Leader member exchange theory Essay

leader Member Exchange TheoryConsiderable interrogation has shown that loss attractership can significantly influence individual, group, and organisational performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997 Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004 Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). antithetic leadership theories articulate a number of mechanisms through which leaders build such influences (Northouse, 1997). An alternative approach to misgiving leaders influence on individual fol number oneer or subordinate effectiveness is through the snap on dyadic affinitys mingled with leaders and each of their subordinates (Dansereau et al., 1975). LMX, originally called vertical dyadic link senesce (VDL), was developed approximately 30 years ago by Dansereau et al. (1975) as a response to average leadership carriage (ALS), which assumed that leaders maintain similar bloods with all of their employees.LMX broke off from this conceptualization by juicylighting the way leaders differentiate mingled with their subordinates by creating in- groups and aside-groups. In-group atoms have high superior transfers characterized by mutual trust, respect, and pact (Graen & Uhl-Bien 227), whereas out-group members have low quality throws that have less trust, respect, and obligation. LMX is a dyadic conjecture that has its roots in portion theory (Dienesch & Liden, 1986 Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The basic principle of leadermember exchange (LMX) is that leaders develop different types of exchange relationships with their followers and that the quality of these relationships affects important leader and member attitudes and behaviors (Gerstner & Day, 1997 Liden et al., 1997 Sparrowe & Liden, 1997).LMX suggests that supervisors choose those they like and / or view as blind drunk performers to fill the much important brassal constituents. Conversely, the lesser roles are charge to those subordi nates who are less liked or viewed as less capable. Subordinates selected for the more than important roles establish close, high-quality LMX relationships with their supervisors, characterized by trust and emotional support (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). From these high-quality relationships, subordinates feel several advantages including ball and informal rewards, favor doing, ample regain to supervisors, and change magnitude communication (Dienesch & Liden, 1986 Graen &Scandura, 1987 Wayne,Shore, & Liden, 1997). On the early(a) hand, subordinates in low-quality LMX relationships have exchanges with their supervisors that reflect low levels of trust and emotional support and few, if any, benefits outside of the formal employment bring (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986). High-quality leadermember relationships or exchanges are characterized by high levels of trust, interaction, support, and formal and informal rewards (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).Such relationships include the exchange o f material and nonmaterial goods that wear beyond what is specified in the formal ponder description (Liden et al., 1997 Liden & Graen, 1980). question on leadermember exchange (LMX) has shown the value of high-quality leadermember relationships in organizations (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). attracters and followers in these high-LMX relationships often report deepen levels of satisfaction and effectiveness, as well as mutual influence, more im deviate and honest communication, greater access to resources, and more extra-role behaviors (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Low-quality relationships, in contrast, appear to put option subordinates at a relative disadvantage in terms of job benefits and career progress (Vecchio, 1997). In low-quality relationships, members receive less access to the supervisor, less resources, and more restricted information, potentially leading to dissatisfaction in the job, lower organisational commitment, and employee turnover (G erstner & Day, 1997).Sparrowe and Liden noted, the quality of the members exchange relationship with the leader, which is ground on the gunpoint of emotional support and exchange of valued resources, is crucial in determining the members fate within the organization (1997, p. 522). In support of the theory, empirical research indeed has demonstrated that LMX has significant influences on outcomes such as task performance, satisfaction, turnover, and organizational commitment (Gerstner & Day, 1997). So much research on LMX has accumulated, with the large majority focusing on outcomes, that a meta-analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997), three literature reviews (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997 Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999), and a new book serial (Graen, 2004) have been conducted. All five of these research efforts state that positive organizational and individual outcomes are the primary results of high-quality LMX relationships.These positive outcomes are ground on role theory and social exchange theory as subordinates in high quality exchanges receive better roles, increased communication, higher(prenominal) levels of trust, and increased access to the supervisor. Some of these positive outcomes include higher performance ranks, better target performance, increased commitment. A number of other LMX studies have focused on how leader and member characteristics such as gender (Milner et al., 2007), socio-economic status (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986), and age and education (Tsui & OReilly, 1989) may influence the leader-member relationship. In particular, the relationship between gender and LMX has been well documented. Research has shown that supervisors with same-sex subordinates are likely to develop higher quality LMXs than those supervisors of the opposite sex (Milner et al. Wayne, Liden, & Sparrow, 1994). Further, Lee (1999) found that perceived quality of LMX affects subordinates expectations in overall communication patter ns with the supervisors depending on their gender. Additionally, correlations between subordinates and supervisor rating of LMX were significantly higher for female subordinates of female supervisors than for female subordinates of male supervisors (Varma & Stroh, 2001). LMX theory articulates the development of a work relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate. LMX researchers proposed discordant models of this process (Dienesch & Liden, 1986 Graen & Scandura, 1987 Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).Graen and Scanduras (1987) role-making model described LMX as comprised of three phases role-pickings, role-making, and role routinization. In the role- taking stage, the leader makes a request or assigns a task and evaluates the members behavior and performance to assess the underlying indigence and potential. This phase corresponds to the first step in Dienesch and Lidens (1986) model in which demographic characteristics and personalities may influence the initial interaction betwe en the ii parties. Role-making is the continuation of the developmental process where the nature of the leadermember relationship becomes more defined. It is at this stage that managers and subordinates begin to cement the relationship (Bauer & Green, 1996). The leader provides an opportunity to the member by assigning an unstructured task. If the member accepts that opportunity, the relationship continues to develop into a high-quality exchange relationship (Liden et al., 1997). The third stage is role routinization.At this point,leader and member develop a common controling and clear mutual expectations. The behaviors of the leader and member become interlocked (Graen & Scandura, 1987) and the quality of exchange typically remains stable after this phase (Liden et al., 1997). Perspective taking involves the ability to consider and appreciate the perceptions and viewpoints of others and see the world through their eyes. As individuals run through the perspectives of others, they understand others behaviors in a way closer to how they understand their own behaviors. As Davis, Conklin, Smith, and Luce (1996) have pointed out, self/target overlap occurs when we take anothers perspective, and the perceived others becomes more self alike. Kuhnert and Lewis suggested that supervisors perspective taking capacity (how many perspectives they are able to hold simultaneously) is manifested in the degree to which their leadership styles are characterized as transactional versus transformational.The authors argue that managers who take others perspectives as part of their own perspective (Kegan stage 3) are likely to engage in transactions of higher quality, involving non-concrete rewards such as emotional support, mutual respect, and trust. Managers who are unable to effectively integrate others perspectives into their own (Kegan stage 2), are more likely to have transactions of a lower quality with their subordinates, based on concrete rewards such as pay increases, benefits, or other tangible outcomes. ReferencesGraen, George B. and Uhl-Bien, Mary, Relationship-Based Approach to leadership Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective (1995). counsel Department susceptibility Publications. Paper 57.James L. Soldner,Relationships among leader-member exchange, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, gender, and dyadic duration in a rehabilitation organization (2009).Dissertation.Kenneth J. Harris, R. B. (2007). Personality, Leader-Member Exchanges, and Work Outcomes. 92-96. Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Leader-Member Exchange Theory another(prenominal) Perspective on the Leadership Process . INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS, AND presidentship , 1-3. Moates, K. N. (2007). PERSPECTIVE TAKING AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE. Maslyn, John and Uhl-Bien, Mary, LeaderMember Exchange and Its Dimensions do of Self-Effort and Others Effort on Rel ationship Quality (2001). Management Department Faculty Publications. Paper 17.Mayer D.M. (2004). Are you in or out? A group-level examination of the effects of LMX on justice and customer satisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation) University of Maryland. Remus Ilies, J. D. (n.d.). LeaderMember Exchange and Citizenship Behaviors A Meta-Analysis . journal of applied psychology, 269-271. Terri A.Scandura, E. K. (2009). Trust and Leader Member-Excahnge. Journal of Leadership and organizational studies, 109.