8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
1/16
PRESENTATIONONLEADERMEMBEREXCHANGE
1
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
2/16
LMXDEFINITION
Lmx is an exchange process between a leader and a
follower which is dependent upon the interpersonal
skills, traits, trust, support, rewards and satisfaction with
the leader; furthermore, LMX could be defined as an
exchange process and as leaders approval (Graen &
Scandura, 1987).
2
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
3/16
LMXHISTORY
The study of the leader and follower is as old as time, ithas his inception from the vertical dyad linkage model(e.g., Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). It has changednow into LMX theory of the current era, In the early
years of the examination, the main concern was tofurther improve the theory development of LMX (e.g.,Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
Early LMX work was more related towards thedevelopment of the theory, associates, and results of
LMX were explored (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997). Lateron, the researchers have started to address LMXdemarcation (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe,2006). 3
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
4/16
LMXTHEORY
Lmx was initially regarded as a vertical-dyad linkagetheory, and was firstly reported by Dansereau, Cashman,and Graen (1973). Different from the all previoustheories which stated that leader treat all of his followers
in a equal manner, Lmx was totally opposite to them, itasserted that leader has a different way of treating to allthe followers. (Graen & Scandura, 1987).
Lmx is more inclined towards the exchange relationshipbetween a follower and a leader and the quality of the
exchange process which is between the both (Liden &Maslyn, 1998).so the main area of the interest in thistheory is the dyadic relationship between the leader andhis subordinates. (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). 4
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
5/16
TYPESOFLMX
LMX uses exchange theory to describe the relationship that developsbetween supervisors and each of their subordinates. Two major types ofexchange have been identified and labeled (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga,1975) .
Low quality LMX (or out group relationship) and high quality LMX (orin-group relationship). Low quality LMX is characterized as an
exchange between a supervisor and subordinate limited to that definedby an employment contract. Supervisors, employing formalorganizational position power, provide subordinates with the standardorganizational benefits while subordinates comply with their formallydefined job requirements and follow legitimate supervisor requests(Graen & Cashman, 1975).
In contrast, high quality LMX is characterized as an exchange of bothmaterial and non-material goods beyond those identified in anemployment contract. This relationship usually includes higher levels ofmutual trust and loyalty, comfortable communication, and bi-directionalinfluence (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). This distinction (between out-group and in-group exchanges) parallels that between economic andsocial exchanges described by Blau (1964). 5
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
6/16
Economic exchanges are more contract-based and requirespecific compensation for performing a task, whereas socialexchanges are based on informal assurances that gestures ofgoodwill and mutual support will be reciprocated at a futuredate (Noorderhaven, 1992).
Researchers have frequently used the terms contractualandextra-contractualto characterize the lowqualityand highqualitypositions on a continuum of LMX relationships (e.g.,Liden et al., 1993). Because there is a negative connotation tothe terms low quality and out-group, it might be moreappropriate to use value-neutral terms that indicate there aresubordinates who have contractual relationships with theirsupervisors and others who have extra-contractualrelationshipswith their supervisors.
6
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
7/16
LMXANDSOCIALEXCHANGE
Leader-member exchanges can be seen as resources, rangingfrom the particular to the universal, and from the abstract tothe concrete (Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). When one partyin a dyad offers a resource, it is suggested that the offer will
be reciprocated with the same kind of resource. When such a
like exchange is impossible (for instance, followers cannotoffer leaders a salary raise), other resources can be offered inexchange (for instance, followers can reciprocate a salaryraise with information from colleagues) (Wilson et al., 2010).Exchanges may include leaders offer of work latitude andinfluence in decision-making, leaders enhancement of
communications, support, confidence, and consideration (i.e.,LMX-7, Scandura & Graen, 1984), and leader-followermutual exchanges of affect, loyalty, contribution, and
professional respect (i.e., LMX-MDM, Liden & Maslyn,1998). 7
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
8/16
LMXANDWORKOUTCOMES
LMX refers to a work-related exchange relationship between
subordinates and their immediate supervisor. A supervisor
develops a different quality of exchange relationship with
each of his or her subordinates in the same work group (Graen
1976). The quality of LMX is based on mutual trust, respect,and liking (Yukl 2001). The social exchange perspective of
LMX holds that subordinates who have a high-quality
exchange relationship with their supervisor are more likely to
be trusted and respected by the supervisor. As a result, they
enjoy better communication with their supervisor, display ahigher level of organizational commitment, and enjoy greater
emotional support and access to information than their
counterparts in a low-quality LMX (Dienesch and Liden 1986,
Graen and Scandura 1987, Wayne et al. 1997, Lo et al. 2010).8
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
9/16
Lmx plays an outstanding role in generating positive
work outcomes, those subordinates with high quality lmx
perform more than with low quality LMX; the
subordinates with high quality LMX have less intention
to leave the organization, have more job satisfaction,organization commitment and a high level of
organization citizenship behavior (Yukl 2001).
9
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
10/16
LMXANDOCB
Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) report a two-dimensional
model of OCB: altruism and general compliance (also known
as conscientiousness). Altruism is an individuals personal
behaviorfor example, being cooperative, helpful, and other
instances of extra-role behavior (Smith, Organ, and Near,1983). It is a behavior performed in helping a specific
coworker, a customer or a supervisor, not normally expected
of the employee since it is not part of the employment
contract. Examples are being accommodating to new
employees, sitting in for a sick coworker, or assistingsupervisors and others. Compliance is another behavior
employees are expected to exhibit (e.g., arriving to work on
time, not taking too many coffee breaks, taking only the
required lunch time, or not leaving early).10
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
11/16
(Organ 1988) believe citizenship behaviors, althoughdiscretionary, are necessary for they promote effectivefunctioning of the organization. In a study of 218 peopleworking in a Northeast paper mill, (Podsakoff et al 1994) finda positive correlation between citizenship behavior and the
organizations output. Citizenship behavior improves theeffectiveness of the organization by the high degree of workgroup performance in terms of quantity and quality of work.(Settoon, Bennett, and Liden 1996) postulate that in-groupmembers receive formal and informal rewards from theirsubordinates. In exchange, the members seek out extra-role
situations in the form of providing citizenship behavior to thesupervisors who, in turn, give more reciprocal support andopportunities to the members. This cycle of helping
behavior for mutual attainment of goals helps further intensifythe quality of the supervisor-subordinate exchange (Scanduraand Graen 1984). 11
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
12/16
LMXANDINNOVATIVEBEHAVIOR
For contemporary organizations, the financial attractiveness of their
products and/or services is mostly not enough to guarantee sustainable
survive: goods also have to be of high-quality and preferably unique.
Uniqueness refers to innovation: thedevelopment and implementation of
new ideas by people. It is claimed that innovative behavior of employees
defined as the creation, introduction and application of new ideas within agroup or organization in order to benefit performance is crucial for the long-
time survival of organizations.
Given the importance of innovation, there is a growing interest among
scholars trying to answer the question why and under which circumstances
employees express innovative behavior. To gain such critical employee
contributions, scholars argue that the Human Re-source Management(HRM) is vital. When including employeessatisfaction with HR practices,
the role of the direct supervisor can not be underestimated. Many companies
delegate operational HRM to those who lead employees directly and as a
result several key HR administrative taskshiring, performance
management and compensationhave been devolved to line managers.
12
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
13/16
Researchers found the LMX is related to innovative job
performance. (Janssen 1994) found evidence that
employees responded more innovatively to higher levels
of job demands when they perceived that their efforts
were fairly rewarded by their leader. This means thatemployees who perceive a fair balance between
supervisors inducements relative to their work efforts
will respond with more innovative behavior.
13
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
14/16
LMXANDJOBSATISFACTION
Job satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurableor positiveemotional state resulting from the appraisal of onesjob or jobexperiences (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). Building on thisdefinition, recent theorizing (Fisher, 2000; Weiss, 2000)describes job satisfaction as an attitude (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993) with both an affective component (mood, emotions) anda cognitive component (belief, judgment, comparison).
Gertsner and Day (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of 25years of empirical research on LMX theory in which theyevaluated relationships between LMX and correlates as
well as LMX construct and leader-member agreement (p.827). They analyzed 164 studies, resulting in 79 studies with85 independent samples. Their study supported prior researchthat showed the LMX is positively correlated to greater jobsatisfaction in subordinates. 14
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
15/16
Prior research has conceptually stated and empirically shown positive
relationships between LMX and employee work outcomes that are important to
individualsworkplace success (e.g., job satisfaction, affective commitment, and
job performance). Affective commitment refers to the extent to which employees
identify with, are involved in, and are emotionally attached to an organization so
that they want to remain in it (Meyer & Allen, 1997). According to LMX theory
(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), because of the expanded resources and strong
support available to a follower in a high-quality LMX relationship, such a
relationship can result in more positive attitudes toward the job and the
organization as well as higher job performance for the follower. In fact, Gerstner
and Day (1997) found strong support for positive links between LMX and
overall job satisfaction organizational commitment and job performance.15
8/13/2019 Presentation LMT
16/16
THANKS
16