Leader-Member Exchange Theory Analysis

In the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, the quality of the exchange relationship between a leader and a particular member of a work unit, team or organization is the basic unit of analysis (dyad). In this article, we try to answer the question whether research on the various aspects of the exchange processes between leaders and their subordinates is consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of LMX theory. Our focus is on the similarities and differences between the theoretical assumptions of LMX theory and the way the core concepts are elaborated in empirical studies. Although LMX theory has resulted in a number of useful accomplishments, both theoretical and practical, it still faces a number of challenges. The main challenges

Authority is legitimated by the implicit contract between the member and the organization. The leader will provide support, consideration, and assistance mandated by duty but will not go beyond such limits. In effect, the leader is practicing a contractual exchange with such members; they are “hired hands,” who are being influenced by legitimate authority rather than true leadership. In return, out-group members will do what they have to do and little beyond that.

Steps to Build High-Quality Leader-Member Exchange Relationships

As noted above, the better the leader-member exchange relationship between leader and follower, the higher the productivity, job satisfaction, motivation, and citizenship behavior of the follower. Following are some tips that may help to build high-quality leader-member exchange relationships (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2011).

• Stage 1. Meet separately with your employees in the initial stage to help each of you evaluate each others motives, attitudes, and potential resources to be exchanged, and establish mutual role

An external attribution is more likely when (1) the subordinate has no prior history of poor performance on similar tasks; (2) the subordinate performs other tasks effectively; (3) the subordinate is doing as well as other people who are in a similar situation; (4) the effects of failures or mistakes are not serious or harmful; (j) the manager is dependent on the subordinate for his or her own success; (6) the subordinate is perceived to have other redeeming qualities (popularity, leadership skills); (7) the subordinate has offered excuses or an apology; or (8) evidence indicates external causes. In addition, managers with prior experience doing the same kind of work as the subordinate are more likely to make external attributions than managers without such experience, perhaps because they know more about the external factors that can affect performance. Manager traitsuch as internal locus of control orientation can also influence