Leader-Member Exchange Theory and Research: Accomplishments and Future Challenges

Abstract

In the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, the quality of the exchange relationship between a leader and a particular member of a work unit, team or organization is the basic unit of analysis (dyad). In this article, we try to answer the question whether research on the various aspects of the exchange processes between leaders and their subordinates is consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of LMX theory. Our focus is on the similarities and differences between the theoretical assumptions of LMX theory and the way the core concepts are elaborated in empirical studies. Although LMX theory has resulted in a number of useful accomplishments, both theoretical and practical, it still faces a number of challenges. The main challenges are to carry out a thorough and consistent refinement of the measuring instruments used, and to gain more insight into the mutual behaviours, attributions, and evaluations which facilitate or inhibit the development of high-quality working relationships.

Leader-member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review

“…The main tenant of LMX theory is that, through different types of exchanges, leaders differentiate in the way they treat their followers (Dansereau, et al, 1975) leading to different quality relationships between the leader and each follower. Research shows that high LMX quality relates to a range of positive follower outcomes (for reviews see Anand, Hu, Liden & Vidyarthi, 2011;Martin, Epitropaki, Thomas & Topakas, 2010;Schriesheim, Neider & Scandura, 1999;van Breukelen, Schyns & Le Blanc, 2006). Given the above reviews, one might conclude that we have already gained a comprehensive understanding of how LMX affects various outcomes and supported many aspects of LMX theory.…”

The Effects of Work-Family Conflict and Community Embeddedness on Employee Satisfaction: The Role of Leader-Member Exchange

“…According with LMX theory, time and resource constraints and personal impressions of their subordinates drive leaders in their daily actions (Dansereau, 1995;Wim van Breukelen, Schyns, Blanc, 2006).). The relation between workers and leader can influence directly job satisfaction but also can be influenced from different factors (Wayne et al, 1997).…”

What Has Job Satisfaction Got to Do With Employee Commitment a Research Study on LMX and Work Attitudes

“…The theory focuses on the nature of the vertical linkages leaders create with each of their followers and their relationship to the work unit. It has developed against the arguments of the early leadership theories -leaders engage in single style of leadership with all subordinates (Danserau et al, 1975;Graen & Cashman, 1975;Dunegan, 2003;in Kim et al, 2010); whereas it argues that leaders, consciously or unconsciously, demonstrate different behaviors toward different members of their work groups (Graen et al, 1972;Orris & Johnson, 1973;in van Breukelen et al, 2006). While they establish a high-quality relationship through building a sense of mutual trust, respect and loyalty with some followers (in-group), their interactions with other followers is limited within the formal contacts (out-group).…”

“…However, distinct from above theories, LMX emphasizes the quality level of interaction between leader and members and proposes that both contribute to the exchange in developing a high-quality working relationship. In that sense, LMX can be considered as a process approach; since the leader and subordinates are the active participants of the process, while it can as well be characterized as a transactional approach (van Breukelen et al, 2006).…”

“…In contrast, those who are less willing to take on new and different job responsibilities, become part of the 'out-group', who usually come to work, do their job and go home. They have superficial and less compatible contact with the leader (van Breukelen et al, 2006), based on formal employment contract and defined roles.…”