Talk:Leader–member exchange theory

Wiki Edit

I plan on to add this to "Leader-Member Exchange Theory"

• Several factors have been found to influence the level of leader-member exchange.
• LMX is higher when a groups workers and leaders are of the same gender and when they share the same growth-need strength, that is, the need for achievement and accomplishment.
• personality also affects leader-member exchange.

Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. pp. 160–163. ISBN 0-205-68358-4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Nae0408/sandbox#wiki_edit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nae0408 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

On-Job-Training

Wiki Edit I plan to add some more information on "Leader-Member Exchange Theory"

• On-job-training has generally supported the leader-member exchange model for various levels of mangement.
• Research has shown that the quality of the leader-subordinate realtionship can be improved through training, resulting in the display of more leadership than supervision.
• Significant improvements in job satisafaction and productivity and decrease in errors have been found in subordinates.

Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 161. ISBN 0-205-68358-4. Ashleydf (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashleydf/sandbox

Major Edits Needed

I plan to do a major overhaul of "Leader-member Exchange Theory." Here is a link to the sandbox I will be working on. Please feel free to add suggestions or sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alinenaroditsky/sandbox/leadermemberexchangetheory Alinenaroditsky (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed from Previous Version

This section and its content has been removed from the previous version of the page because it is poorly written, not cohesive, lacks citations, and does not really fit with the article overall:

Practical Applications 

When joining a team, it is important to join the inner circle, take on more than your share of administrative and other tasks in order to gain trust from your leaders. [citation needed]

The quality of the LMX relationship varies. It is most efficient on one of the two ends of the spectrum: either extremely low or extremely high. The size of the group, financial resources available, and the overall workload are also important. The theory can also work upwards as well. The leader can gain power by being a member of his or her manager's inner circle, which the leader can then share with subordinates. [citation needed]

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory can be utilized outside of the workplace. It can be applied to group projects for school, clubs, etc. By using LMX in such circumstances, you can learn more about how you see your team members. When labeling members as “out-group,” one must determine what traits deem someone a member of the out-group while paying careful consideration to the difference between facts and one’s own perception of events. The next step you must take requires you to re-establish the relationship with those in the out-group. In doing so, you will gain respect as a leader. It may also boost morale for those members of the out-group. However, make a mental note that those members will have their guards up at first when you try to give your support to them. Make it sincere by approaching each member one-on-one. Take time to get to know a little more about them. This can also help you learn more about what drives them. From that point on, try to keep the reconnection going by keeping in touch with those members. Make an effort to offer your guidance on any of their tasks if they need assistance. Your third and final step to apply the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is to offer some form of mentoring or coaching. This allows a type of opportunity for the member to advance in the group. Start first with low risk assignments. [citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10outta10 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the previous version of this article because it lacks a citation and contradicts new information that has been added to the page in the antecedents section: Additionally, LMX theory involves the assumption that each individual is worthy of the same amount of trust, chance of project responsibility, and opportunity for advancement. This is not always the case. Group members with the most talent are more likely to receive better opportunities for relationship building and career advancement. For this reason, the leader must make sure to use the theory in an objective manner when they deal with others. [citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10outta10 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the previous version of this article because it lacked citations and did nor fit clearly with the rest of the article content:

Stages of LMX 

Soon after a person joins a team and goes through several stages, leader-member relationship are formed. The stages one must go through are as follows:

Role Taking 

The member joins the team and the leader evaluates his or her abilities and talents. Based on this, the leader may offer opportunities to demonstrate capabilities. This is the stage where a leader is able to gain insight into what areas a member will do best in. [citation needed]

Role Making 

Role-making according to the Leader-Member Exchange theory expanded role theory beyond the limits of Katz and Kahn’s (1966) "role-taking" which is defined as the process whereby employees accept roles prescribed by their employer and employer’s agent.[1] Graen’s theory hypothesized that particular actor, behavior and context variables increased the probability that employees would form alliances that were instrumental for them, their managers, and coworkers to change their roles. This was different from Graen’s models of Vertical Dyad theory that simply predicted managers would treat their direct employees differently.[2] For example, Leader-Member Exchange theory prescribes that product managers uniquely design their teams for maximum sources of collaboration by proactively fostering unique strategic alliances between the leader and each team member and between each team member before turning to the other big five steps in competing team leadership.[3]

In the second phase, the leader and member take part in an unstructured and informal negotiation whereby a role is created for the member and the unspoken promise of benefit and power in return for dedication and loyalty takes place. The theory says that, during this stage, managers sort new team members (often subconsciously) into one of two groups: in-group or out-group. Team members are put into the in-group if they prove to be loyal, trustworthy and skilled. This group is made up of the team members that the manager trusts the most. Managers give this group most of their attention, providing challenging and interesting work, and offering opportunities for additional training and advancement. This group also gets more one-on-one time with the manager. Often, people in this group have a similar personality and work ethic as their manager. Team members are put into the out-group if they betray the manager's trust or prove to be unmotivated or incompetent. This group's work is often restricted and unchallenging. Out-group members tend to have less access to the manager, and often don't receive opportunities for growth or advancement. Trust-building is very important in this stage. Thus, any feelings of betrayal, especially by the leader, can result in the member being demoted to the out-group. This negotiation includes inter-personal relationship factors as well as purely work-related factors. A member who is similar to the leader in various ways is more likely to be put in the in-group, making them more likely to succeed in their job. This perhaps explains why mixed gender relationships are typically less successful than same gender ones. The same effect also applies to cultural and racial differences. [citation needed]

Routinization 

In this last phase, a pattern of ongoing social exchange between the leader and the member becomes established. Habits and routines are formed in this stage. In-group team members work hard to maintain the good opinion of their managers by showing trust, respect, empathy, patience, and persistence. Out-group members start to dislike or distrust their managers. Because it's so hard to move out of the out-group once the perception has been established, out-group members may have to change departments or organizations in order to "start over." Once team members have been classified, even subconsciously, as in-group or out-group, that classification affects how their managers relate to them from then on, and it can become self-fulfilling. Being a successful member or becoming an in-group member usually includes being similar, in many ways, to the leader. The members work hard at building and sustaining trust and respect from their leader. The members are often empathetic, patient, reasonable, sensitive, and are good at seeing the viewpoint of other people, especially their leader. Characteristics that are often shared by the out-group include aggression, sarcasm and a self-centered view. [citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10outta10 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the previous version of this article because it did not have citations and was written more as a personal essay not appropriate for Wikipedia:

LMX theory suggests that group members often separate into subgroups, as some members may have similar interests or personalities. In one of those groups, leaders have special relationships with an inner circle of assistants and advisors, who often get high levels of responsibility and access to resources. This is often called the “in-group,” and their position can come with a price. The other group is known as the “out-group,” and they typically prove to be less motivated or less competent in comparison to the other group. In-group employees are more willing to put in profound efforts, are more committed to task objectives, and share more administrative duties. However, leaders spend more time working with these individuals, value their opinions more than the out-group and also provide them with more resources. In-group members are more likely to report high satisfaction with their role in the group, are less likely to leave the group and are more likely to get promoted than others. They are also expected to be totally committed and loyal to their leader. Conversely, subordinates in the “out-group" are given low levels of choice or influence and put constraints on the leader. Out-group members do what work is necessary in their role, but they contribute less to the group than in-group members. They are less likely to be presented with opportunities to grow and have less challenging work than the individuals of the in-group. The out-group also express less loyalty and support for the leader.

Leader-member exchange does not just define what the exchange between leader and subordinate is, but it also determines what expectations and behaviors the leader will have. Having a good rapport with subordinates is important for the leader because it is through them that the leader reaches the goals of the business.

Psychological research in the theory of LMX has empirically proven its usefulness in understanding group processes. The natural tendency for groups to develop into subgroups and create a clique of an in-group versus an out-group is supported by researcher (Bass, 1990). Those who form the in-group were also found to be more likely to behave in a way that benefits the group. These behaviors include helping other members, supporting changes within the group, and common courtesy[7]. However, the amount of differentiation within a group can vary between groups or organizations. A group may be cleaved into very diverse in-groups or out-groups, while other organizations may be low in differentiation. If a leader can recognize this hierarchy within a group, he or she can improve their relations with their group by minimizing the number of individuals in the out-group (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). Conversely, other research has shown that some differentiation is healthy in a group, as this causes the out-group to recognize that they must work harder to achieve the leader's approval (Liden et al., 2006).

Pros • This theory is dynamic and points to possible ways for employees or managers to either weaken or strengthen relationships. • It provides a structure for both modeling specific situation and solutions to the problems • The theory explains the mechanics of loyalty to leader and corruption [citation needed]

Cons • The theory does not account for the leader's personalities • It does not account for the fact that values also affect group dynamics. It does not state clearly how values will affect the relationship between the leader and group. • Theory assumes competency of all individuals and likely also maturity of organisation. [citation needed] Alinenaroditsky (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)