Leader-Member Exchange theory’s focus on the dyadic relationships between a leader and individual followers is nowhere showcased as clearly as it is on NBC’s famed sitcom, The Office. For those unfamiliar with the show, the series is a mockumentary that features a Scranton, PA paper company office, Dunder Mifflin. A film crew documents the personal and professional lives of each of the office’s denizens and captures moments of hilarity, hope, and hairy office politics.

While The Office is situated as a politically incorrect comedy that parodies the banalities of office life, the series nevertheless illustrates the individual leader-follower relationships that produce the best—and worst—work outcomes as a function of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Three relationships will be examined, each focusing on The Office’s bumbling leader, Michael Scott, and one of his subordinates.

Michael-Dwight

As Michael’s aspiring number two in the office, Dwight Schrute is perhaps one of the most idiosyncratic workers in the office. Dwight idolizes Michael, and the two share a close relationship (albeit one in which Michael both enjoys Dwight’s hero-worship of him and despises his sycophantic tendencies). Dwight takes his work very seriously and is the first to volunteer for new projects and initiatives advanced by Michael, including undesirable tasks such as cutting the office’s health benefits.

LMX focuses on individual relationships between leaders and single followers (Erdogan & Bauer, 2015). The unique dynamics of each such pairing are further shaped by the exchanges that take place between the parties, which include both content (such as loyalty) and process (such as building trust) (Northouse, 2019). These exchanges help to ultimately characterize and categorize each leader-member relationship on a spectrum that ranges from low- to high-quality (Northouse, 2019).

Michael and Dwight share a high-quality exchange relationship. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991) assert that this type of high-quality relationship is not immediately assumed but instead gradually developed over time through a process known as leadership making (as cited in Northouse, 2019). Leadership making builds relationships through three phases: the stranger phase (role-based, contractual relationships that most often characterize the early phases of interaction); the acquaintance phase (testing-based, experimental partnership attempts extended by one or both of the parties); and the partnership phase (mature, trusting relationships where a high degree of respect, obligation, and information-sharing are present) (Northouse, 2019).

While Michael is sometimes disdainful of Dwight’s schemes and interactions with him, he consistently offers Dwight extra-role responsibilities that depend on their shared trust for execution. One memorable example occurred when Michael sought to show the office workers and their warehouse partners that office work was, in fact, dangerous due to the risk of depression. Michael recruits Dwight to arrange and test out a number of imaginative ways to teach this “lesson” to his followers, up to and including staging a suicide skit that culminates with Michael preparing to throw himself off the roof onto a bouncy castle. Such extra-role responsibilities grant Dwight a feeling of authority and responsibility while Michael benefits from the additional support offered by Dwight. This example also serves to identify the reciprocal influence each has on the other: when Michael would have flung himself off the roof without testing first, Dwight is able to convince him to conduct research using a watermelon; when Dwight would have sanctioned using a trampoline as Michael’s landing target, Michael is able to convince him that a bouncy castle would be safer.

Michael-Jim

Where Dwight aspires to follow in Michael’s footsteps and ascend the corporate ladder, Jim Halpert is content to do his job and earn large commissions (while occupying the rest of his time with playing pranks on Dwight and Michael). By contrast to the dynamic between Michael and Dwight, Michael and Jim share a relatively opposite relationship—Michael perceives Jim to be a very cool guy and one he endeavors to make both his friend and his go-to worker while Jim would say that he keeps Michael and his eccentricities as a leader at arm’s length.

Jim’s ambiguity is important for classifying the Michael-Jim dynamic. While both leader and follower perspectives can be useful in understanding the quality of exchanges that occur, most research concentrates on follower assessments because of three factors: first, each member of the dyad is likely to hold unique beliefs about the nature of the relationship; second, both may face difficulties in achieving the expectations of the other in terms of fulfilling the relationship; and third, leaders may be unwilling (and thus unlikely) to express that they have a socially undesirable, low-quality relationship with a subordinate (Erdogan & Bauer, 2015).

Given that Michael desperately wants the admiration and respect of Jim while Jim attempts to steer clear of most of Michael’s attempts to form a close bond, it is clear that there is a large disparity between their perceptions. The quality of exchanges is moderate at best as a result, and most closely aligns with the acquaintance phase of leadership making: despite Michael’s overt attempts to induce Jim to take on more responsibility (such as being Michael’s go-to for his opinion on who Michael should fire when he must select one employee), Jim resists the expansion of his responsibilities. Similarly, while Michael aims to exert influence over Jim in taking on these duties and teaching him sales skills, Jim instead has nearly one hundred percent success in turning the situation around and typically convinces Michael to take a different path. Undaunted, Michael continually extends these opportunities despite Jim’s stubborn refusals.

As these examples demonstrate, Michael is perpetually incapable of meeting Jim’s expectations in their relationship. Michael neither leaves Jim alone nor acts in a manner that secures Jim’s respect or loyalty* which ultimately stagnates the relationship’s growth and the improvement of their exchanges. By contrast, Jim is everything Michael aspires to be (cool, young, great hair, quick-witted) and Michael entertains the delusion that Jim is indeed a close buddy both within and outside of the office.

As the series opens with a discussion of Michael’s ‘World’s Best Boss’ mug, it’s clear that admitting his relationship with Jim is less high-quality than he would like would force Michael to face the truth of his lackluster leadership abilities. Jim’s disengagement, while visible to most other members of the office, therefore remains a significant blind spot for Michael and this disconnect demonstrates the importance and validity of the follower perspective in gauging the quality and results of leader-member exchanges.

*We could have a very robust discussion regarding the ways in which Jim eventually demonstrates his respect and loyalty for Michael. However, this is beyond the scope of this blog post. Don’t come after me, Office fans!

Michael-Toby

Michael and Toby Flenderson represent the most contentious of the three relationships because Michael harbors an extreme aversion to both HR in general and Toby in particular. Because Michael’s “creative” approaches to leadership often leave him at odds with compliance concerns as well as health and safety requirements of the office, Toby often has to be the voice of reason (and authority) when it comes to reining him in. Regardless, Michael maintains authority over Toby and often overrides his cautions and recommendations in favor of his own approach. Michael makes no secret of his dislike of Toby and openly mocks him. Toby, on the other hand, passively accepts his boss’s contempt and makes very little effort to overcome Michael’s prejudices.

Despite the prevalence of basing most LMX assessments on the follower perspective, there is one area of the theory where the leader’s interpretation of relationships will be most salient: in-groups and out-groups. Northouse (2019) defines in-group members as those who receive “more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders” than their out-group counterparts (p. 140). While Northouse (2019) also states that followers that are disinterested in expanding their role are members of the out-group, Michael’s unusual dynamic with Jim belies this statement; Michael freely shares advance knowledge with Jim, gives greater latitude in his behaviors than he provides to most others in the office, and commonly goes along with Jim’s assessments and opinions on office situations. In comparison, Michael jealously guards every scrap of information he can from Toby (including banishing Toby to the annex (back room) of the office rather than admitting him into conference room meetings) and openly delights in thwarting every attempt of Toby to exert influence on him or the office’s style of management. Despite Toby’s passivity and the likelihood that he would more kindly characterize his relationship with Michael than Michael himself would, Toby is clearly the textbook example of an out-group member.

As described by Northouse (2019), this type of low-quality exchange relationship is not only damaging to the Michael-Toby dynamic but also to overall work outcomes. Out-group members like Toby tend to “just come to work, do their job, and go home” (Northouse, 2019, p. 140). Because researchers have identified that greater organizational commitment and stronger performance are natural by-products of high-quality exchanges, the opposite is also often true: low-quality exchanges promote low overall commitment and weaker performance (Northouse, 2019). In Toby’s case, the implications for the office can be quite severe given his role as HR representative of the office. For example, Toby is well aware that Jim and Dwight are constantly at odds, and that Dwight regularly approaches Toby to file official complaints about the work environment. Rather than addressing these ongoing problems—issues that fester and create less productivity amongst the office staff—with Michael or headquarters, Toby simply files Dwight’s daily complaints in boxes and stores them in the back of the warehouse (several paper-boxes full, in fact). If Toby had experienced a better relationship with Michael, the two could have easily handled this problem rather than allow it to fester for years. The quality of subsequent work outcomes would likely have been significantly higher, perhaps to the extent that the branch would not have been at risk of the dreaded downsizing that takes place in season one.

Prescriptions for Leadership: Michael’s Opportunities for Growth

Given the wide range of relationships that exist between Michael and his followers, using LMX in its descriptive capacity is immensely helpful for understanding each unique dynamic. Prescriptively, LMX can also inform leadership practitioners like Michael of the ways in which they can ensure higher performance and loyalty from their followers. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991, as cited in Northouse, 2019) would counsel Michael to:

• Create special relationships with each of his followers. Michael knowingly and intentionally favors only a few of his workers, treats some neutrally, and openly ostracizes others (such as Toby). By treating all followers as in-group members are treated, each follower will feel more included, informed, and necessary to the running of the office.
• Offer opportunities for extra-role responsibilities. Rather than concentrating his attempts on Jim and Dwight, Michael would do well to offer similar chances to each member of his staff. By providing greater enrichment and opportunities for growth, Michael may find that the support he receives from his team is more consistent and helpful (rather than adversarial as it so often becomes).

Although fans recognize that these opportunities for growth are well outside of Michael’s capabilities (particularly when it comes to his relationship with Toby), one nonetheless can’t help but wonder what it might have meant for the Scranton Dunder Mifflin office. Then again, The Office as we know it and love it today would almost definitely have never come into being… so perhaps it is as well that he remained unaware of the leader-member exchange theory and its potential to improve his leadership abilities.

 

The Office provides fertile ground for the depiction and application of LMX. The dyadic nature of the analysis that makes up the heart of the theory provides leaders—real and fictional alike-with a close-up view of the nature of leadership and leadership making. Michael’s interactions with Dwight, Jim, and Toby illustrate three distinctly unique relationships and their attendant consequences. Paired with his opportunities for growth, Michael demonstrates the importance of maintaining high-quality leader-follower relationships for the good of the whole and, perhaps, embodies a cautionary tale for those who take the importance of such interactions for granted.

References

Dunderpedia. (n.d.). The office [Images]. Retrieved at: https://theoffice.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page

Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2015). Leader-member exchange theory. International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 641-647. Retrieved at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304188804_Leader-Member_Exchange_Theory

Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Retrieved at: https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781506362298/