User:Alinenaroditsky/sandbox/leadermemberexchangetheory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"LMX" redirects here. For the sports car, see LMX Sirex. For the Mexican sports organization, see Liga MX.
The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers.[1] It suggests that leaders develop an exchange with each of their subordinates, and that the quality of these leader-member exchange relationships influences subordinates' responsibility, decisions, and access to resources and performance.[2] Relationships are based on trust and respect and are often emotional relationships that extend beyond the scope of employment.[3] Leader-member exchange may promote positive employment experiences and augment organizational effectiveness.[4] It is widely used by many managers and is replacing many of its predecessors.
Theory
[edit]The goal of LMX Theory is to explain the effects of leadership on members, teams, and organizations. According to the theory, leaders form strong trust, emotional, and respect-based relationships with some members of a team, but not with others.[3] LMX theory claims that leaders do not treat each subordinate the same. The work-related attitudes and behaviors of those subordinates depend on how they are treated by their leader.[5]
Antecedents of LMX
[edit]Dulebohn et al. identify three primary groups of antecedents: leader characteristics, follower characteristics, and interpersonal relationships.[7] Followers are evaluated by their competence, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness, positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and locus control.[7] Leaders, on the other hand, are evaluated based on supervisor's expectation of followers, contingent reward behavior, transformational leadership, extraversion, and agreeableness.[7] Although the leader takes a dominant role in creating an LMX relationship, the follower also plays an important part in creating the relationship. Interpersonal relationship variables that may affect this relationship are perceived similarity, affect/liking, integration, self promotion, assertiveness, and leader trust.[7] This variety of characteristics creates the basis for LMX and allows it to be successful or unsuccessful, depending on the present traits.
Of the follower characteristics, competence, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, locus of control, and positive affectivity are all positively correlated with LMX.[7] Negative affectivity and neuroticism are negatively correlated with LMX.[7] All of the listed leader characteristics are positively correlated with LMX.[7] With the exception of assertiveness, all of the interpersonal relationship variable correlated positively with LMX.[7] In an experiment run by Dulebohn et al. that measured the effects of various characteristics on LMX and its outcomes, leader behaviors and perceptions explained most of the variance.[7] This study suggests that it is up to the leader to form the relationships necessary for successful implementation of LMX.
Consequences of LMX
[edit]Whether LMX is successful can be measured by a multitude of consequences. Some of the consequences that can be measured include: turnover intentions, actual turnover, overall organizational citizenship behavior, affective commitment, normative commitment, general job satisfaction, satisfaction with supervisor, satisfaction with pay, procedural justice, distributive justice, empowerment, perceptions of politics, role ambiguity, and role conflict.[6] LMX typically decreases turnover intentions and actual turnover, as well as role ambiguity and role conflict.[6] LMX increases the other measures, particularly increasing perceptual and attitudinal outcomes. [6]
In their 1995 meta-analysis of LMX correlates and constructs, Gerstner & Day explain that research has generally found relationships between LMX and positive work performance and attitude measures, especially for members (as opposed to leaders).[8] That is, especially for members, LMX is associated with higher performance ratings, better objective performance, higher overall satisfaction, more satisfaction with supervisor, stronger organizational commitment, and more positive role perceptions. Gerstner & Day's meta-analysis used 79 studies to examine the correlates of LMX. Their analysis found a positive correlation between the member's perceptions of LMX and the leader's ratings of the member's job performance. It also found an even stronger positive correlation between the leader's perceptions of LMX and the leader's ratings of the member's job performance. Fortunately for some subordinates, Gerstner & Day explain that supervisors may have a tendency to rate a subordinate more favorably due to a positive LMX relationship. They further explain that LMX perceptions may cause a leader to form positive or negative expectations about an employee which can then affect actual employee performance rather than only performance ratings. This meta-analysis also found statistically significant positive correlations between LMX and objective performance (as opposed to subjective performance ratings), satisfaction with supervisor, overall satisfaction, organizational commitment, and role clarity. It found statistically significant negative correlations between LMX and role conflict and turnover intentions.[9]
LMX and Culture
[edit]Rockstuhl et al.'s 2012 meta-analysis of LMX theory and national culture correlates found that in Western cultures LMX is more strongly correlated with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), justice perceptions, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and leader trust than in Asian cultures.[5] This meta-analysis used 253 studies conducted in 23 countries to compare the differences in how LMX influenced work-related attitudes and behaviors such as task performance, OCB, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, job satisfaction, affective commitment, normative commitment, and turnover intentions between two different cultural configurations: horizontal-individualistic (Western countries) and vertical-collectivist (Asian countries). The analysis found that the relationships between LMX and citizenship behaviors, between LMX and justice outcomes, between LMX and job satisfaction, between LMX and turnover intentions, and between LMX and leader trust are stronger in horizontal-individualistic cultures than in vertical-collectivist cultures. The analysis also found that there is not a cultural difference in the relationships between LMX and task performance and between LMX and affective and normative organizational commitment.[5]
LMX and Citizenship Behaviors
[edit]Ilies et al.'s 2007 meta-analysis of LMX theory and citizenship behaviors found a positive relationship between LMX and citizenship behaviors.[10] The meta-analysis also found that the target of the citizenship behaviors has a moderating effect on the magnitude of the relationship between LMX and citizenship behaviors. That is, citizenship behaviors targeted at individuals are more strongly correlated with LMX than are citizenship behaviors targeted at an organization.[10]
The Evolution of LMX Theory
[edit]Much of what is called Leader–member exchange theory today can be traced back to the introduction of Vertical dyad linkage theory (VDL) in 1975. Vertical dyad linkage theory is now widely known as Leader-member Exchange Theory, although researchers such as George B. Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien maintain that current LMX theory is very different than early VDL work.[1] Previous leadership theories had assumed that all subordinates have similar characteristics and that all supervisors behaved in the same fashion with all their subordinates.[11] Gerstner & Day explain that traditional leadership theories attributed leadership effectiveness to personal characteristics of the leader, features of the situation, or an interaction between the two.[8] LMX seeks to provide a different perspective that treats each subordinate/supervisor pair as an individual dyad with its own relationships. According to LMX, the quality of this dyadic relationship predicts attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (such as those discussed above) at the individual, group, and organizational level.[8] In 1976, Graen published "Role-making processes in complex organizations" in the Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, further increasing awareness about LMX. Before this article was published, few researchers explored LMX, but after its publication, LMX became a widely researched and cited theory.[9]
By the 1980s, researchers in this field began transitioning from VDL to LMX, with the primary difference being a new focus specifically on jobs and task domains.[11] By the 1990s, LMX was becoming a substantial theory, integrating the previous theories of organizational citizenship behavior(OCB) and perceived organizational support (POS).[11] It was becoming increasingly clear that LMX was correlated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment.[8] In 1995 Graen and Uhl-Bien used four stages to explain how LMX theory has evolved over time. (These stages are discussed in more detail below.) During the first stage the theory primarily involved work socialization and vertical dyad linkage and the focus was on the analysis of differentiated dyads, that is, in-groups and out-groups.[8] In the second stage the focus of LMX was on the quality of the leader-member relationship and its outcomes.[8] The third stage involved the creation of a prescriptive approach to building dyadic relationships.[8] In the fourth stage, LMX moved beyond the dyad level and was assessed at the systems-level, that is, group and network levels.[8]
Throughout the 2000s and to present-day, Leader-member Exchange Theory has been researched extensively, adding more correlates and processes, as described in the Antecedents and Consequences sections above. LMX is evolving into a theory that crosses dyad-group levels.[11]
The Four Stages of LMX
[edit]In their 1995 paper titled "Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective," George B. Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien discuss the development of LMX from through four evolutionary stages.[1]
Stage 1: Vertical Dyad Linkage
[edit]Graen & Uhl-Bien explain that research into issues relating to Leader-Member Exchange began with studies on work socialization and Vertical Dyad Linkage which found that many managerial processes in organizations occurred on a dyadic basis, with managers forming differentiated relationships with those who reported to them.[1] Longitudinal studies of management teams were conducted in which managers and those who reported to them were asked to describe their work and working relationships in terms of inputs, process, and outcomes.[1] When asked to describe their manager's behavior, different employees gave very different descriptions of the same person.[1] Some employees described what are called "high-quality exchanges" (also known as "in-group"), which are "characterized by a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation."[1] Others described "low-quality exchanges" (also known as "out-group"), which are "characterized by low trust, respect, and obligation."[1] According to Graen & Uhl-Bien, early VDL research concluded that these differentiated relationships resulted from a manager's limited time and social resources, allowing him/her to form only a few higher-quality exchange relationships.[1]
Stage 2: Leader-Member Exchange
[edit]In the second stage, terminology shifted from Vertical Dyad Linkage to Leader-Member Exchange.[1] Graen & Uhl-Bien explain that VDL research was followed by a series of studies which moved the theory "beyond a description of the differentiated relationships in a work unit to an explanation of how these relationships develop and what the consequences of the relationships are for organizational functioning."[1] A number of studies analyzed the specific characteristics of LMX relationships and other studies analyzed the relationship between LMX and organizational outcomes/consequences.[1] Graen & Uhl-Bien describe the central concepts of LMX research at this time as: "(1) development of LMX relationships is influenced by characteristics and behaviors of leaders and members and occurs through a role-making process, and (2) higher-quality LMX relationships have very positive outcomes for leaders, followers, work units, and the organization in general."[1]
Stage 3: Leadership-Making
[edit]Graen & Uhl-Bien describe that the research in this stage moved beyond "in-groups" and "out-groups" and focused more on producing effective leadership process through the development of effective leadership relationships.[1] According to Graen & Uhl-Bien, the key difference in this stage is that it says that managers should make high-quality LMX relationships available to all employees, rather than having differentiated relationships among employees as described in the VDL approach.[1] This stage uses the Leadership Making model to provide a more prescriptive and practically useful model of leadership development. The idea of Leadership Making began with two longitudinal field experiments that analyzed what would happen if leaders were trained to give all of their subordinates the opportunity to develop a high-quality relationship.[1] Results showed that the performance of subordinates who took advantage of the opportunity to develop a high-quality LMX improved dramatically.[1] Overall, the performance of the work unit was enhanced by increasing the number of high-quality LMX relationships.[1] The Leadership Making model was developed based on these studies to emphasize the importance of forming high-quality relationships withing organizations and to outline a process for how these relationships might be formed and maintained in practice.[1] The model describes a process in which leader-member relationships go from a "stranger" phase (characterized by formal, contractual interactions) to an "acquaintance" stage (characterized by increased social exchanges and the sharing of information and resources on a personal and work level) to a level of "mature partnership" exchanges (characterized by "in kind" exchanges that are behavioral and emotional, loyalty, support, mutual respect, trust, and a high degree of incremental influence).[1]
Stage 4: Team-Making
[edit]At this stage Graen & Uhl-Bien propose that a systems-level perspective should be used to investigate how differentiated dyadic relationships combine to form larger, network systems.[1] These networks are what make up an organization's leadership structure, or the "pattern of leadership relationships among individuals throughout the organization."[1] Graen & Uhl-Bien explain that the leadership structure emerges from the network of relationships and mutual dependencies that are developed as organization members fulfill roles and complete tasks.[1] Investigation at this stage analyzes task interdependencies and the quality of the relationships that develop due to these interdependencies.[1] Specifically, research seeks to identify where more effective leadership relationships have a large impact on task performance as well as how differentiated relationships effect each other and the entire leadership structure.[1]
Practical Applications
[edit]According to a study ran by Harris, Wheeler, and Kacmar, LMX leads to job embeddedness, which then leads to higher job satisfaction.[12] Job embeddedness is also related to the many antecedents above and is a measurement of the extent to which people feel a part of their company.
When joining a team, it is important to join the inner circle, take on more than your share of administrative and other tasks in order to gain trust from your leaders. [citation needed]
The quality of the LMX relationship varies. It is most efficient on one of the two ends of the spectrum: either extremely low or extremely high. The size of the group, financial resources available, and the overall workload are also important. The theory can also work upwards as well. The leader can gain power by being a member of his or her manager's inner circle, which the leader can then share with subordinates. [citation needed]
The Leader-Member Exchange Theory can be utilized outside of the workplace. It can be applied to group projects for school, clubs, etc. By using LMX in such circumstances, you can learn more about how you see your team members. When labeling members as “out-group,” one must determine what traits deem someone a member of the out-group while paying careful consideration to the difference between facts and one’s own perception of events. The next step you must take requires you to re-establish the relationship with those in the out-group. In doing so, you will gain respect as a leader. It may also boost morale for those members of the out-group. However, make a mental note that those members will have their guards up at first when you try to give your support to them. Make it sincere by approaching each member one-on-one. Take time to get to know a little more about them. This can also help you learn more about what drives them. From that point on, try to keep the reconnection going by keeping in touch with those members. Make an effort to offer your guidance on any of their tasks if they need assistance. Your third and final step to apply the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is to offer some form of mentoring or coaching. This allows a type of opportunity for the member to advance in the group. Start first with low risk assignments. [citation needed]
Boundary Conditions and Limitations
[edit]The main limitation of leader–member exchange research is that it is not particularly helpful in describing the specific leader behaviors that promote high-quality relationships. At best it only implies generalities about the need for leaders to show trust, respect, openness, autonomy and discretion. Additionally, the theory involves the assumption that each individual is worthy of the same amount of trust, chance of project responsibility, and opportunity for advancement. This is not always the case. The members with the most talent will receive the better opportunities than those in the out-group, perhaps. Because of this reason, the leader must make sure that he or she is using the theory to help themselves be objective in the manners in which they deal with others. [citation needed]
The Future of LMX
[edit]While much work has been done on Leader-member Exchange (LMX) in the past forty years, LMX is still being actively researched. One of the main questions regards how LMX relationships form and how managers can most effectively create them.[3] Thus far, most large-scale studies have relied on existing dyads for their research. There exist many theory about how the relationship initially forms, yet there is little consensus among scientists.[3] Additionally, there is much to be learned about the context surrounding LMX, such as work culture. [13] Although some research has been done examining national culture and LMX, it is still being heavily researched.[13]
See also
[edit]- Social Exchange Theory
- Vertical dyad linkage theory
- Attribution (psychology)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership uniquely focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers. It suggests that leaders develop an exchange with each of their subordinates, and that the quality of these leader-member exchange relationships influences subordinates' responsibility, decisions, and access to resources and performance.[2] Relationships are based on trust and respect and are often emotional relationships that extend beyond the scope of employment.[3] Leader-member exchange may promote positive employment experiences and augment organizational effectiveness.[4] It is widely used by many managers and is replacing many of its predecessors.
Low LMX relationships are characterized by economic exchange based on formally agreed on, immediate, and balanced reciprocation of tangible assets, such as employment contracts focusing on pay for performance (P. M. Blau, 1964). On the other hand, high-LMX relationships increasingly engender feelings of mutual obligation and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Liden, Sparrowe,& Wayne, 1997), which render such relationships more social in nature. - useful information, we might want to explore these more
Tennley, do we have to keep what's already in the article? It's pretty bad and I feel like it would be easier to scrap it and start from scratch
Hey Aline, not sure when you wrote that, but I just copied everything from the existing page into here and put info into the appropriate sections. I did some editing and fixed some citations when possible. I wish there was a way to insert comments like you can do on Word. But I'm not sure how so I will just write some comments here: Yes, you are right, a lot of the stuff in the history section just sucks and/or has no citations but I'm leaving it for now and you can delete it if you want or we can wait to delete it until we have something else to put there or we find the appropriate citations (so we can just let it take up room for now). I don't know about you, but the articles I have read so far haven't had much history info, but if you have read some history stuff then feel free to delete what is in the history section (it is all from the current LMX page) and add what you want. Also, because of the info I took from the current page, there are now 3 sections that have no citations: the 3 stages of LMX, practical applications, and limitations. So obviously that is an issue. We need to either find the appropriate sources or find sources that talk about these topics and fix/re-write the sections. I have some stuff I can use in the practical applications section, and maybe some stuff for limitations. But nothing I have read so far talks about the 3 stages - did any of the sources you found talk about that? I am going to read the paper that talks about LMX and job behaviors so I will add to and cleanup that section.
Additional References:
Gerstner, Charlotte R., & Day, David V. (1997). "Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues." Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (6): 827-844. (TENNLEY IS READING)
Graen, G. B.; Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). "The Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective". Leadership Quarterly 6 (2): 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5. (TENNLEY WILL READ)
Katz & Kahn - cited below in the reference list from the existing WP page (TENNLEY WILL READ)
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader--member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208-1219. doi:10.1037/a0012678.
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. (Aline read)
Rockstuhl, Thomas, Dulebohn, James H., Ang, Soon, & Shore, Lynn M. (2012). "Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Culture: A Meta-Analysis of Correlates of LMX Across 23 Countries." Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (6): 1097-1130. (TENNLEY HAS READ)
Ilies, Remus, Nahrgang, Jennifer D. & Morgeson, Frederick P. (2007). "Leader–Member Exchange and Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1): 269-277. (TENNLEY IS READING)
Mazur, Karolina. (2012). "Leader-Member Exchange and Individual Performance. The Meta-analysis." Management 16 (2): 40-53. (TENNLEY IS READING)
Vidyarthi, P. R., Erdogan, B., Anand, S., Liden, R. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2014). One member, two leaders: Extending leader–member exchange theory to a dual leadership context. Journal of applied psychology, 99(3), 468.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2015). Leader–member exchange theory: A glimpse into the future. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange, 413.
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2015). Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory: 1 An Introduction and Overview. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange, 3. (Aline read)
Day, D. V., & Miscenko, D. (2015). Leader–member exchange (LMX): Construct evolution, contributions, and future prospects for advancing leadership theory.The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange, 9. (Aline read)
Outline
Summary of theory at top of page
I. History
II. Context
III. Theory
- A. Stages of LMX
- 1. Role Taking
- 2. Role Making
- 3. Routinization
IV. Empirical Results
- A. LMX and Job Performance
- B. LMX and Culture
- C. LMX and Citizenship Behaviors
V. Practical Applications
- A. Interventions
- B. Boundary conditions/Limitations
VI. Verification
VII. Limitations
VIII. See Also
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y Graen, G. B.; Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). "The Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective". Leadership Quarterly 6 (2): 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
- ^ a b Deluga, R, J (1998). "Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity". Group and Organization Management. 23 (2): 189–216. doi:10.1177/1059601198232006.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c d e Bauer, Tayla; Ergoden, Berrin (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. New York, NY 10016: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978018832617.
{{cite book}}
: Check|isbn=
value: length (help)CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ a b Liden, R. C.; Sparrowe, R.T.; Wayne, S.J. (1997). "Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future". Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 15: 47–119.
- ^ a b c Rockstuhl, Thomas, Dulebohn, James H., Ang, Soon, & Shore, Lynn M. (2012). "Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Culture: A Meta-Analysis of Correlates of LMX Across 23 Countries." Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (6): 1097-1130.
- ^ a b c d Dulebohn, James H.; Bommer, William H.; Liden, Robert C.; Brouer, Robyn L.; Ferris, Gerald R. (2012-11-01). "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. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280. ISSN 0149-2063.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Dulebohn, James; Bommer, William; Liden, Robert; Brouer, Robyn; Ferris, Gerald (6 November 2012). "A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange: Integrating the Past With an Eye Toward the Future". Journal of Management. 36 (6): 1715–1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Gerstner, Charlotte R., & Day, David V. (1997). "Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues." Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (6): 827-844.
- ^ a b Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
- ^ a b Ilies, Remus, Nahrgang, Jennifer D. & Morgeson, Frederick P. (2007). "Leader–Member Exchange and Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1): 269-277.
- ^ a b c d Day, David; Miscenko, Darja (2016). Bauer, Talya; Erdogan, Berrin (eds.). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Construct Evolution, Contributions, and Future Prospects for Advancing Leadership Theory. New York, NY 10016: Oxford University Press. pp. 9–28. ISBN 978-0-19-932617-4.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ Harris, Kenneth J.; Wheeler, Anthony R.; Kacmar, K. Michele (2011-04-01). "The mediating role of organizational job embeddedness in the LMX–outcomes relationships". The Leadership Quarterly. 22 (2): 271–281. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.003.
- ^ a b Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. A. Bryman et al, 311-325.