Serving in a leadership position of an organization brings a leader’s actions to the forefront of conversation when things go wrong. The nature of military service can sometimes bring an unwanted spotlight when leaders are removed from their assigned positions. This begs the question of what when wrong? How did these circumstances spiral to the point where a military leader had to be removed from their assigned duty position? Applying the perspective of Leader Member Exchange (LMX) Theory to these leaders provides interesting insight to the potential negative outcomes of LMX.
Toxic Leaders in the News
There are an abundance of news articles highlighting the removal of leaders from positions of command due to poor leadership. Colonel Schoenfeldt was removed from command due to a bullying leadership style (Vandiver, 2021). Brigadier General Johnston was removed from her position because of workplace hostility (Winkie, 2022). Lieutenant General Gamble was suspended from his position due to allegations of a toxic command climate (Britzky, 2022). More recently, Colonel Chung was relieved of command due to a loss in confidence in his ability to lead which stemmed from a formal investigation into his leadership (Schogol, 2023). In all these instances, there were members of each of these leaders’ organizations that accused them of some type of counterproductive leadership behavior. Applying LMX theory to these circumstances offers some clarity surrounding these leaders’ removal from their assigned positions.
Leader Member Exchange Theory
The relationships established between leaders and members of the organizations play a significant role in organizational outcomes. Relationships, from a leadership perspective, are created between leader and follower. Northouse (2021) describes Leader Member Exchange theory “as a process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and followers (p.157). LMX theory is focused on a dyadic relationship between leader and follower (Northouse, 2021, p.157). As leader members work through the stranger phase, acquaintance phase, and finally to the mature partnership phase, organizational members separate into the in-group or out-group (Northouse, 2021). Members separate themselves into these groups based upon personality, personal characteristics, and the quality of exchanges between leader and member (Northouse, 2021). These groups represent subsets within an organization that receive either increased support, feedback, and higher quality exchanges with the leader (in-group members) or those that receive no special attention (out-group members) outside of the formal work contract (Northouse, 2021). Additionally, in-group members find themselves expanding their roles within the organization, whereas out-group members find themselves performing based upon job specifications (Northouse, 2021). When applied effectively and fairly, LMX theory can produce citizenship behaviors and increase productivity within an organization (Northouse, 2021). Conversely, if not applied effectively, LMX theory can be viewed discriminatory depending on how the perspective is applied (Northouse, 2021).
The Dark Side
In each of the examples of military leaders being removed from their leadership position, there are examples of LMX theory gone wrong. Schoenfeldt was quoted as “having a bullying leadership style” and one of his subordinates stated that his personal treatment as being the worse he ever experienced (Vandiver, 2021). Johnston’s case showed substantiating evidence of a leadership style that violated Army regulations (Winkie, 2022). Johnston was additionally accused of “belittling and demeaning of subordinates (Winkie, 2022). Gamble is quoted as creating a “very toxic environment” and that he had “sort of a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality” (Britzky, 2022). Chung allegedly used bullying tactics to get subordinates to work harder, requested subordinates to accomplish unjustifiable tasks, and screamed at other staff members (Schogol, 2023). In each of these cases, there is evidence that showcases the discriminatory nature of ineffective use of LMX theory. Johnston, Gamble, and Chung’s case each reference individuals who either supported their leadership style or disliked their leadership style. The most interesting of these four cases is that of Colonel Chung. He had individuals arguing both sides of the spectrum either for, or against accusations of poor leadership (Schogol, 2023). In Chung’s case, he had over 200 letters of support challenging the accusations against him (Schogol, 2023). These individual examples provide insight to some of the negative effects LMX theory can have when not properly applied.
Practical Application
The examples provided highlight the need to apply LMX theory fairly and without discrimination in an organizational setting. I acknowledge there are some other underlying variables at work with Schoenfeldt, Johnston, Gamble, and Chung that led to their removal. However, these examples provide interesting case studies to examine how the effects of LMX can be taken to the extreme. LMX must balance the dyadic relationship created between leader and member regardless of their group classification. Otherwise, leaders can create turmoil which will reduce the effectiveness of their organizations.
Britzky, H. (2022). Army 3-star general suspended amid investigation into toxic climate and racist comments. Retrieved from https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-general- duane-gamble-suspended-toxic-climate/
Northouse, P.G. (2021). Leadership Theory and Practice (9th ed). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Schogol, J. (2023). Army fires former 5th SFAB commander following investigation. Retrieved from https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-fires-5th-sfab-commander-investigation/
Vandiver, J. (2021). Fort Hood-based brigade commander under investigation after allegations of toxic leadership, flouting coronavirus rules. Retrieved from https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/fort-hood-based-brigade-commander- under-investigation-after-allegations-of-toxic-leadership-flouting-coronavirus-rules- 1.667669
Winkie, D. (2022). Top army public affairs officer retiring after command climate inquiry. Retrieved from https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/02/22/top-army- public-affairs-officer-retiring-after-command-climate-inquiry/
Thank you for the insightful discussion regarding the application of Leader Member Exchange (LMX) Theory in military leadership. Your analysis depicts a full understanding of the dynamics between leaders and members, demonstrating the complexities and challenges within such professional environments. You highlighted several instances where military leaders, unfortunately, did not uphold the values and responsibilities of their positions. Stories like those of Colonel Schoenfeldt, Brigadier General Johnston, and the others illustrate the negative outcomes when leadership lacks fairness, respect, and integrity. These examples emphasize the need for leaders who can foster healthy, supportive, and productive relationships with their team members.
LMX Theory itself emphasizes the evolution of relationships between leaders and members, ideally moving from strangers to mature partnerships (Northouse, 2022). It suggests that leaders should cultivate strong connections with each team member, ensuring a harmonious and efficient organizational flow. However, as you rightly pointed out, when improperly practiced, it leads to division, favoritism, and reduced morale and productivity. Your discussion brings to attention the “dark side” of LMX, showcasing the consequences of ineffective leadership styles that do not align with the theory’s principles. It is always disheartening to see leaders engaging in behaviors that demotivate and oppress team members, contradicting the core values of productive leadership. These detrimental effects, as seen in the cases you mentioned, underline the significance of maintaining fair and balanced leadership.
I believe your insights emphasize the importance of applying LMX theory justly and consistently, ensuring every member feels valued and respected. Such an approach will undoubtedly foster a more cohesive and successful organizational culture, minimizing the risks associated with toxic leadership behaviors. On a separate note, I also very much appreciate your article layout; it was quite aesthetically pleasing. Thank you once again for sharing these stories and observations. Your contribution is beneficial in promoting discussions that encourage the refinement and improvement of leadership strategies within the military and beyond.
Citations
Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publishing.