Leader Member Exchange Theory

12 Key excerpts on "Leader Member Exchange Theory"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Relational Leadership

  Theory, Practice and Development

  • Nicholas Clarke(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  This chapter provides an overview of the most researched area of relational leadership from an entity perspective, namely that which has focused on leader–member exchange. The term member in this instance is synonymous with follower. Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory captures the quality of the interpersonal relationship that exists between a leader and a follower, based upon the notion that successive social exchanges in the leadership relationship determine a range of work-related outcomes (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Molm, Collett, & Schaefer, 2007). The theory is one of the most significant for our understanding of leadership in that it places followers, and importantly their perceptions of their leader, central to understanding the consequences or effects of leadership. This is in sharp contrast to previous leadership theories, which tended to assume the effects of leadership were determined primarily by the characteristics (such as personality) or behaviours that leaders displayed. The theory holds that it is how followers perceive these characteristics and behaviours that is key to determining leadership effects, and these occur through the quality of relationship that develops between leaders and followers. An overview is provided as to how high-quality relationships are thought to come about between leaders and followers. Next, findings from research are highlighted which has identified a number of factors (or antecedents) that appear to influence this. This then leads to a discussion on interventions that have been found to improve the quality of leader–member exchange to inform practice in this area.

  Leader–member exchange (LMX)

  This theory posits that high-quality leader–member relationships reflect the presence of high levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation between both parties involved in the relationship. Such high degrees of mutuality in these areas result in a situation where leaders provide support well beyond basic contract assistance. Followers then respond with behaviours that exceed those normally expected through typical employment contract requests (Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000; Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). For example, research has demonstrated that followers in high LMX relationships are more likely to respond positively to difficult challenges put to them by leaders. The theory also recognises that leaders do not form the same quality of relationships with all followers. This contrasts with previous notions of leadership that tended to assume leader characteristics and/or behaviours resulted in effective leadership consequences across all followers irrespective of the context.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Organizational Behavior for School Leadership

  Leveraging Your School for Success

  • Leslie S. Kaplan, William A. Owings(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  process approach that focuses on the dynamic interactions between a leader and his/her subordinates. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory is one such approach.

  Originated in the 1970s and modified since, LMX is an entity theory that examines the quality of the social exchange relationship between leader-member dyads and the consequences of high- or low-quality exchange relationships in subordinates' attitudes and behaviors at individual, group, and organizational levels. LMX assumes that leaders do not interact with all subordinates in the same way; no “average” leadership style exists.100 Further, LMX assumes that time and resource limits press the leader to develop a cadre of valued assistants to help meet organizational goals. Therefore, leaders develop differentiated relationships with a few of their direct reports, built on trust, respect, loyalty, liking, and support.101 In the process, they informally categorize workers as either cadres (in-group, with intensive cooperation and communication) or hired hands (out-group with only superficial contact). These two-way interactions affect their work relationships as well as the organizational outcomes.

  In the LMX view, leadership occurs when leaders and followers are able to develop and sustain effective, mature dyadic relationships (partnerships) that result in a strong incremental influence (a leader's ability to get subordinates to perform above that required by compliance with routine directives).102 When this occurs, leaders and members gain access to the many benefits—the exchange—that these relationships bring.103 Members' gains include mutual respect, trust, special attention, recognition, information sharing, resources (such as being assigned attractive tasks and offered training opportunities), and emotional and career support.104 Leaders' gains include highly engaged employees and successfully accomplished tasks. When organizations have many high-quality relationships—that is, the more high quality teams, clusters, and networks of “partnership” dyads—organizational outcomes improve.105 These dyadic “partner” relationships also can occur in and between organizations.106

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Whither South East Asian Management?

  The First Decade of the New Millennium

  • Chris Rowley, Malcolm Warner(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement where followers are motivated by their leaders’ promises, rewards and praises. At the same time, the leaders react to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have ‘transacted’ to do (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999). It may take the form of employees being rewarded accordingly and the leader will clarify to the followers through direction or participation (Erkutlu 2008). This implies that subordinates who work under transactional leaders would have a greater power and the ability to affect the strength of a leader’s influence, style of behaviour and the performance of the group (Hollander 1993). Conversely, this type of leadership may take the form of passive leadership, especially when the leader practices passive managing-by-exception by waiting for issues or problems to surface before taking corrective measure (Burns 1978, Northouse 2001).

  Leader–member exchange (LMX)

  The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centred in the interaction between leaders and followers. It involves the inter-personal relationships between leaders and followers. Liden and Maslyn (1998) divide LMX into four dimensions: affect; contribution; loyalty; and professional respect. Subsequently, some other researchers such as Bhal and Ansari (1996) have come out with a two-dimensional scale known as LMX-Contribution and LMX-Affect. Interestingly, Maslyn and Uhl-Bien (2001) proposed that affect, loyalty and professional respect dimensions are focusing more on the social exchange between the leader and member, whereas the contribution dimension is more work-related. According to Yukl (2005), LMX describes how a leader and an individual subordinate develop a relationship as they influence each other and negotiate the subordinate’s role in the organization. As the relationship develops, the latitude given to the subordinate by the supervisor can be increased. The LMX theory was once known as the vertical dyad linkage theory because of its focus on reciprocal influence processes within vertical dyads and it consists of one person who has direct authority over another person (Dansereau et al. 1975, Graen and Cashman 1975). Dienesch and Liden (1986) noted that leadership domain is the notion of the dyad relationship between the supervisors and their subordinates. These relationships are defined by the roles that the subordinates have built or negotiated with their supervisors. The differentiation in the LMX is further exacerbated by the constraints on supervisors. Therefore, only a few key subordinates are likely to have a close relationship with their supervisors. Nonetheless, the relationship between leaders and followers are becoming increasing important for organizations to learn how to build better trust among themselves in order to achieve greater commitment from the subordinates (Ansari et al

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Leadership and Power

  Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations

  • Daan Van Knippenberg, Michael A Hogg, Daan Van Knippenberg, Michael A Hogg(Authors)
  • 2004(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  Our own perspective is that leadership is quintessentially a group process. It identifies a relationship in which some people are able to influence others to embrace, as their own, new values, attitudes and goals, and to exert effort on behalf of, and in pursuit of, those values, attitudes and goals. The relationship is almost always played out within a group context – a small group like a team, a medium-sized group like an organization, or a large group like a nation. The values, attitudes, goals and behaviors that leaders inspire others to adopt and to follow, are ones that serve the group as a collective, and that define membership of the group. Thus, leaders are able to transform individual action into group action. Leadership is an essential feature of social groups; it is very difficult to think about groups without thinking about who leads or manages them, and about how well they are lead or managed. This characterization of leadership places a premium on the role of group membership and group life in the analysis of leadership; leadership is ‘a process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal’ (Chemers, 2001, p. 376).

  Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

  Theory

  Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (e.g., Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser, 1999; Sparrowe and Liden, 1997) is a transactional leadership theory. The development of the theory was in reaction to the dominant view that leaders adopt the same leadership style with all group members, which had been implicitly assumed by behavioral and contingency models of leadership (the so called ‘average leadership style’ approach). The initial version of the LMX approach was proposed by Graen and his colleagues, called the vertical dyad linkage model (VDL) (Dansereau, Cashman and Graen, 1973; Graen, 1976; Graen and Cashman, 1975). The focus was on dyadic exchange relationships between the leader and specific subordinates. The quality of these relationships can vary widely, with initial versions of the theory suggesting that leaders form ingroup and outgroup relationships with their subordinates. More recent theorizing within the LMX area pays less attention to the in- versus outgroup status of these relationships but more to the quality

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Effective Leadership

  Theory, Cases, and Applications

  • Ronald H. Humphrey(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Do you treat everyone the same, or do you treat your friends and favorite coworkers differently than you treat casual acquaintances or other coworkers? Perhaps you are more open, relaxed, and friendly with your favorite coworkers, perhaps even joke around a little with them and discuss personal issues. Perhaps with other coworkers you are polite, but your interactions are briefer and revolve more closely around specific work tasks. In the same way, leaders may have close, friendly, and personal relationships with some coworkers and subordinates and more formal, impersonal relationships with other teammates or subordinates.

  Some leadership models assume that leaders have a specific leadership style, for example, a task leadership style, which they use with everyone. In contrast, leader-member exchange (LMX) theorists argue that leaders have individualized, personal relationships with each member of their group (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987). For example, with one group member, the leader may have a very friendly, relationship-oriented relationship. With a second member, the leader may have a moderately friendly connection. And with a third person, the leader may have purely task-oriented interactions. Consequently, leaders use a variety of leadership styles according to the type of relationship they have with each person. LMX researchers use the term dyadic relationship to refer to the one-on-one relationship between a follower and a leader (a dyad consists of two people who are linked in some way).

  Although leader-member exchange theory focuses on individualized relationships, researchers often collapse the relationships into high and low relationship quality groups. The high quality relationships are often referred to as the in-group or cadre; whereas the low quality relationship groups are referred to as the out-group or hired hands.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  Studying Leadership

  Traditional and Critical Approaches

  • Doris Schedlitzki, Gareth Edwards(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  In his critical review, Yukl (2011) stresses that for contingency theories to regain their popularity and academic robustness, they need to employ comparative field research looking into the variations in leader effectiveness in different situations. There is also a need for longitudinal studies exploring how and whether leaders adapt to situational changes over time, including experimental field and laboratory studies observing leaders diagnosing situations and interacting with their teams. More creative methods should include observations, diaries, critical incidents and interviews, to move away from the bias ridden behavioural questionnaires employed by these early contingency theories. This may further help to capture the interrelatedness and fluidity of the complex mix of variables that make up a leader’s context and the leadership process. Finally, Yukl (2011) highlights the need for studies into ineffective leadership behaviours to add to our understanding of the dark side of leadership.

  Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

  LMX theory marked a distinct shift in leadership studies as it moved the focus onto the individual follower and the dyadic relationship between leader and follower. This was in stark contrast to the traits, styles and early contingency approaches to leadership that treated followers as passive recipients of leadership as exerted by the leader.

  Although recognised by some early contingency theories as a situational variable, leadership studies had up until then ignored the individual follower and their active engagement with leaders in a reciprocal process of leadership.

  The earliest descriptions of what is now known as LMX theory can be found in works by Dansereau et al. (1975), Graen and Cashman (1975) and Graen (1976). It was then called the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) theory and focused predominantly on the vertical links between the individual leader and follower. The theory has since undergone many revisions and developments and is still an active field of research into leadership processes. Anand et al.’s (2011) review of LMX research studies, for example, reports a total of 130 studies having been conducted between 2002 and 2009, where 70% of these studies focused on exploring further antecedents and consequences of LMX. Bauer and Erdogan’s (2016) handbook of LMX theories most recently expands on this comprehensive review of the literature and its future directions through specific contributions such as explorations of culture, corporate social responsibility, diversity and relational leadership.

  Vertical Dyads

  Early work on the VDL theory treated the leadership process within a work group as a series of vertical dyads between a leader and every single follower. Each vertical dyad represents an individualised working relationship between a leader and a follower including exchanges and processes specific to each dyad. These early writings on vertical dyads further distinguished between two different types of working relationships: in-group and out-group. In-group relationships are characterised by expanded, enriched and individually negotiated role responsibilities whereas out-group relationships are based predominantly on the formal employment contract and hence the defined role. A follower’s membership of the in- or out-group depends on how well the follower and leader work together. According to Dansereau et al. (1975) and Graen (1976) this depends on personality, personal characteristics and the follower’s own initiative to work on their work and role relationship with the leader. How many role negotiations and exchanges there are between leader and follower are hence of importance, as are reciprocal offers between leader and manager to go beyond the contracted role they have. Dansereau et al. (1975) have argued that in-group followers are likely to receive more information from the leader and tend to have more influence and confidence in and from their leader compared to those in the out-group.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Influence of Trust on Leader-Member Exchange in Culturally Diverse Leader-Member Dyads

  • Rahel Rüth(Author)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • WFA Medien Verlag

    (Publisher)

  In 1972 Graen and colleagues first directed the attention of the field of leadership research to the dyadic work relationship between supervisors (leaders) and their subordinates (members). They argued that an Average Leadership Style (ALS), which is the general leadership style of a supervisor towards the group of his subordinates, could not sufficiently explain variations in leader behavior. Building on their observations, Danserau and colleagues (1973) proposed the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model, thus shifting focus from the behavior of a leader towards his “members-in-general” (Dansereau et al., 1973, p. 187), to the behavior of a leader towards a member-in-particular. The concept stresses that the individual personality and situation of members significantly influences the relationship between leader and member. From then on the particular relationships between a leader and each of his assigned members became the basic unit of analysis. The vertical dyad is thereby composed of three defining elements: First, a superior, second, a subordinate and third, a set of exchange relationships between the two (Graen et al., 1977). Focusing on the latter, VDL theory was developed further and emerged to be known as “Leader-Member Exchange” (LMX) theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975). As LMX literature thus studies the exchange relationship between leader and member, the theory is rooted in Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Settoon et al., 1996), which examines social exchanges in various contexts.

  Although much research has been conducted on LMX since the construct’s development in the 1970s (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Rockstuhl et al., 2012), scholars criticize that little theorizing groundwork has been presented, research has not been consolidated and literature is discordant even about the construct’s basic definition (Schriesheim et al., 1999). However, the majority of studies on LMX agree that the nature of the construct can be described as the quality of the exchange relationship between supervisors and subordinates (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Furthermore, consistency among researchers is found in the construct’s basic assumptions. As the theory is rooted in SET, scholars agree that the interactions between leaders and members are interdependent and contingent on the actions of the respective partner (Blau, 1964; Cropanzo & Mitchell, 2005). This implicates that LMX can be measured along a continuum reaching from high-quality exchange towards low-quality exchange (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). High-quality exchange is thereby marked by feelings of mutual obligation and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Liden et al., 1997) whereas low-quality relationships are defined by a mere economic, formally agreed upon exchange (Blau, 1964). Although researchers agree that high-quality LMX contains reciprocity (Brower et al., 2000), this reciprocity is not necessarily a balanced one. Research states that the assessment of LMX quality can vary between members of a LM-Dyad, with one partner rating it very high while the other partner is considering it to be low (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Maturing Leadership

  How Adult Development Impacts Leadership

  • Jonathan Reams, Jonathan Reams(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Emerald Publishing Limited

    (Publisher)

  Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 1997 ). The LMX model describes how effective leader–follower dyadic relationships develop over time and through a role-making process and exchange dynamics.

  LMX theory has been used to study dyadic relationships from four perspectives: (1) differences in LMX relationships within groups (in-group and out-group effect); (2) LMX relationships characteristics and their outcomes; (3) a description of dyadic relationship building; and (4) LMX relationships within groups and networks (Gerstner & Day, 1997 ; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ). The first perspective arose from the work described above that suggested that leaders may treat subordinates differently, that is, inconsistently, and therefore they may become leaders for some group members (in-group members) and not others (out-group members). This finding gave rise to the second perspective, that LMX relationships were worthy of consideration as a viable unit of study. The third stage of LMX research, how leader–follower relationships develop, and especially how high-quality leadership relationships develop, is the theoretical focus of interest here.

  What are the differences in how high-quality LMX relationships develop over time as compared to low-quality LMX relationships? Higher-quality LMX relationships can be described as those that develop into partnerships, and which have greater levels of mutual respect for the capabilities of the other, anticipation of deep reciprocal trust, and expectation that a mutual obligation will increase with time. They are the more effective and mature leadership relationships and are those in which more effective influence gives rise to more effective outcomes such as greater reciprocal influence, followers taking more initiative, career risks and being better organizational citizens (Crouch & Yetton, 1988 ; Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986 ; Fairhurst, 1993 ; Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989 ; Graen, 1989

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Leadership of Higher Education Assessment

  A Guide to Theory for Practitioners

  • Matthew B. Fuller(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  In the 1970s, organizational leadership theorists began addressing the emerging dichotomy between leadership and management. Theorists also began grappling with the question of who is considered a leader and whether or not everyone in an organization is, indeed, a leader. One of the first attempts to understand Transactional Leadership’s relationship with management was organized under the LMX studies led by Graen (1976). The LMX Theory focuses on the relationship that develops between managers and followers and how these relationships can result in change. The fundamental premise of the LMX Theory is that leaders and followers develop different relationships either consciously or subconsciously. These relationships are defined by physical, mental, or emotional efforts going into the relationship, material or financial resources associated with the relationship, or the emotional support exchanged between the leader and followers (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Leaders develop differential relationships with various followers. Perhaps a leader trusts one follower more than another, or relies on a particular follower more readily than another. The LMX Theory maintains that leaders will almost always form different relationships with various followers; seldom do leaders form the same type of relationships with each and every follower. LMX Theory can be useful in identifying conscious or subconscious patterns leaders adopt in organizing followers to enhance organizational productivity or culture.

  That leaders form differential relationships with various followers is a basic foundation for the LMX Theory. LMX research has deepened, focusing on how differential relationships are perceived by followers, how relationships enhance or hinder organizational outcomes, and how some followers develop or transform relationships with leaders (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Through iterative research, LMX theorists have developed a system that explains that all leader/follower relationships go through three stages. These stages are: (a) role-taking, (b), role-making, and (c) routinization.

  Role-taking

  Role-taking occurs when followers first join the organization or assume a new role within the organization. For example, newly hired assessment staff or longtime faculty who have recently agreed to serve on assessment committees are taking on a new role in the assessment team. Leaders capitalize on this period to assess new members’ skills and abilities and to establish expectations around operations, performance, and culture. LMX theory holds that followers take on a role given to them by leaders.

  Role-making

  In the role-making

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Nature of Leadership

  • John Antonakis, David V. Day(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  LMX theory and research has largely overlooked the need for relationship maintenance behavior in order to sustain LMX relationships at their desired levels, despite frequent calls for researchers to go beyond the early stages of LMX development and examine how mature LMX relationships are maintained (e.g., Martin et al., 2010). As such, in this section we have integrated insights from the multidisciplinary literature on relationship science to address this lacuna. Guided by interdependence theory and the investment model (Rusbult, 1980), we outlined a range of cognitive (e.g., congenial attributions) and behavioral (e.g., accommodation, forgiveness) relationship maintenance strategies that are likely to be enacted in the context of LMX relationships, and how the motivation to engage in such strategies is likely to be influenced by attachment styles. To this end, we believe that this represents fertile ground for future research on relational leadership.

  Beyond the Dyad: Group and Collective Relational Perspectives

  Almost 100 years ago Mary Parker Follett (1924) suggested that leadership emerges from dynamic interactions among organizational actors. However, it is only recently that systematic empirical work has emerged on collective leadership forms (e.g., Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012). Although all these forms are basically relational leadership manifestations, the review of this literature is beyond the scope of our chapter. In this chapter we will present two important strands of relational leadership that transcend the dyadic level and reside on the group and collective level: (a) LMX differentiation and (b) leadership and social networks research.

  LMX Differentiation: “Not All Relationships Are Created Equal”

  Differentiation has been an inherent assumption of LMX theory since its inception, but the explicit examination of LMX differentiation is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is also one of the most important current areas of inquiry for LMX research (see Anand, Vidyarthi, & Park, 2015). LMX differentiation has been examined in three distinct ways: perceived LMX (e.g., Hooper & Martin, 2008), relative LMX (RLMX; e.g., Hu & Liden, 2013), and group-level LMX differentiation (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2010).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Shared Leadership

  Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership

  • Craig L. Pearce, Jay A. Conger(Authors)
  • 2002(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Collectively, these studies suggest that generalized exchange contributes to group solidarity. We should then expect that as the overall level of generalized exchange in groups increases, those groups should exhibit greater integration (Hechter, 1987; Lindenberg, 1998) wherein group norms support interlocking, reciprocal influence among the members that allows shared leadership to operate. Still, as members of groups remain unique individuals, individual differences should remain among members with respect to their characteristic level of generalized exchange with the group. Certainly, what is within each individual member’s discretion is his or her contributions to exchange relationships (both dyadic and generalized) rather than receipts from exchange relationships. Individuals with characteristically high levels of contributions to generalized exchange should emerge as “model citizens.” This role should legitimize their influence with other members.

  Seers (2000) suggested that the pattern of generalized social exchange within self-directing work teams should promote emergent leadership as some individuals become more influential than others. For example, Seers, Ford, Wilkerson, and Moorman (2001) examined influence among members of managerial work groups in relation to both generalized TMX with their peers and their dyadic LMX with the supervising manager. The TMX measure was split into symmetric subscales (exchange contributions and exchange receipts) to reflect the reciprocal nature of social exchange. Both LMX and TMX contributions predicted upward influence and lateral influence, but exchange receipts had no significant effect on influence. The results were interpreted as indicating that the contribution side of social exchanges provides the basis for the process of legitimation (Blau, 1964; Ridgeway, 1984) through which leadership roles stabilize.

  In sum, a considerable body of evidence has built on the insights of such seminal thinkers as Homans (1961) and Blau (1964). This evidence clearly supports the basic premise of social exchange theory that exchange relationships generate influence. These relationships engage the parties in interdependent patterns of interaction. To maintain the stability of an exchange relationship, both parties must continue to respond to each other. Should the behavior of either party cease to influence the other to reciprocate, the relationship deteriorates. Nonetheless, the extent of influence wielded by each party can differ notably. Our third theoretical pillar, expectation states theory, is perhaps most useful for analyzing variation within a group with respect to the development of influential roles.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Future of Leadership Development

  • Susan Elaine Murphy, Ronald E. Riggio, Susan Elaine Murphy, Ronald E. Riggio(Authors)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  relational favorability, or the extent to which conditions are favorable or unfavorable for the development of the relationship. This could include a wide range of variables, such as personality characteristics, value congruence, job/organization fit, task characteristics, unit size, demographics, etc. Although LMX literature has attempted to identify antecedents to LMX relationships (Bauer & Green, 1996; Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Phillips & Bedeian, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), we still know little about what leads to higher and lower LMX and, with the exception of work on relational demography (Bauer & Green, 1996; Duchon et al., 1986; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996), this line of investigation has not taken on a strong relational focus.

  To advance understanding of relational leadership theory and leadership development, more work needs to be conducted investigating issues regarding relational favorability. Specifically, we need to better understand both interpersonal (i.e., relational) and contextual situations that foster effective relationships and interpersonal and contextual situations that work against them.

  Taking the concept of relational favorability one step further, it is possible that relational favorability from an interpersonal standpoint (versus a contextual or work environment standpoint) may be associated with implicit relational theories. The concept of implicit leadership theories (ILTs) has had a strong presence in the leadership literature (Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Gioia & Sims, 1985; Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994), but the concept of an implicit relational theory has not been considered.

  ILTs examine the extent to which followers recognize leaders based on their fit with leadership prototypes that followers hold (Lord & Emrich, 2001; Lord & Maher, 1991). Prototypes are expectations about patterns of traits, skills, and behaviors of leaders and are developed and refined over time as a result of experiences with leaders and social–cultural influences (Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). Once someone matches the follower’s prototype (e.g., is labeled an effective or ineffective leader), subsequent information is filtered through the ILT, to the extent that followers may have difficulty determining actual behaviors from the behaviors associated with the ILT. Leaders who do things inconsistently with follower prototypes would be considered less favorably than those who conform to the ILT, and these perceptions would then affect subsequent attitudes and behaviors of the follower.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book