Languages and Education Consultant

LMX

(Leader-Member

exchange theory)

 

In 1975 Dansereau, Graen and Haga developed the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model which would be the foundation for what was later named as Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Model.

LMX theory (e.g. Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) postulates the need for high quality personalized relationships between the leader and followers, in order to promote effectiveness in leadership. However, accordingly to Social identity theory approach these relationships are less effective in groups with high salience and strong identification (Hogg & Martin, 2003; Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2004).

Therefore a lot has still to be studied in order to understand in what circumstances does this l-m higher quality relationships are more effective and, in this study, promote proactivity.

LMX was one of the first approaches that considered the followers contribution in the leadership process (Schyns & Day, 2010).

LMX theory can be defined as an exchange relationship because the idea behind is that “followers follow because they get something from being followers” (Messick, 2005, p. 82), that is, leaders give something to followers and the followers will therefore act in ways that will be beneficial to the leader.

Messick (2005) describes five interrelated dimensions present in both sides of this exchange relationship: according to the author leaders provide vision and direction to followers. At this point, we can refer to the concept of future work selves that later we will further explain, in the sense that is expected that a transformational leader will promote a future oriented vision and direction and therefore influence the development of individual and collective work selves.

Messick (2005) defines protection and security as yet another dimension of what the leader provides to followers. Another dimension is achievement and effectiveness, in the sense that the leader gives the possibility for the followers to achieve goals that they individually or as a group without a leader, wouldn’t be able to do which will fulfill the need for effectiveness of the follower. In this dimension the leader’s main role is to provide the followers with the sense that they have the possibility to achieve difficult goals. When positive outcomes are achieved, a self-efficacy belief is strengthened and followers will believe that their efforts are leading to positive outcomes.

Messick’s (2005) next dimension is “inclusion and belongingness”, which refers to the human need to belong, and should therefore be promoted by the leader which will in turn provide the followers with the sense of cooperation and a higher willingness to make sacrifices for the ingroup benefit.

The fifth benefit provided by leaders is a sense of pride and self-respect, not only achieved through all the previously stated dimensions, but also specifically, by the treatment given to the follower, promoting their self pride and empowerment.

When a leader is effective in developing this dimension, the follower will respond with respect and obedience to the norms of the organization.

Graen (1976) notes that time is an important variable to consider, as the relationship between leader and follower evolves since the moment that a follower is assigned to the leader and none or few information about each other is available, through time as they start to know each other and develop the norms and boundaries of their relationships (Jex, 2002).

Several studies have considered LMX relationships and their association with leadership and, theoretically and empirically there’s an established association between LMX and transformational leadership (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen, 2003; Wang, Law, Hackett, Want, & Chen, 2005; Basu & Green, 1997; Deluga, 1994; Howell & Hall-Marenda, 1999).

In fact, Gerstner and Day (1997) consider transformational leadership as a way to establish high quality LMX with followers.

An influence of transformational leadership in performance through LMX has been established (Wang, Law, Hackett, Want & Chen, 2005) and in this study we aim to analyze other possible effects of the variables, for instance in proactivity.

Of great importance in social exchange is the perception of leader’s justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002) which allows us to assume that there’s an association of this perspectives and LMX notion corroborated by several authors (e.g. Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Masterson et al., 2000) that suggest that only with justice perceptions there will be a positive effect on LMX.

LMX’s association with justice perceptions has been focus of several studies, such as studies on trust in management which was found to be higher in employees with high quality relationships with leaders (Gomez & Rosen, 2001; Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008) and therefore it’s sensible to assume that direct managers are very important in the development of the employees interaction with the organization (Song, Tsui, & Law, 2009).

Bhal (2006) found that LMX is a predictor of fairness perceptions at a procedural and interactional perception.

LMX has been found to influence the associations between procedural and interactional justice and several outcomes, that is, accentuates justice perceptions, since these high quality relationships will increase the expectations of fair treatment by the organizations (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).