LMX Theory

LMX Theory one-sided and weak

October 20, 2013 by dec5203

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) as defined in “Leadership Theory and Practice”, sixth edition, “conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and followers” (Northouse, 2013 pg161). The details of the LMX theory goes on to make mention that there is an “in-group”(high-quality leader-member exchange) and an “out-group”(low-quality leader member exchange) in the workplace based on the relationship between the leader and the follower (the dynamic between the two) (Northouse, 2013). In reading the details and explanation of this theory, I found it, although described as a dyadic theory, addressing it primarily as a one-way street, putting the responsibility on the leader create good relationships.

Where I find my first issue with the LMX theory is the term’s “in-group” and “out-group”, and I agree with the online reading (Psych 485) where it mention it feels like high school, but I don’t think the work groups are necessarily a popularity contest. The way I see it the so called in-group who is said to have “less employee turnover, more positive performance valuations, higher frequency of promotions” among many other positive attributes, are probably just the hard workers. I feel like there is an issue with what is the cause, and what is the effect in this theory. Are these employees getting these benefits because their relationship is better with their leaders? Or are they getting these positive results because they are the ones working hard enough to deserve the benefits that make them want to stay, and the positive reviews, and the promotions making it the reason that their relationship is better with their leader?

It was stated numerous times in Northouse that it is beneficial for the company for a leader to develop high-quality relationships with all of their employees. There are three phases in the text noted as 1. Stranger 2. Acquaintance and 3. Partnership (Northouse, 2013 pg166-167); expecting the relationship to develop through all three stages until ultimately in phase three becoming a high-quality exchange. In phase 2, the acquaintance phase, is where the relationship begins to build as the leader provides new challenges and the follower takes on more responsibilities than their job description entails. I feel that many relationships do not make it past this phase, but truthfully it’s not certainly the fault of the leader all the time. I’m sure most of us know those people who will say things like “that’s not in my job description” or when asked to work a project due to a problem that arose will say “I didn’t create the problem, why should I fix it”. I know I’ve personally heard such things from fellow employees. These employees, regardless of who is leading them, will more than likely always find themselves stuck in phase 2; and undoubtedly become bitter and even less likely to cooperate when those who were willing to go above and beyond get the benefit of being more of an asset to the company.

Essentially I find the LMX Theory to discount the fact that there are bound to be certain employees who are harder workers, more devoted, and flat out better at what they do than others. These employees who have the characteristics that a leader responds to, appreciates, and rewards, probably are more likely to have a better relationship with their leader, which to me just means the leader is aware of what an asset said employee is. Certain employees will always stand out in a positive way, it isn’t because their relationship is better with their supervisor, just the opposite, I believe their relationship is better with their supervisor because they are better employees. A leader can’t count on an employee who won’t take extra assignments, or who don’t perform to the standard needed for special projects, so how can we ever expect them to get out of phase 2 as mentioned above (Northouse, 2013), and why would we expect those subordinates to get the same treatment as employees who do go above and beyond. To me fair treatment is the kind of treatment that is based on what you are worth, what you are willing to give, and how much you earn; I feel like the LMX theory fails in looking at this situation from both sides.

Psych 485: Leadership in Work Settings: Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/002/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html.

Last accessed October 20, 2013.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Leader Member Exchange by a Game Changer: Steve Jobs

July 9, 2013 by jrc5465

After watching Bloomberg TV’s Game Changer episode on Steve Jobs it is clear that his leadership was a “process” to say the least. Steve had his fair share of ups and downs. Many of these cycles of good times and bad times could be attributed directly to the quality of his “leader-member” exchanges within the organizations he was a part of at any given time. Steve is greatly admired for his far-reaching vision and creativity but sometimes he couldn’t see the tree in front of the forest. And so the relationships suffered though the vision flourished.

Steve was notorious for his dogged commitment to any end goal he set his mind on. Unknowingly for Steve, often he would sabotage his relational image as the price for these goals. High performers would walk away from their job feeling underappreciated and overworked. Steve became known as ruthless and an immovable negotiator. His relationship problems then peaked in 1984 as John Sculley, CEO of Apple at the time, was forced to share with the board members and shareholders that Apple was struggling as a result of Steve’s overly ambitious drive (Bloomberg TV). Robert Cringely, former Apple employee, reports in an interview that Jobs was spending to much money feeding his latest project. Steve did not agree and the board was forced to choose between keeping the Sculley or him. Unexpectedly for Steve, he was let go. The board felt he did not have the maturity to sustain and lead the company into profits and opportunities that they needed to begin growing again. A pattern of low-quality exchanges deteriorated his image of an admired leader that others wanted to work with.

This drove Steve to greater lengths of determination and awoke a competitor that was not seen prior. With bridges burned, Steve became a direct competitor with Apple by going to work for Next. There was intrigue at this point surrounding Jobs. He had built Apple to magnanimous success and now as a free agent, (no job after being laid off) he landed a job at Next where people watched to see if he would take his visions for technology to new places we have yet to see. In his time at Next, Steve learned that he was earning greater attention and momentum from remaining a mystery rather than letting the public and media know what he was up to, according to Cringely. Perhaps this in itself began to influence his methods of isolating himself from others. At this point, Steve might have thought this was a good way of handling relations since previously his relationship deficiencies were his downfall and threatened his success. Avoiding the crowds yielded a positive effect for him at Next. He was hedging against another relational conflict. He already lost that battle once and Steve is a poor loser (Bloomberg). He rarely makes the same mistake twice. “He is a survivor”, says Alan Deutschman, journalist and Silicon Valley correspondent.

Though exciting, his pride and joy project at Next, his new startup, never took off. A high performance machine built for business needs with a high price tag did not fetch well from initial projections. He knew he had to be practical this time. So he decided to scratch the project. He was learning to be practical. He decided focus on the few things Next did well based on the response they received. This runs contrary to the legacy he leaves behind. Jobs created a product and then made the public want it. He believed that they couldn’t want what doesn’t yet exist. So he told them what they wanted and then sold the hell out of it. Time and time again. Steve had a gift at creating products that the people loved and yet he did not have a great reputation for relating to them in high quality exchanges. He drove his staff crazy with work hours. His demands for excellence seemed unreachable. Yet at the same time, he gave the public what they didn’t know they would fall in love with. Somehow, he still knew how to relate. He just wasn’t well at interacting. He was good at the “exchanges” that leader-member exchange theory prescribes for effective leading.

Steve decided to keep his distance and relate from afar it appears. He maintained a very private life even through his bout with cancer except for the letters he wrote to the staff regarding critical updates on his health that would effect change at Apple. He went on leave twice but always spun it with positive outlook for the future. He often was not popular with direct relationship skills but we all love him for his futuristic insight that effected our greater good. And in the end, I think the majority of the american public feel like they would like him personally if they had a chance to know him. His impact on us all has been immeasurable. His performance, as supported by the leader member exchange theory, created a postive relationship quality that seems to have outweighed his deficiencies (Northouse p.167, 2013).

References

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed). Los Angeles: Sage.

TV. (2011, October 14). Bloomberg Game Changers: Steve Jobs – YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vrM7AvmxTA

LMX theory: concerns of the “out-groups”

March 4, 2013 by lwy5022

Ever since the first lesson of leadership theory, I started to expect for the learning of Leader-Member Exchange theory after learning its emphasis on the interactions between leaders and followers (PSU WC, 2013). Compared to the many theories we learned previously that have primary focus on the leader’s qualities, LMX theory offers a valuable insights on examining the leadership as a process that involves complex interactions between leaders and members of the group. However, while providing a descriptive and prescriptive picture of leadership, LMX theory’s separation of members into in-group and out-group was not so favorable to me.

Sadly, the concept of in-group and out-group was not first proposed by LMX theory and was not a rare phenomenon. Perhaps everyone been through high school has experienced some kinds of exclusion and the feeling of being a part of the “out-group” – not the most favorable experience though. Just as it’s said: “the popularity contests don’t end when we get out of school” (PSU WC, 2013), as long as groups exist, the distinction between in-group and out-group members exist.

Being an international student in Penn State, I’ve experienced the feeling of being a member of “out-group” in many occasions. This was usually not reflected by other members (or leader) ignoring the opinions of mine, but by the amount of small chats that I could engage in with the leader or the other members. This happens to me even without feeling lack of passion to identify myself with the group members. As a result, the LMX’s definitions of an out-group member made me double think: people who are doing exactly what they are asked become part of the out-group (Northouse, 2013). However, could someone blame the member entirely for becoming a part of the out-group?

We’ve learned that LMX emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between leader and members (Northouse, 2013); in my case, I believe that this reciprocal interaction between the leader and me is also responsible for making me an out-group member. When other members of the team are having small chats with each other on rather mundane things, I feel hesitated to join them because these are usually daily things that I don’t share. As a result of this, even though I’ve tried to contribute to the team’s work, I still feel being a part of the out-group.

While it is understood that the existence of out-group is necessary for giving a value for the in-group, I believe that leader should still make effort to include members in the out-group into a part of the in-group. This is because a member of the in-group could contribute more to the team by doing more than they’re required (Northouse, 2013). Understanding that reciprocal relationship could potentially affect member’s identification of the out-group some ways that a leader could do to improve this situation: identify these out-group members and their situations; reestablish the relationships; and providing training and development opportunities (MindTools, 2013).

Being someone with previous experiences as a part of the out-group, I sincerely hope that a leader could make his/her effort to establish a more intimate relationship with the members in out-group. Although sometimes it appears that these people choose to stay in the out-group because they do not want to identify with the group, or that they do not want to take extra responsibilities, it is still true that sometimes people were unintentionally excluded from the group. In these cases, a good leader should take the responsibilities to step out first to reestablish the relationships, and to encourage stronger sense of belongingness between them and the group.

Reference:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Leader-Member Exchange Theory. [Online lecture]. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/01_page.html.

MindTools. (2013). The Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Getting the Best From all Team Members. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/leader-member-exchange.htm.

Real expereince with LMX theory as a Retail Manager

February 27, 2013 by tah5335

Leading a group of dynamic individuals is something I am very comfortable with. As a store manager in a retail environment I spent a lot of time building a diverse team that included a jokester who was not very task oriented his name was Jerry, Bre was my employee who was a tow-the-line type who had little tolerance for off-task behavior, and Brittany was more interested in trying to tell me how to do my job than being a team player. Managing this group was always interesting to say the least- however I loved the challenge of building meaningful relationships with each of them. The leadership-making model suggests “that leaders should look for ways to build trust and respect with all of their subordinates, thus making the entire work unit an in-group.” (Northouse, 2012)

Each of the three associates may have different personalities; however they all work for the same company so they had something in common, I had to build upon that commonality. As suggested by Nothouse leadership making develops over time and in3 phases, (1) the stranger phase, (2) the acquaintance phase and (3) the mature partnership.” (Northouse, 2012) The three employees progressed through this process at different paces. I found that discovering why people work is important; Brittany wanted a career and a mentor on how to get there. Bre wanted to know all the rules and consequences before she trusted anyone, was ok with a promotion in the future. Jerry just wanted everyone to like him and if a promotion to management ever came that was cool too.

“Employees who had better relationships with their leaders were promoted, supported and liked. In turn, leaders who had good relationships with their employees had employees who stayed in the organization and worked hard for it.”(PSU PSYCH485, L. 8, p.4) Phase 1, stranger phase relies on rules and constructed relationships. (Northouse, 2012) Brittany started as an associate, and expressed that she wanted to become a Store Manager in the future, she quickly moved out of phase one. I built a relationship with her based on the path to become a Store Manager; we had drive to succeed, problem solving skills and passion for the job in common. Her need to tell me how to do my job was her way of trying to show me that she knew more and wanted more from her job which moved her to phase 2 the acquaintance phase rapidly. The acquaintance phase “begins with an offer by the leader or the subordinate for improved career-oriented social exchanges.”(Northouse, 2012) During phase 2 Brittany received a promotion to Assistant Store Manager and began her transformation in to Phase 3. The Mature partnership, phase 3, is “marked by high quality leader-member exchanges.” Brittany and I worked well as a team because I realized that she was capable of more than just being an associate and became promoted to Assistant Manager. We started to rely on each other for more than work tasks. We loved to go get our nails done, and relax, we became “friends.”

Bre was my “Toe- the- line” employee she was slow to develop through the phases. She stayed in phase 1 for a long time. Looking back we say she needed to know everything about everything before she would move to phase 2. Bre could not be pushed to be more trusting, she was careful I used this to my advantage. In phase 2 Bre started being my “auditor” finding discrepancies, which built her confidence and trust in me because I trusted her. She was promoted to Part-time assistant manager late in Phase 2, she was willing to take the extra responsibility but was hesitant to take the title that went with the extra responsibilities. However since I built trust with her slowly she trusted my idea and took a risk. After she was an assistant manager for a couple of moths she began to trust me with information about her life outside work. Even after both of us stopped working for the company we remained friends to this day.

Jerry was hired after Brittany and Bre were promoted to Assistant Managers. He was in phase 1 for a little while (shorter than Bre but longer than Brittany). Jerry was motivated by having people like him, he spent a lot of time trying to get to know everyone rather than the rules of the company. Once he had his initial relationships figured out. He progressed to phase 2 when he asked me for more hours- I informed him that I need a reliable person who could do more than just an associate. Jerry took that comment and ran- he learned that jokes were ok but he needed to curb some of the silliness to get ahead in his career. He left the company as he reached phase 3 to become an assistant manager at another company- we still keep in contact.

The 3 employees got annoyed with each other I made a point to remind them that the other had good points. Jerry’s joking behavior was great with customers- and made him a wonderful sales person. Bre was always watching out for all of us- being our Auditor. She also was dependable to complete any take given to her, she kept us in line when others wanted to be “creative” with a visual display of merchandise. Brittany was a good leader she was driven and wanted to others to do their job, and she did learn how to motivate others. I made sure all 3 of the employees communicated with each other, they knew the strengths and weaknesses of the others and when they were paired together to complete tasks they managed to use their differences to their advantage.

The seemingly easy solution to make all my team part of the In-group and have that solve their differences would not work, because without an Out-group no one would know they were in the In-group. Think back to high school who were the popular kids (the In-group), you are able to distinguish them because there was the “non-popular kids” (Out-group). If everyone was in the popular group can it still be the popular group? Sam thing applies if you make all employees part of the In-group and there is no comparison group.

Reference:

Northouse, P. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. (6 ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.

PSU LER464 Lesson 7: Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Pennsylvania State University, retrieved February23, 2012 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/ler464/001/common/homepage.html

Can the LMX Theory Be Used to Change a Leader?

October 18, 2012 by jrd5332

As I was reading through the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory, I had a lot of mixed feelings. I can definitely see the strengths and weaknesses. As a strength, my favorite and, perhaps most useful is that the LMX theory alerts leaders to what they may be doing unconsciously, which is excluding followers from the in-group (Northouse, 2013). The principles of the LMX theory can be a useful reminder for leaders to be fair and equal in approaching their relationships with subordinates (Northouse, 2013).

As I read on I decided to complete the LMX 7 Questionnaire. I am not currently employed, so I had to use a past experience of my direct interactions with a supervisor at my last job. As I took the questionnaire everything became really clear to me as I thought about my time at my last job. I worked at a daycare for four years. At the beginning of my employment at this daycare, I strongly disliked the supervisor in question. I thought she was rude and disrespectful at times. Her personality was one of those “I don’t care what you think, I’m going to do my thing.” I felt like she always tried to cut corners and she did not follow the rules of the center. I really did not know her, but this is what I thought from afar as I tried as hard as possible to not go anywhere near her because she just bothered me.

At this point, she was not necessarily dubbed a “supervisor,” but she was a prominent figure at our center because she was one of the veteran employees who had been there for 20+ years. To make a long story short, the leadership changed after about a year and a half of my working there and the change brought about a lot of structural changes that put this woman in a supervisory position. One of her duties in this position was to take on the monthly and daily schedules with another room lead that was put into the same position. These two women basically run the center. They became the first in the chain of command to go to if you had a problem.

After the structural change in our center, a lot of the employees, including myself, were moved to new rooms. I was moved to a room that I knew nothing about. I never took the time to get to know all the people that I worked with, so I did not really know the staff in that room either. I was in what Northouse calls, the “out-group.” Because of the room that I was associated with previously, not many people liked me. My past room leader had a reputation of being a “snitch” and talking a lot behind people’s backs. I was stigmatized as being the same way and I did not even know it. No one else in the center knew my potential as a caregiver and a person and because they associated me with my previous room lead, they did not really give me a chance. It actually wasn’t until I went on maternity leave and came back and became what we referred to as a “floater” that the rest of the center really got to know me and my abilities and strengths as a caregiver because I was bouncing around to all the different rooms on a daily basis. This is when I slowly made my way into the “in-group.” At one point, I was the only person available to go into my supervisor’s room. It was at this point that we began to develop a relationship.

Suddenly, the woman that I despised for quite some time was one of my biggest fans in the center. She saw my potential in the classroom and I liked her style of teaching. She may not have followed the rules, but she had good kids in her room and she had good kids in her room because she did not necessarily follow the rules. She provided direct consequences and followed through with everything she said she was going to do. We worked well together and got to know each other on a professional and a personal level and thus, my transition into the in-group was complete. I did not mind taking on extra roles for her and for the good of the room and she could trust that I would do things how she wanted them to be done so she gave me a lot of freedom in her room (Northouse, 2013). I received information, influence and a lot of confidence and concern from her (Northouse, 2013). She learned to trust me so much that she would schedule me for the shifts that I wanted (the ones that everyone wanted) because she knew I would show up and I was dependable (in my daycare we had a lot of people call in sick on a regular basis). Other employees started to think she favored me, and she did, but it was because I did what she asked and she knew she could depend on me.

There are a lot of employees that do not like her because they think she plays favorites. She does. My coworkers would often be upset because I was in her room and they thought her room was overstaffed with me in it. She kept me in there because I was happy there and because she was happy with me in there. I was on the inside track and I knew her reasons for her actions because she would tell me, so I would often end up sticking up for her when other employees would speak badly of her even though I could understand completely where they were coming from. It was kind of hard to be in the in-group because people were constantly criticizing us and what we were doing and I often wished they would just mind their own business and leave it alone. I know that she was not always right, but she often stuck her neck out for me and I really appreciated that. It’s unfortunate that others had it more difficult because I was once in their shoes, but at the same time I also felt like I had “paid my dues” so-to-speak. I did the work to get where I was.

The LMX Theory could potentially be useful here, but I think it really depends on the person. What I mean by this is, yes, it is useful in that it can make leaders aware of their interactions with their subordinates. However, I think the individual leader plays a key role. Some leaders already know what they are doing. My supervisor knew what she was doing and I think if she were trained on the LMX Theory, she would continue to handle things the same way. That’s just who she is. Some leaders just do not get along with some subordinates and vice versa. Unless they are open to change, I am not really sure being aware of their faults are enough to change their leadership style.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications