Northouse (2016) reminds us that most theories focus on leadership from the view point of either the leader or the follower and the context (p. 137). Leadership was thought of as something that leaders did to followers; giving the impression that leaders can only affect followers, instead of a two-way relationship. Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX) gives us a new way of thinking about the relationship between the leader and follower. Northouse (2016) suggests that LMX theory “conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and followers”; one in which makes the “dyadic relationship between leaders and followers the focal point of the leadership process” (p. 137).
In early studies, the construct focused on what was called vertical dyad linkage, in which leaders established one of two types of relationships with their followers. These relationships or linkages were identified as either in-group or out-group. Affiliation to each group depends on what type of relationship is had with the leader. The in-group, I would think, is where people in a work unit want to be. Individuals make it to the in-group when they like the leader. They take on additional responsibility for the leader, and in exchange “receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders” (Northouse, 2016, p. 138). In contrast, the out-group sticks to the formal employment contract. They come to work simply to perform their job, collect a paycheck, and go home. They are not interested to take on new responsibilities and therefore less compatible with the leader.
The question I’m considering now, is this fair? When I first started working with my organization, I didn’t have a very close relationship to my manager. I did like her I guess. She hired me after all. However our relationship was in phase 1 of LMX theory’s leadership making model. Northouse (2016) suggests that in phase 1, the stranger phase, ” the interactions in the leader-follower dyad generally are rule bound, relying heavily on contractual relationships” (p. 142).
As I became more familiar with my work, I was able to demonstrate my strong work ethic more and more. My manager showed appreciation for this and I considered her gratitude as my reward. She invited me to attend happy hour with her and other employees within the organization. This allowed me to meet individuals that were a part of senior leadership in our company and have a positive interaction with them. I also became more comfortable and began to build loyalty with my manager. And I definitely felt more comfortable taking on more responsibility. Phase 2, the acquaintance phase, shift the relationship to improved career-oriented social exchanges, “which involve sharing more resources and personal or work-related information” (p.142). This stages is identified as a testing period for both the leader and the follower to determine if they can work together at a level with elevated responsibility.
Eventually, my manager and I reached Phase 3, the mature partnership phase. By this time I was aware of how to be a support to my manager, and in return she gave me preferential treatment. We developed a working relationship that proved to make both of us successful. In addition to her preferential treatment, the relationships that I was able to build from attending happy hours with members of senior leadership gave me the advantage of knowing decision makers. This provided me with a greater advantage when positions opened. They are privy to my work ethic and performance, and therefore considered me for positions available in leadership. Northouse (2016) describes phase 3 of the LMX Theory’s leadership making model as a stage where there is a high degree of reciprocity between the leader and the follower. A high degree of mutual trust, respect and obligation toward each other is apparent in this stage (p. 143).
I did receive preferential treatment from my manager which some may consider unfair. I know that some of the employees made a few comments on how I could do no wrong in the eyes of my manager. While I recognize how our relationship could cause others to feel disparity, I think that the LMX theory is absolutely fair. I worked hard to gain my manager’s trust. It was my initial hard work that caused the exchange. I would find this acceptable in any other situation as long as the basis was professional work ethic.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pennsylvania State University. (2016). Psych 485 Lesson 08: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/01_page.html