Leader-member exchange, hereafter referred to as LMX, is a theory focused on the “…interactions between leaders and followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 137). Over time, these interactions lead to the development and fostering of relationships between members within the organization. During times of organizational change, these relationships will either ease or strain the transition depending on their quality, as well as the influence behaviors utilized by the leader (Furst & Cable, 2008, p. 454). Having gone through such a transition last year, I can speak to the importance of, or lack thereof, relationships between leaders and followers.
When I left my previous organization earlier this month, I had developed an excellent relationship with my supervisor, but it wasn’t always this way. When he first arrived, we did not see eye to eye. He had a very dominant personality typically associated with leaders, and being the new boss, felt the need to implement change. I was heavily resistant as it was so dramatic, and I felt at times personally threatened by the new policies. As later studies on LMX have shown, when the exchanges and relationship are strong, it can lead to increased job satisfaction (PSU WC, 2019, L. 8, p. 3). Due to the methods he was utilizing, my satisfaction with the position was decreasing at a rapid pace.
The method he, and many other leaders, often utilize to force change are sanctions. These are used by managers to punish employees who refuse to comply by using either “…reprimands or withholding desired rewards” (Furst & Cable, 2008, p. 454). Examples of such sanctions that I was subjected to included him issuing threats and forcing me to stay beyond normal working hours. Additionally, he utilized confrontational and dominant behaviors when he was communicating (p. 454). All this accomplished was me disliking him further and actively resisting the change he sought to implement.
One criticism of LMX theory is that it appears to promote discrimination through the use of in-groups and out-groups (Northouse, 2016, p. 147). I never felt discriminated against per se, but I certainly perceived receiving different treatment compared to others in my group. Furst and Cable (2008) found that for employees who have low LMX, the use of sanctions led to increased resistance (p. 457). These findings suggest that leaders should practice behaviors leading to an increase in the quality of interactions between themselves and followers, ultimately leading to improved relations. If the two parties maintain amicable relations, organizational change will be received in a positive light, ultimately being implemented much easier.
Leader-member exchange theory can provide valuable insight into the importance of quality exchanges between leaders and followers, leading to the development of positive relationships (PSU WC, 2019, L. 8, p. 3). These exchanges become increasingly important during times of organizational change. If LMX is high, negative effects stemming from the use of sanctions can be averted (Furst & Judge, 2008, p. 457). I can personally attest to the importance of quality exchanges within an organization, and job satisfaction certainly improves when you are on good terms with the boss.
References
Furst, S. A. & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 453-462. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-member exchange theory (LMX). Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1985970/modules/items/26589532
djg5679 says
I completely agree that if leaders, and followers, put effort into fostering a positive work relationship, then the overall experience will be improved for all parties. And as you wrote about, that is especially true when the organization is going through changes. From my experience new bosses, especially, cause ripples when they come in to the organization. They often have a different leadership style than the previous boss, and it can take time to adjust to that change. And in that time in-groups and out-groups can form. To quote the lecture notes from the introduction on Leader-Member exchange “If followers worked well with the leader, they became part of the in-group. If they didn’t work well with the leader, they became part of the out-group.” If not handled properly this can lead to overall decreased job satisfaction from a large amount of people.
Now obviously, I don’t have all the context for this situation, but I do know that often new bosses tend to flex their power. They do this to make sure that no one questions their authority. I went through a similar situation two summers ago when my job hired a new manager. Our last manager was easy going and laid back, but the new manager was super strict. He implemented a demerit system in which the punishment was jobs like cleaning the bathrooms, taking out trash, or any other undesirable job he could come up with. after about a week 3 people quit, but after the rest of us acclimated to his new style demerits were rarely given out. What I learned from this is that sometimes a little bit of tension at work can be very helpful in improving the overall environment in the long run.
So, I like that you brought up how tensions can make the work uncomfortable, but I also like that you mentioned that you ended up with a good relationship with your boss. Sometimes it only takes time to move from the out-group, to the in-group.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-member exchange theory (LMX). Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1985970/modules/items/26589532