENSON Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member ex- change (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63–113. Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Gender and impression manage- ment: Playing the promotion game, Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 77–89. Smedley, K., & Whitten, H. (2006). Age matters: Employing, motivating and managing older employees. Hampshire, England: Gower. Steinberg, M., Walley, L., Tyman, R., & Donald, K. (1998). Too old to work? In M. Patrickson, & L. Hartmann (Eds.), Managing an ageing workforce (pp. 53–68). Warriewood, Australia: Woodslane. Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader–member exchange as a mod- erator of the relationship between work group diversity and team perfor- mance. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 507–535. Stoney, C., & Roberts, M. (2003). The case of older workers at Tesco: An examination of attitudes, assumptions and attributes. Working Paper No. 53. Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration, Ontario, Canada. Subeliani, D., & Tsogas. G. (2005). Managing diversity in the Netherlands: A case study of Rabobank. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 831–851. Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero, L. A. (2009). Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in work at- titudes. Career Development International, 14(3), 284–302. Taylor, P., & Walker, A. (1998). Policies and practices towards older workers: A framework for comparative research.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
