A640.5.2.RB – LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY OF LEADERSHIP
According to Northouse (2015), Leader-Member Theory (LMX) can be best understood within the leadership-making model of Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991). Northouse further indicated that Graen and Uhl-Bien advocated that leaders should create a special relationship with all followers. Leaders should offer each member the opportunity to take on new roles and responsibilities. Also, leaders should nurture high-quality exchanges with their supporters. Instead of concentrating on the distinctions between the in and out- group members, the leadership-making model recommended that leaders should consider looking for different avenues to build trust and respect with all their followers and creating the entire work unit an in-group accordingly (Northouse, 2015 p.145).
Individuals or members who exhibit a higher standard of efficiency have more tendencies of willingness to work harder than required, for leaders that invest in high-quality relationships with them. Since organizational leaders have very restricted time, they prone to hone in their attention to members of their team who maximizes the outcome of their leadership. They are what are called the in-group. The in-group’s relationship with their leader encompasses mutual liking, trust, and respect. They receive symbiotic attention, given more access to information, and the leaders are more open to state their concerns to the in-group. Leaders have higher tendencies to consider the in-groups consistent promotions, giving them autonomy to select work assignments, with full support from the leaders.
I once worked with a transactional leader who practiced LMX. At first, I felt accomplished and proud that she has taken interest with my excellent job performance. Although my position in the HR department at that time was not a managerial position, she has given me the autonomy to make decisions as I see fit to get things done on time. Whenever she is out of office, she made it a point that the other four HR staff knew that they were to rely on my recommendation(s) if needed. Her trust so blinded me that I did not realize, the other four members of the HR team were slowly resenting me. They have been with the department much longer than I have and they felt that they are more knowledgeable than I am. Our HR Specialist started to question my decision-making and begun to criticize my work.
One day, our HR Generalist decided to retire and left us with an open position. Mrs. C. who was out on sick leave at that time gave me the autonomy to review applications from an employment agency and decide to select the incumbent for a temp-to-hire work condition. During this transition, our office was under renovation that we have to a temporary move to our Student Center. Mrs. C. was temporarily relocated outside the office where we were. She relied heavily on my feedback regarding the performance of our team. I did not realize that the new temporary employee was going behind my back reporting things to Mrs. C. of his observations of how our HR Specialist was behaving towards him and me. He wanted to be in the in-group, and he thought that that was his way in to be a full-time employee.
Few weeks have passed since I have hired our new HR Generalist, Mrs. C. called me in her office. She told me what the Generalist has been telling her and she wanted to know if it were all true. I cannot confirm all the information that was given to her since I have not observed the incidents happening. She commented that if I want to be one day her replacement when she retires, I need to be her eyes and ears in the office and that I need to act like our new Generalist. It is not tattle-telling as for how she worded it; it was how I should do my job. I told Mrs. C. that it is not my place to tell her how other staff treats other employees. It is the employees’ responsibility to let Mrs. C. know of their dissatisfaction if I was not able to resolve the issue or concern. From that they on, I became a member of the out-group since I did not accept her proposition of quid pro quo. I do what she wanted; I will surely have her position when she retires.
Zhao, Hongdan (2015) conducted research on the leader-member exchange differentiation and team creativity. The primary focus of the Zhao’s research was to explore LMX differentiation on team activity through a process moderated by a mediation model. The concentration of the analysis model was on the mediating role of relationship conflict in linking LMX with team creativity and the moderating role of team-member exchange (TMX) median in influencing the mediation (Hongdan, 2015). The controlled intervention paradigm helps in the breakthrough of understanding the mediating approach theoretically which supports the significant impact of LMX on the creativity of the team.
Zhao’s study, though successful, has its limitations. For example, the research was conducted in one of the organizations in China. There is a high possibility that organizational policy and culture impacted the results. Utilization of external sampling can be very beneficial for the enhancement of external validity effect. There was also a case where the study observed LMX differentiation activities within teams varies between settings. In the study, employees were regarded and engaged based on their specific needs. Such activity resulted to personal and job satisfactions. The result emphasizes that LMX differentiation does not necessitate impairment on the creativity of the team.
In summary, Zhao’s study confirms Northouse description of LMX theory. According to Northouse (2015), LMX theory has useful and destructive features. One positive feature of LMX theory is that it is unique where its primary focus of the leadership technique is the leader-member relationship. It channels awareness that open communication between leaders and members is imperative to the success of organizational outcomes. The negative feature of LMX theory is that the in-group perceived inequalities can negatively impact the out-group members’ behavior or attitudes. Leaders may be biased or prejudiced towards the out-group members appearing to be unfair and discriminatory.
References:
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). Relationship-Based Approach To Leadership:
Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership Over 25 Years:
Applying A Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly Vol. 6 No. 2
Northouse, Peter (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publishing
Zhao, Hongdan (2015). Leader-member exchange differentiation and team creativity: A
moderated mediation study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36
Iss: 7, pp.798 – 815. Retrieved from:
Comments
Post a Comment