Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)

• News• Quiz• Multiple-Linkage Model• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) & Vertical

Dyad Linkage (VDL)• Team Task

Question: what is the relationship between leaders & followers & how does

that affect response?

Multiple-Linkage Model (Yukl, 1994)

• Recognizes complexity in formal organizations• Incorporates other theories• Leaders have short (tactical) and long term (strategic) impact• Short term relies on skillful correction of deficiencies of intervening

variables in the work unit• Long term relies on leader changing situational variables to be more

favorable (e.g., strategic planning, policy formation, program development, organizational change, political activity, etc. )

Short-term

Long-term

Extent to which these are appropriately used will reflect the leader’s success

Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Model

• Mission success• Member well being &

commitment• Internal integration• External adaptability

• Technical• Cognitive• Social• Personality• Motivation• Values

• Analysis• Intent

formation

Influence• Directive• Contingent• Ach-oriented• Persuasive• Facilitative• Supportive• Participative• Delegative

• Legitimate• Reward• Coercive• Information• Ecological

• Responsibilities• Constraints• Opportunities

• Resources• Structures• Procedures• Climate and culture• Strategic capabilities• Professional attributes• External relationships

Uncontrollable factors

• Task role clarity• Task proficiency• Motivation & effort

confidence• Teamwork & cohesion• Professional conduct• Resilience

• Professional image & reputation• Trust & confidence

in Ldr• Support for the Ldr

• Expert• Reference• Connection

Leader characteristics Personal power

Leaderbehavior

Direct

Indirect

Position power Task, group, system, institution & environ.

characteristics

Individual /group behavior, capabilities

& performance Essential Outcomes

Secondary outcomes

Modification of Yukl’s Model

http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfli-ilfc/lea/conc/ch8-eng.asp

Leader Variables

Situational Variables

Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) / Leader-Member Relations (LMX)

• Think of a work/team situation in which there have been an “in-group (close to the boss) and “out-group” (well established but just not given those special tasks)

• How what influenced the formation of those two groups?

• What did the boss expect of each group? How did s/he treat them differently?

• What were advantages and disadvantages of being in each group?

• How did the groups perceive each other?• What was the effect on the work environment &

relationships?

Vertical-Dyad Linkage (VDL)Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

(Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973)

• While most leadership theories account for the impact of leadership on groups or the organization as a whole, Leader-Member Exchange Theory uniquely focuses on the Leader-Follower dyad.

• Not every follower is treated the same by the leader due to time and resources. This differential treatment, expectation, and exchange separates followers into two groups: the “in-group” and “out-group”

• Interaction varies from dyad to dyad, exchanging privilege for performance, & focuses on quality of interaction

• Negotiating latitude: as relationship evolves, the leader enables the role incumbent to further define his/her own role

Perceptions of the “out-group” when LMX is not going well

The Role theory of Katz and Kuhn (1966) is the original theoretical base of the LMX (Graen, 1976). Leaders accomplish their work through role sets, in which the leader is most influential. The leader communicates to the member a set of expectations regarding the appropriate role behavior of the member (role expectation). The member then receives and interprets these sent expectations (received role) and may modify his or her role behavior. Finally, the member's role behavior transmits feedback to the leader (monitored behavior). Burns and Otte (1999) describe the three stages:

Phase 1: Role-taking as leaders and members come to understand how the other views and desires respect, the leader communicates role expectations to the member, with no reciprocal contribution from the member.

Phase 2: Role-making is the trust that develops in order for leaders and members to further extend the relationship and influence over each other's attitudes and behaviors. Both contribute to role re-definition and this is where in/out work groups are differentiated

Phase 3: Role-routinization of the social exchange pattern becomes established and routine

http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/power_and_leadership.htm

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)Vertical-Dyad Linkage (VDL)

Leader

SubordinateOther Subordinates--

Viewed as having less potential, interest, or opportunity

“Out-Group”

• Comply with basic role requirements• Accept legitimate direction• Standard benefits and compensation

• Alienation• Apathy• Hostility• Low performance

“In-Group”

• Unstructured tasks• Volunteer extra• Additional responsibilities• Special projects

•Leadership potential•Competency •Compatibility•Agreement•Personality •Loyalty•Commitment

Perceived Equity or Inequity

• Inside information• Influence decisions• Task assignment• Job latitude• Support• Attention

High----Negotiating Latitude-----Low

High Power Leaders give more negotiating latitude to high power employees)

Strengths of LMX

• As a descriptive theory, it notes the importance of the existence of in-groups and out-groups within an organization

• The LMX theory is unique as the only leadership theory that makes the the dyadic relationship the central factor of the leadership process

• LMX directs our attention to the importance of leadership communication and relationships

• Research substantiates how the practice of the LMX theory is related to positive organizational outcomes

http://www.d.umn.edu/~stau0106/group/LMX.doc

Strengths & Weaknesses of LMX

Weaknesses of LMX

http://www.d.umn.edu/~stau0106/group/LMX.doc

• The LMX theory runs counter to basic human belief in fairness: It gives the appearance of discrimination against groups that don’t receive the special attention

• The basic ideas and theory are not fully developed: details of compatibility of personality, interpersonal skills, how trust is developed, etc., are not presented or discussed how important they are compared to other constructs

• Few empirical studies have used dyadic measures to analyze the LMX process

• Measurement scales lack content validity (may lack what they intended to measure) and unclear whether they measure single or many dimensions

What makes a good “follower”?

Team Discussion

• Pick a case you are familiar with that involves in/out group dynamics

• Use the theory to analyze what went well/not well and why

• If you were a trainer or consultant to this leader, write out a series of recommendations about what should be changed to improve the situation (consider selection criteria for subordinates, how in/out groups are framed, equity issues, opportunities to break into the in-group, dealing with alienation, etc.)