Leader-Member Exchange

Leader-Member Exchange Jinrui Zhang University of the Pacific EDUC 352 Nov. 22, 2013

Leader-Member Exchange

Leader-Member Exchange In order to explore the Pacific student leaders traits and how they perform effective leadership within their clubs and organizations, the author uses the LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) that explains the development of positive relationships between leaders and two kinds of members- in-group and out-group with the purpose of increasing organizational success. Leaders develop an exchange with each of their subordinates, and the quality of these LMX relationships influences subordinates' responsibility, decision influence, access to resources and performance (Forsyth, 2009). The central concept of the theory is that effective leadership processes occur when leaders and followers are able to develop mature leadership relationships (partnerships) and thus gain access to the many benefits these relationships bring (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). In the LMX theory, a group is composed of in-group and out-group. Subordinates of the in-group are more likely to make a contribution to the whole group (Forsyth, 2009). However, the degree of differentiation depends on the specific groups or organizations. That means one group can be separated into different in-groups and outgroups, while there may be no difference between in-groups and out-groups in another organization. When a leader recognizes the hierarchy within a group, he or she will increase the relationships with their group members by reducing the number of out-group subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). On the other hand, since differentiation enables out-group subordinates to be aware of the necessity of working hard so as to get their leaders recognition, the differentiation is sometimes beneficial to the whole group (Liden et al., 1997). That is to say, in-group members work harder, are more committed to

Leader-Member Exchange

finishing goals, take on more responsibilities and be more loyal to their leader. Thus, they tend to be highly satisfied with their role in the whole group and easily get promoted (Forsyth, 2009). Conversely, out-group members contribute less to the whole group, do what they are asked to do. They even impose restrictions on their leader and show less fidelity and support for their leader (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). The LMX theory, through a relationship-based approach, developed by Graen, Dan- sereau and colleagues nearly forty years ago (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) has gone through a transformation since its beginning. This approach was initially termed the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model of leadership (Dansereau et al., 1975). Afterwards, the VDL approach developed along two different branches. The first branch of development is what is called nowadays the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model (Graen et al., 1982b) or the Leadership-Making model (Graen & UhlBien, 1991). The second branch is the Individualized Leadership (IL) model of Dansereau and colleagues (1995b), which is quite different from the LMX approach. The LMX theory has passed through four stages. In Stage One, leaders developed different relationships with their subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The second stage focused on the different relationships in a group or organization and began to explain the nomological network related to the LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Then the Leadership-Making model (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991) made the LMX research come to Stage Three and attached great importance to how they may work with each person on a one-on-one basis to develop a partnership with each of them (Graen & UhlBien, 1995, p. 229). The fourth stage explored how dyadic relationships were organized

Leader-Member Exchange

within and beyond the organizational system. (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Following is a figure illustrating the four development stages of the LMX theory.

(Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) However, there exist some problems of the LMX such as its validity, measurement and the data analysis. Specifically, the LMX has some problems with its definition. It lacks clarity of different measures. It is inconsistent with analytic procedures, as well (Schriesheim et al., 1999). Mixed results have been found regarding relationships between the LMX model and various consequences, and attention should be paid to both conceptual and operational definitions of the LMX construct (Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984). Dienesch and Liden (1986) also focused on the lack of theoretical foundation. The LMX theory is not clear (Cummings, 1975). It suffers from a lack of specificity and needs substantial clarification (Dansereau et al., 1995a, p. 108).

Leader-Member Exchange

The LMX theory has been widely used in educational field. When searching leader-member exchange or LMX on Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Education Research Complete, the author finds 493 peer-reviewed journal articles. The author also finds about 6,850 scholarly articles related to the theory on Google Scholar. For instance, early quality of exchanges with the instructor using Leader-Member Exchange theory was found to be a key indicator of academic outcomes. In addition, perceived organizational support was linked to ratings of instructor-student quality of exchanges, and the quality of exchanges between instructors and students served as an antecedent to social integration and academic self-concept (Jacques et al., 2012). It has been found that students who perceive in-group relationships with their instructors report using the relational, functional, participatory, and sycophantic motives at a higher rate than students who perceive out-group relationships with their instructors (Myers, 2006). LMX perceptions were negatively related to students hostility and revenge and mediated the relationships between students perceptions of distributive justice and the outcomes. LMX also moderated the relationships between students perceptions of classroom justice and indirect interpersonal aggression and deception (Horan et al., 2013). Besides, the influence of teachers' work context, in terms of autonomy and leader-membership exchange (LMX), has been examined on the relationship between their work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Runhaar et al., 2013). Baker and Omilion-Hodges examine employee perceptions of the LMX across 67 work units and investigate how these perceptions relate to coworker exchange (CWX) relationships and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (2013). Results indicate that CWX is strongly, positively related to the LMX of

Leader-Member Exchange

the participant and their colleagues. The LMX enhances job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) through two sets of processes. As a result of a social exchange process, high LMX managers encourage reciprocal obligations. These obligations are manifested as subordinate commitment to their supervisors. This commitment, in turn, prompts more OCBs and higher job performance. Through a second process, high LMX supervisors enhance their subordinates' self-efficacy and means efficacy, thereby improving job performance (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Stewart and Johnson theorize performance effects associated with the differentiation and aggregate level of the dyadic LMX relationships in work groups and that the nature of these LMX effects would vary qualitatively as a function of work group diversity (2009). From the above examples, the author notices that the LMX theory is widely used in the instructorstudent relationship and in the employer-employee relationship. Nevertheless, it has been rarely used in analyzing the relationship between college student leaders and their members. In this paper, the author tends to apply this theoretical foundation to the studies on student leadership. The author attempts to ask student leaders of the Pacific clubs and organizations about their experiences of exchange with in-group and out-group members to see how they get along with their members. To conclude, the author of this paper believes that the LMX approach has substantially contributed to deepening the understanding of leadership, which will serve as the theoretical framework for analyzing student leadership on the Pacific campus.

Leader-Member Exchange

References Baker, Colin R., & Omilion-Hodges, Leah M. (2013). Communication Research Reports. 30(4), p313-322. Cummings, L. L. (1975). Assessing the Graen/Cashman model and comparing it with other approaches. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers. pp. 181185. Carbondale, IL: SouthernIllinois University Press. Dansereau.F. Jr., Graen. G., & Haga,W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the rolemaking process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995a). Leadership: The multiple level approaches. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 97-109. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., Nachman, S., Naughton, T., Kim, I., Al-Kelabi, S., Lee, S., & Keller, T. (1995b). Individualized leadership: A new multiple level approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 413-450. Dienesch,R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11. 618-634. Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group Dynamics: Chapter 9. New York: Wadsworth. Graen, G., & Cashman J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers, pp. 143-165. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G., Novak. M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982b). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and job satisfaction: Testing a dual

Leader-Member Exchange

attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into selfmanaging and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadershipmaking. Journal of Management Systems, 3, 25-39. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 2.5 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quartely, 6, 219-247. Horan, Sean M., Chory, Rebecca M., Carton, Shannon T., Miller, Erin, Raposo, & Peter C. J. (2013). Communication Quarterly. 61(5), p497-518. Jacques, Paul H., Garger, John, & Thomas, Michael. (2012). Learning Environments Research, 15(1), P1-15. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential future. Resource in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 15, 47- 119. Myers, Scott A. (2006). Communication Quarterly. 54(3), p293-304. Runhaar, Piety, Konermann, Judith, & Sanders, Karin. (2013). Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, v30, p99-108. Schriesheim, Chester A., Castro, Stephanie L., & Cogliser, Claudia C. (1999). Leadermember exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (1), P. 63 113. Stewart, Marcus M., & Johnson, Olenda E. (2009). Group & Organization Management.

Leader-Member Exchange

34(5), p507-535. Vecchio, R. P. & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20. Walumbwa, Fred O., Cropanzano, Russell, & Goldman, Barry M. (2011). Personnel Psychology. 64(3), p739-770.