6.1 Description Path– goal theory discusses how leaders motivate followers to accomplish designated g oals. Drawing heavily from research on what motivates followers, path– goal theory first appeared in the leadership literature in the early 1970s in the w orks of Evans (1970), House (1971), House and Dessler (1974), and House and M itchell (1974). The stated goal of this theory is to enhance follower performance and follower satisfaction by focusing on follower motivation and the nature of th e work tasks. At its inception, path– goal theory was incredibly innovative in the sense that it shifted attention to follo wer needs and motivations, and away from the predominant focus on tasks and r elationships. In contrast to the situational approach, which suggests that a leader must adapt t o the development level of followers (see Chapter 5), path– goal theory emphasizes the relationship between the leader’s style and the chara cteristics of the followers and the organizational setting. For the leader, the impe rative is to use a leadership style that best meets followers’ motivational needs. T his is done by choosing behaviors that complement or supplement what is missin g in the work setting. Leaders try to enhance followers’ goal attainment by provid ing information or rewards in the work environment (Indvik, 1986); leaders pro vide followers with the elements they think followers need to reach their goals. A ccording to House (1996), the heart of path– goal theory suggests that in order for leaders to be effective they must “engage in behaviors that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a manne r that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfactio n and individual and work unit performance” (p. 335). Put simply, path– goal theory puts much of the onus on leaders in terms of designing and facilitatin g a healthy and productive work environment to propel followers toward success . Figure 6.1 The Basic Idea Behind Path–Goal Theory According to House and Mitchell (1974), leadership generates motivation when i t increases the number and kinds of payoffs that followers receive from their wor k. Leadership also motivates when it makes the path to the goal clear and easy to travel through coaching and direction, removing obstacles and roadblocks to atta ining the goal, and making the work itself more personally satisfying (Figure 6.1). For example, even in professions where employees are presumed to be selfmotivated such as in technical industries, leaders can greatly enhance follower m otivation, engagement, satisfaction, performance, and intent to stay (Stumpf, Ty mon, Ehr, & vanDam, 2016). Relatedly, research (Asamani, Naab, & Ansah Ofei, 2 016) indicates that follower satisfaction and intent to leave are greatly impacted by a leader’s communicative style. In other words, employing path– goal theory in terms of leader behavior and the needs of followers and the tasks t hey have to do could hold substantial implications for organizations that seek to enhance follower engagement and motivation while also decreasing turnover. In brief, path– goal theory is designed to explain how leaders can help followers along the path t o their goals by selecting specific behaviors that are best suited to followers’ nee ds and to the situation in which followers are working. By choosing the appropri ate behaviors, leaders increase followers’ expectations for success and satisfactio n. Within path– goal theory, motivation is conceptualized from the perspective of the expectancy theory of motivation (Vroom, 1964). The underlying assumption of expectancy th eory is that followers will be motivated if they think they are capable of performi ng their work, if they believe their efforts will result in a certain outcome, and if t hey believe that the payoffs for doing their work are worthwhile. The challenge f or a leader using ideas from expectancy theory is to understand fully the goals of each follower and the rewards associated with the goals. Followers want to feel e fficacious, like they can accomplish what they set out to do. But, they also want to know that they will be rewarded if they can accomplish their work. A leader nee ds to find out what is rewarding to followers about their work and then make tho se rewards available to them when they accomplish the requirements of their wo rk. Expectancy theory is about the goals that followers choose and how leaders h elp them and reward them for meeting those goals. Figure 6.2 Major Components of Path–Goal Theory Conceptually, path– goal theory is complex, and it is useful to break it down into smaller units so we c an better understand the complexities of this approach. Figure 6.2 illustrates the different components of path– goal theory, including leader behaviors, follower characteristics, task characterist ics, and motivation. Path– goal theory suggests that each type of leader behavior has a different kind of imp act on followers’ motivation. Whether a particular leader behavior is motivating t o followers is contingent on the followers’ characteristics and the characteristics of the task. Leader Behaviors Since its inception, path– goal leadership has undergone numerous iterations and revisions (i.e., House, 19 71, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1974) that have increased the number of contingenci es associated with the theory. However, for our purposes, we will discuss only th e primary four leadership behaviors identified as part of path–goal theory— directive, supportive, participative, and achievementoriented (House & Mitchell, 1974, p. 83). These four leader behaviors are not only foundational to understanding how path– goal theory works but are still more commonly used by researchers in contempo rary studies of the path–goal leadership approach (e.g., Asamani et al., 2016). Directive Leadership Directive leadership is similar to the “initiating structure” concept described in th e Ohio State studies (Halpin & Winer, 1957) and the “telling” style described in Si tuational Leadership® (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). It characterizes a leader who gives followers instructions about their task, including what is expected of them, how it is to be done, and the timeline for when it should be completed. It is thoug ht that by providing explicit expectations and removing ambiguity, followers will have the clarity needed to focus on their jobs. A directive leader sets clear standa rds of performance and makes the rules and regulations clear to followers. Supportive Leadership Supportive leadership resembles the consideration behavior construct that was i dentified by the Ohio State studies discussed in Chapter 4 (Hemphill & Coons, 195 7; Stogdill, 1963). Supportive leadership consists of being friendly and approacha ble as a leader and includes attending to the wellbeing and human needs of followers. Leaders using supportive behaviors go out of their way to make work pleasant for followers, which, in turn, provides follow ers with the confidence necessary to succeed (House, 1971). In addition, supporti ve leaders treat followers as equals and give them respect for their status. Participative Leadership Participative leadership consists of inviting followers to share in the decision ma king. A participative leader consults with followers, obtains their ideas and opini ons, and integrates their suggestions into the decisions about how the group or o rganization will proceed. This particular leadership style may also result in incre ased group performance through member participation and dedication to shared group goals. Achievement-Oriented Leadership Achievementoriented leadership is characterized by a leader who challenges followers to perf orm work at the highest level possible. This leader establishes a high standard of excellence for followers and seeks continuous improvement. In addition to bringi ng significant expectations for followers, achievementoriented leaders show a high degree of confidence that followers are capable of e stablishing and accomplishing challenging goals. House and Mitchell (1974) suggested that leaders might exhibit any or all of thes e styles with various followers and in different situations. Path– goal theory is not a trait approach that locks leaders into only one kind of leaders hip. Leaders should adapt their styles to the situation or to the motivational need s of their followers. For example, if followers need participative leadership at one point in a task and directive leadership at another, the leader can change her or his style as needed. Different situations may call for different types of leadership behavior. Furthermore, there may be instances when it is appropriate for a leade r to use more than one style at the same time. In addition to leader behaviors, Figure 6.2 illustrates two other major component s of path– goal theory: follower characteristics and task characteristics. Each of these two s ets of characteristics influences the way leaders’ behaviors affect follower motiva tion. In other words, the impact of leadership is contingent on the characteristics of both followers and their task. Follower Characteristics Follower characteristics determine how a leader’s behavior is interpreted by foll owers in a given work context. Researchers have focused on followers’ needs for affiliation, preferences for structure, desires for control, and selfperceived level of task ability. These characteristics and many others determine the degree to which followers find the behavior of a leader an immediate source of satisfaction or instrumental to some future satisfaction. Path– goal theory predicts that followers who have strong needs for affiliation prefer s upportive leadership because friendly and concerned leadership is a source of sa tisfaction. For followers who are dogmatic and authoritarian and have to work in uncertain situations, path– goal theory suggests directive leadership because that provides psychological str ucture and task clarity. Directive leadership helps these followers by clarifying t he path to the goal, making it less ambiguous. The authoritarian type of follower f eels more comfortable when the leader provides a greater sense of certainty in th e work setting. Followers’ desires for control have received special attention in path– goal research through studies of a personality construct locus of control that can be subdivided into internal and external dimensions. Followers with an internal locus of control believe that they are in charge of the events that occur in their lif e, whereas those with an external locus of control believe that chance, fate, or o utside forces determine life events. Path– goal theory suggests that for followers with an internal locus of control participat ive leadership is most satisfying because it allows them to feel in charge of their work and to be an integral part of decision making. For followers with an externa l locus of control, path– goal theory suggests that directive leadership is best because it parallels follower s’ feelings that outside forces control their circumstances. Another way in which leadership affects follower motivation is the followers’ per ceptions of their own abilities to perform a specific task. As followers’ perceptio ns of their abilities and competence goes up, the need for directive leadership go es down. In effect, directive leadership becomes redundant and perhaps excessiv ely controlling when followers feel competent to complete their own work. Task Characteristics In addition to follower characteristics, task characteristics have a major impact o n the way a leader’s behavior influences followers’ motivation (Figure 6.2). Task c haracteristics include the design of the followers’ task, the formal authority syste m of the organization, and the primary work group of followers. Collectively, thes e characteristics in themselves can provide motivation for followers. When a situ ation provides a clearly structured task, strong group norms, and an established authority system, followers will find the paths to desired goals apparent and will not need a leader to clarify goals or coach them in how to reach these goals. Follo wers will feel as if they can accomplish their work and that their work is of value. Leadership in these types of contexts could be seen as unnecessary, unempathic, and excessively controlling. In some situations, however, the task characteristics may call for leadership invol vement. Tasks that are unclear and ambiguous call for leadership input that provi des structure. In addition, highly repetitive tasks call for leadership that gives su pport in order to maintain followers’ motivation. In work settings where the form al authority system is weak, leadership becomes a tool that helps followers by ma king the rules and work requirements clear. In contexts where the group norms a re weak or nonsupportive, leadership assists in building cohesiveness and role re sponsibility. A special focus of path– goal theory is helping followers overcome obstacles. Obstacles could be just abou t anything in the work setting that gets in the way of followers. Specifically, obsta cles create excessive uncertainties, frustrations, or threats for followers. In these settings, path– goal theory suggests that it is the leader’s responsibility to help followers by rem oving these obstacles or helping them around them. Helping followers around th ese obstacles will increase followers’ expectations that they can complete the tas k and increase their sense of job satisfaction. As we mentioned earlier in the chapter, path– goal theory has undergone many revisions. In 1996, House published a reformula ted path– goal theory that extends his original work to include eight classes of leadership b ehaviors. Besides the four leadership behaviors discussed previously in this chap ter—(a) directive, (b) supportive, (c) participative, and (d) achievementoriented behavior—the new theory adds (e) work facilitation, (f) grouporiented decision process, (g) workgroup representation and networking, and (h) valuebased leadership behavior. The essence of the new theory is the same as the origi nal: To be effective, leaders need to help followers by giving them what is missing in their environment and by helping them compensate for deficiencies in their a bilities. 6.2 How does Path–Goal Theory Work? Path– goal theory is an approach to leadership that is not only theoretically complex, b ut also pragmatic. It provides a set of assumptions about how various leadership styles interact with characteristics of both followers and the work setting to affec t the motivation of followers. In practice, the theory provides direction about ho w leaders can help followers to accomplish their work in a satisfactory manner. T able 6.1 illustrates how leadership behaviors are related to follower and task char acteristics in path–goal theory. Theoretically, the path– goal approach suggests that leaders need to choose a leadership style that best fit s the needs of followers and the work they are doing. The theory predicts that a d irective style of leadership is best in situations in which followers are dogmatic a nd authoritarian, the task demands are ambiguous, the organizational rules are u nclear, and the task is complex. In these situations, directive leadership complem ents the work by providing guidance and psychological structure for followers (H ouse & Mitchell, 1974, p. 90). For tasks that are structured, unsatisfying, or frustrating, path– goal theory suggests that leaders should use a supportive style. The supportive st yle provides what is missing by nurturing followers when they are engaged in tas ks that are repetitive and unchallenging. Supportive leadership offers a sense of h uman touch for followers engaged in mundane, mechanized activity. Participative leadership is considered best when a task is ambiguous: Participati on gives greater clarity to how certain paths lead to certain goals, and helps follo wers learn what leads to what (House & Mitchell, 1974, p. 92). In addition, partici pative leadership has a positive impact when followers are autonomous and have a strong need for control because this kind of follower responds favorably to bei ng involved in decision making and in the structuring of work. Furthermore, path–goal theory predicts that achievementoriented leadership is most effective in settings in which followers are required t o perform ambiguous tasks. In settings such as these, leaders who challenge and set high standards for followers raise followers’ confidence that they have the abi lity to reach their goals. In effect, achievementoriented leadership helps followers feel that their efforts will result in effective p erformance. In settings where the task is more structured and less ambiguous, ho wever, achievementoriented leadership appears to be unrelated to followers’ expectations about thei r work efforts. Pragmatically, path– goal theory is straightforward. An effective leader has to attend to the needs of fo llowers. The leader should help followers to define their goals and the paths they want to take in reaching those goals. When obstacles arise, the leader needs to he lp followers confront them. This may mean helping the follower around the obsta cle, or it may mean removing the obstacle. The leader’s job is to help followers re ach their goals by directing, guiding, and coaching them along the way. 6.3 Strengths Path–goal theory has several positive features. First, path– goal theory provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding how vario us leadership behaviors affect followers’ satisfaction and work performance. It w as one of the first theories to specify conceptually distinct varieties of leadership (e.g., directive, supportive, participative, achievementoriented), expanding the focus of prior research, which dealt exclusively with tas k- and relationship-oriented behaviors (Jermier, 1996). The path– goal approach was also one of the first situational contingency theories of leaders hip to explain how task and follower characteristics affect the impact of leadershi p on follower performance. The framework provided in path– goal theory informs leaders about how to choose an appropriate leadership style based on the various demands of the task and the type of followers being asked t o do the task. Additionally, later iterations of the theory offer suggestions for how to motivate work groups for increased collaboration and enhanced performance. A second positive feature of path– goal theory is that it attempts to integrate the motivation principles of expectanc y theory into a theory of leadership. This makes path– goal theory unique because no other leadership approach deals directly with mot ivation in this way. Path– goal theory forces us continually to ask questions such as these about follower m otivation: How can I motivate followers to feel that they have the ability to do the work? How can I help them feel that if they successfully do their work, they will be rewarded? What can I do to improve the payoffs that followers expect from th eir work? Understanding the processes and dynamics behind motivation is critic al in any organization (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017), and path– goal theory is designed to keep those questions that address issues of motivation at the forefront of the leader’s mind. Path– goal’s third strength, and perhaps its greatest, is that the theory provides a model that in certain ways is very practical. The representation of the model (Figure 6.1 ) underscores and highlights the important ways leaders help followers. It shouts out for leaders to clarify the paths to the goals and remove or help followers aro und the obstacles to the goals. In its simplest form, the theory reminds leaders th at the overarching purpose of leadership is to guide and coach followers as they move along the path to achieve a goal. 6.4 Criticisms Although path– goal theory has various strengths, it also has several identifiable weaknesses. Firs t, path– goal theory is so complex and incorporates so many different aspects of leadershi p and related contingencies that interpreting the theory can be confusing. For exa mple, path– goal theory makes predictions about which of the different leadership styles is ap propriate for tasks with different degrees of structure, for goals with different lev els of clarity, for followers at different levels of ability, and for organizations with different degrees of formal authority. To say the least, it is a daunting task to inc orporate all of these factors simultaneously into one’s selection of a preferred lea dership style. Because the scope of path– goal theory is so broad and encompasses so many different interrelated sets of as sumptions, it is difficult to use this theory fully in trying to improve the leadershi p process in a given organizational context. A second limitation of path– goal theory is that it has received only partial support from the many empirical r esearch studies that have been conducted to test its validity (House & Mitchell, 1 974; Indvik, 1986; Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & DeChurch, 2006; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977; Schriesheim & Schriesheim, 1980; Stinson & Johnson, 1975; Wofford & Liska, 1993). For example, some research supports the prediction that leader d irectiveness is positively related to follower satisfaction when tasks are ambiguo us, but other research has failed to confirm this relationship. Furthermore, not all aspects of the theory have been given equal attention. A great deal of research ha s been designed to study directive and supportive leadership, but fewer studies a ddress the other articulated leadership behaviors. The claims of path– goal theory remain tentative because the research findings to date do not provid e a full and consistent picture of the basic assumptions and corollaries of path– goal theory (Evans, 1996; Jermier, 1996; Schriesheim & Neider, 1996). A third and more recent criticism is that the theory does not account for gender d ifferences in how leadership is enacted or perceived (Mendez & Busenbark, 2015 ). Research has been done on the impact of gender on directive, supportive, and p articipative leadership but has not been integrated into path–goal theory. Relatedly, path– goal theory presumes that leaders possess the advanced communication skills ne cessary to swiftly jockey between the various leadership behaviors to effectively interact with followers in all given situations. As such, others (Cote, 2017) have c riticized the theory for relying on leader behavior as the primary means to motiv ate followers. Another criticism of path– goal theory is that it fails to explain adequately the relationship between leaders hip behavior and follower motivation. Path– goal theory is unique in that it incorporates the tenets of expectancy theory; how ever, it does not go far enough in explicating how leadership is related to these te nets. The principles of expectancy theory suggest that followers will be motivate d if they feel competent and trust that their efforts will get results, but path– goal theory does not describe how a leader could use various styles directly to he lp followers feel competent or assured of success. For example, path– goal theory does not explain how directive leadership during ambiguous tasks in creases follower motivation. Similarly, it does not explain how supportive leader ship during tedious work relates to follower motivation. The result is that the pra ctitioner is left with an inadequate understanding of how her or his leadership wi ll affect followers’ expectations about their work. A final criticism that can be made of path– goal theory concerns a practical outcome of the theory. Path– goal theory suggests that it is important for leaders to provide coaching, guidanc e, and direction for followers; to help followers define and clarify goals; and to he lp followers around obstacles as they attempt to reach their goals. In effect, this a pproach treats leadership as a oneway event: The leader affects the follower. The potential difficulty in this type of “ helping” leadership is that followers may easily become dependent on the leader to accomplish their work. Path– goal theory places a great deal of responsibility on leaders and much less on follo wers. Over time, this kind of leadership could be counterproductive because it pr omotes dependency and fails to recognize the full abilities of followers. Chapter 7 7.1 Description Most of the leadership theories discussed thus far in this book have emphasized l eadership from the point of view of the leader (e.g., trait approach, skills approac h, and style approach) or the follower and the context (e.g., Situational Leadershi p® and path–goal theory). Leader– member exchange (LMX) theory takes still another approach and conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and f ollowers. As Figure 7.1 illustrates, LMX theory makes the dyadic relationship betw een leaders and followers the focal point of the leadership process. Before LMX theory, researchers treated leadership as something leaders did tow ard all of their followers. This assumption implied that leaders treated followers i n a collective way, as a group, using an average leadership style. LMX theory chall enged this assumption and directed researchers’ attention to the differences that might exist between the leader and each of the leader’s followers. Early Studies In the first studies of exchange theory, which was then called vertical dyad linkag e (VDL) theory, researchers focused on the nature of the vertical linkages leaders formed with each of their followers (Figure 7.2). A leader’s relationship to the wo rk unit as a whole was viewed as a series of vertical dyads (Figure 7.3). In assessing the characteristics of these vertical dyads, researchers found two ge neral types of linkages (or relationships): those that were based on expanded an d negotiated role responsibilities (extra-roles), which were called the ingroup, and those that were based on the formal employment contract (defined ro les), which were called the out-group (Figure 7.4). Figure 7.1 Dimensions of Leadership Source: Reprinted from The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), G. B. Graen & M. UhlBien, “Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader– Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying a MultiLevel, Multi-Domain Perspective,” pp. 219– 247, Copyright (1995), with permission from Elsevier. Note: LMX theory was first described 28 years ago in the works of Dansereau, Gr aen, and Haga (1975), Graen (1976), and Graen and Cashman (1975). Since it firs t appeared, it has undergone several revisions, and it continues to be of interest t o researchers who study the leadership process. Within an organizational work unit, followers become a part of the ingroup or the outgroup based on how well they work with the leader and how well the leader wor ks with them. Personality and other personal characteristics are related to this pr ocess (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Maslyn, Schyns, & Farmer, 2017; Randol phSeng et al., 2016). In addition, membership in one group or the other is based on how followers involve themselves in expanding their role responsibilities with th e leader (Graen, 1976). Followers who are interested in negotiating with the lead er what they are willing to do for the group can become a part of the ingroup. These negotiations involve exchanges in which followers do certain activit ies that go beyond their formal job descriptions, and the leader, in turn, does mor e for these followers. If followers are not interested in taking on new and differen t job responsibilities, they become a part of the out-group. Followers in the ingroup receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their le aders than do outgroup followers (Dansereau et al., 1975). In addition, they are more dependable, more highly involved, and more communicative than outgroup followers (Dansereau et al., 1975). Whereas ingroup members do extra things for the leader and the leader does the same for th em, followers in the outgroup are less compatible with the leader and usually just come to work, do their job, and go home. Figure 7.2 The Vertical Dyad Note: The leader (L) forms an individualized working relationship with each of hi s or her followers (F). The exchanges (both content and process) between the lea der and follower define their dyadic relationship. Figure 7.3 Vertical Dyads Note: The leader (L) forms special relationships with all of his or her followers (F ). Each of these relationships is special and has unique characteristics. Later Studies After the first set of studies, there was a shift in the focus of LMX theory. Whereas the initial studies of this theory addressed primarily the nature of the differences between in-groups and outgroups, a subsequent line of research addressed how LMX theory was related to organizational effectiveness. Specifically, these studies focus on how the quality of leader– member exchanges was related to positive outcomes for leaders, followers, grou ps, and the organization in general (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Researchers found that high-quality leader– member exchanges produced less employee turnover, more positive performanc e evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater organizational commitme nt, more desirable work assignments, better job attitudes, more attention and su pport from the leader, greater participation, and faster career progress over 25 y ears (Buch, Kuvaas, Dysvik, & Schyns, 2014; Graen & UhlBien, 1995; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Malik, Wan, Ahmad, Naseem, & Rehm an, 2015). Figure 7.4 In-Groups and Out-Groups Note: A leader (L) and his or her followers (F) form unique relationships. Relatio nships within the ingroup are marked by mutual trust, respect, liking, and reciprocal influence. Relati onships within the outgroup are marked by formal communication based on job descriptions. Plus 3 is a high-quality relationship, and zero is a stranger. In a metaanalysis of 164 LMX studies, Gerstner and Day (1997) found that leader– member exchange was consistently related to member job performance, satisfact ion (overall and supervisory), commitment, role conflict and clarity, and turnove r intentions. In addition, they found strong support in these studies for the psych ometric properties of the LMX 7 Questionnaire (included in this chapter). For pur poses of research, they highlighted the importance of measuring leader– member exchange from the perspective of both the leader and the follower. Most recently, researchers are investigating the processual nature of leader– member exchange and how work relationships are coconstructed through communication. Hill, Kang, and Seo (2014) studied the role of electronic communication in employee empowerment and work outcomes and found that a higher degree of electronic communication between leaders and foll owers resulted in more positive leader–member relationships. OmilionHodges and Baker (2017) analyzed leader communication behaviors and develop ed scales to assess how these behaviors can affect the growth or stagnation of lea der–member relationships. Based on a review of 130 studies of LMX research conducted since 2002, Anand, Hu, Liden, and Vidyarthi (2011) found that interest in studying leader– member exchange has not diminished. A large majority of these studies (70%) ex amined the antecedents (e.g., Maslyn et al., 2017) and outcomes of leader– member exchange. The research trends show increased attention to the context s urrounding LMX relationships (e.g., group dynamics), analyzing leader– member exchange from individual and group levels, and studying leader– member exchange with nonU.S. samples (Malik et al., 2015) or racially diverse dyads (RandolphSeng et al., 2016). For example, using a sample of employees in a variety of jobs in Israeli organizati ons, Atwater and Carmeli (2009) examined the connection between employees’ p erceptions of leader– member exchange and their energy and creativity at work. They found that perce ived high-quality leader– member exchange was positively related to feelings of energy in employees, whic h, in turn, was related to greater involvement in creative work. LMX theory was n ot directly associated with creativity, but it served as a mechanism to nurture pe ople’s feelings, which then enhanced their creativity. Ilies, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) did a metaanalysis of 51 research studies that examined the relationship between leader– member exchange and employee citizenship behaviors. Citizenship behaviors are discretionary employee behaviors that go beyond the prescribed role, job descri ption, or reward system (Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988). They found a positive relatio nship between the quality of leader– member relationships and citizenship behaviors. In other words, followers who h ad higherquality relationships with their leaders were more likely to engage in more discr etionary (positive “payback”) behaviors that benefited the leader and the organiz ation. Researchers have also studied how LMX theory is related to empowerment (Mali k et al., 2015). Harris, Wheeler, and Kacmar (2009) explored how empowerment moderates the impact of leader– member exchange on job outcomes such as job satisfaction, turnover, job perfor mance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Based on two samples of colleg e alumni, they found that empowerment and leader– member exchange quality had a slight synergistic effect on job outcomes. The qu ality of leader– member exchange mattered most for employees who felt little empowerment. Fo r these employees, high-quality leader– member exchange appeared to compensate for the drawbacks of not being empo wered. Volmer, Spurk, and Niessen (2012) investigated the role of job autonomy in the relationship between leader– member exchange and creativity of followers. Their study of a hightechnology firm found that greater autonomy increased the positive relationship between leader–member exchange and creativity at work. In essence, these findings clearly illustrate that organizations stand to gain much from having leaders who can create good working relationships. When leaders a nd followers have good exchanges, they feel better and accomplish more, and the organization prospers. Leadership Making Research into LMX theory has also focused on how exchanges between leaders a nd followers can be used for leadership making (Graen & UhlBien, 1991). Leadership making is a prescriptive approach to leadership emphasi zing that leaders should develop highquality exchanges with all of their followers rather than just a few. It attempts to make every follower feel as if he or she is a part of the ingroup and, by so doing, avoids the inequities and negative implications of being i n an outgroup. In general, leadership making promotes partnerships in which the leader t ries to build effective dyads with all followers in the work unit (Graen & UhlBien, 1995). In addition, leadership making suggests that leaders can create netw orks of partnerships throughout the organization, which will benefit the organiza tion’s goals and the leader’s own career progress. Herman and Troth’s (2013) fin dings regarding the emotional experiences described by followers in highand lowquality LMX relationships align with the assertion that positive relationships ben efit organizational and personal leader goals. Graen and UhlBien (1991) suggested that leadership making develops progressively over time i n three phases: (1) the stranger phase, (2) the acquaintance phase, and (3) the m ature partnership phase (Table 7.1). During Phase 1, the stranger phase, the inter actions in the leader– follower dyad generally are rule bound, relying heavily on contractual relationshi ps. Leaders and followers relate to each other within prescribed organizational r oles. They have lower-quality exchanges, similar to those of outgroup members discussed earlier in the chapter. The follower complies with the f ormal leader, who has hierarchical status for the purpose of achieving the econo mic rewards the leader controls. The motives of the follower during the stranger phase are directed toward selfinterest rather than toward the good of the group (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Phase 2, the acquaintance phase, begins with an offer by the leader or the followe r for improved careeroriented social exchanges, which involve sharing more resources and personal or workrelated information. It is a testing period for both the leader and the follower to a ssess whether the follower is interested in taking on more roles and responsibilit ies and to assess whether the leader is willing to provide new challenges for the f ollower. During this time, dyads shift away from interactions that are governed st rictly by job descriptions and defined roles and move toward new ways of relatin g. As measured by LMX theory, it could be said that the quality of their exchanges has improved to medium quality. Successful dyads in the acquaintance phase be gin to develop greater trust and respect for each other. They also tend to focus le ss on their own self-interests and more on the purposes and goals of the group. Phase 3, mature partnership, is marked by high-quality leader– member exchanges. People who have progressed to this stage in their relationshi ps experience a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation toward each other. They have tested their relationship and found that they can depend on eac h other. In mature partnerships, there is a high degree of reciprocity between lea ders and followers: Each affects and is affected by the other. For example, in a stu dy of 75 bank managers and 58 engineering managers, Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou , and Yammarino (2001) found that good leader– member relations were more egalitarian and that influence and control were mo re evenly balanced between the supervisor and the follower. In a study of leader– member relationship development, Nahrgang, Morgeson, and Ilies (2009) found t hat leaders look for followers who exhibit enthusiasm, participation, gregariousn ess, and extraversion. In contrast, followers look for leaders who are pleasant, tru sting, cooperative, and agreeable. Leader extraversion did not influence relations hip quality for the followers, and follower agreeableness did not influence relatio nship quality for the leaders. A key predictor of relationship quality for both lead ers and followers over time was both leader and follower performance. Kelley (2 014) investigated the ways leaders use narrative story lines to determine how le aders identify trustworthy, indeterminate, and untrustworthy followers. Others have suggested the importance of looking at the social interaction (Sheer, 2014) or cooperative communication between leaders and followers (Bakar & Sheer, 20 13) as a means to predict and explore relationship quality. It has also been sugge sted that exploring the use of traditional relationship building and maintenance t echniques such as conflict management, shared tasks, and positivity in leader– member relationships can shed light on how leader and follower behaviors impa ct the quality of these relationships (Madlock & BoothButterfield, 2012; Omilion-Hodges, Ptacek, & Zerilli, 2015). In addition, during Phase 3, members may depend on each other for favors and s pecial assistance. For example, leaders may rely on followers to do extra assignm ents, and followers may rely on leaders for needed support or encouragement. T he point is that leaders and followers are tied together in productive ways that g o well beyond a traditional hierarchically defined work relationship. They have d eveloped an extremely effective way of relating that produces positive outcomes for themselves and the organization. In effect, partnerships are transformational in that they assist leaders and followers in moving beyond their own selfinterests to accomplish the greater good of the team and organization (see Chapt er 8). The benefits for employees who develop high-quality leader– member relationships include preferential treatment, increased jobrelated communication, ample access to supervisors, and increased performance -related feedback (Harris et al., 2009). The disadvantages for those with lowquality leader– member relationships include limited trust and support from supervisors and fe w benefits outside the employment contract (Harris et al., 2009). To evaluate lea der– member exchanges, researchers typically use a brief questionnaire that asks lead ers and followers to report on the effectiveness of their working relationships. Th e questionnaire assesses the degree to which respondents express respect, trust, and obligation in their exchanges with others. At the end of this chapter, a versio n of the LMX questionnaire is provided for you to take for the purpose of analyzin g some of your own leader–member relationships. 7.2 How does LMX Theory Work? LMX theory works in two ways: It describes leadership, and it prescribes leaders hip. In both instances, the central concept is the dyadic relationship that leaders f orm with each of their followers. Descriptively, LMX theory suggests that it is imp ortant to recognize the existence of in-groups and outgroups within a group or an organization. The differences in how goals are accomplished by in-groups and outgroups are substantial. Working with an ingroup allows a leader to accomplish more work in a more effective manner than he or she can accomplish working without one. Ingroup members are willing to do more than is required in their job description a nd look for innovative ways to advance the group’s goals. In response to their ext ra effort and devotion, leaders give them more responsibilities and more opportu nities. Leaders also give in-group members more of their time and support. Out-group members act quite differently than ingroup members. Rather than trying to do extra work, out- group members operate strictly within their prescribed organizational roles. The y do what is required of them but nothing more. Leaders treat outgroup members fairly and according to the formal contract, but they do not give t hem special attention. For their efforts, outgroup members receive the standard benefits as defined in the job description. Prescriptively, LMX theory is best understood within the leadershipmaking model of Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991). Graen and UhlBien advocated that leaders should create a special relationship with all follower s, similar to the relationships described as ingroup relationships. Leaders should offer each follower the opportunity to take o n new roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, leaders should nurture highquality exchanges with their followers. Herman and Troth (2013) found that high quality exchanges are described by followers as mentoring, respectful, and based on good communication. Rather than focusing on the differences between ingroup and out-group members, the leadershipmaking model suggests that leaders should look for ways to build trust and respe ct with all of their followers, thus making the entire work unit an ingroup. Hill et al. (2014) found that electronic communication mediates the LMX r elationship and can have a positive impact, thus broadening avenues for developi ng good communication and positive relationships across organizations— even those where workers are dispersed and work primarily online. In addition, l eaders should look beyond their own work unit and create highquality partnerships with people throughout the organization. Whether descriptive or prescriptive, LMX theory works by focusing our attention on the unique relationships that leaders can create with individual followers. Wh en these relationships are of high quality, the goals of the leader, the followers, a nd the organization are all advanced. 7.3 Strengths LMX theory makes several positive contributions to our understanding of the lea dership process. First, it is a strong descriptive theory. Intuitively, it makes sense to describe work units in terms of those who contribute more and those who con tribute less (or the bare minimum) to the organization. Anyone who has ever wo rked in an organization has felt the presence of in-groups and outgroups. Despite the potential harm of outgroups, we all know that leaders have special relationships with certain people w ho do more and get more. We may not like this because it seems unfair, but it is a reality, and the LMX theory has accurately described this situation. LMX theory v alidates our experience of how people within organizations relate to each other a nd the leader. Some contribute more and receive more; others contribute less an d get less. Second, LMX theory is unique in that it is the only leadership approach that make s the concept of the dyadic relationship the centerpiece of the leadership process. Other approaches emphasize the characteristics of leaders, followers, contexts, o r a combination of these, but none of them addresses the specific relationships be tween the leader and each follower. LMX theory underscores that effective leader ship is contingent on effective leader–member exchanges. Third, LMX theory is noteworthy because it directs our attention to the importan ce of communication in leadership. The highquality exchanges advocated in LMX theory are inextricably bound to effective co mmunication. Communication is the vehicle through which leaders and followers create, nurture, and sustain useful exchanges. Effective leadership occurs when t he communication of leaders and followers is characterized by mutual trust, resp ect, and commitment. Fourth, LMX theory provides an important alert for leaders. It warns leaders to a void letting their conscious or unconscious biases influence who is invited into th e ingroup (e.g., biases regarding race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or age) (see Randol phSeng et al., 2016). The principles outlined in LMX theory serve as a good reminde r for leaders to be fair and equal in how they approach each of their followers. Finally, a large body of research substantiates how the practice of LMX theory is r elated to positive organizational outcomes. In a review of this research, Graen an d Uhl-Bien (1995) pointed out that leader– member exchange is related to performance, organizational commitment, job cli mate, innovation, organizational citizenship behavior, empowerment, procedural and distributive justice, career progress, and many other important organization al variables. By linking the use of LMX theory to real outcomes, researchers have been able to validate the theory and increase its practical value. 7.4 Criticisms LMX theory also has some limitations. First, leader– member exchange in its initial formulation (vertical dyad linkage theory) runs co unter to the basic human value of fairness. Throughout our lives, beginning when we are very young, we are taught to try to get along with everyone and to treat e veryone equally. We have been taught that it is wrong to form ingroups or cliques because they are harmful to those who cannot be a part of the m. Because LMX theory divides the work unit into two groups and one group rec eives special attention, it gives the appearance of discrimination against the outgroup. Our culture is replete with examples of people of different genders, ages, cultures , and abilities who have been discriminated against. Although LMX theory was no t designed to do so, it supports the development of privileged groups in the work place. In so doing, it appears unfair and discriminatory. Furthermore, as reported by McClane (1991), the existence of in-groups and outgroups may have undesirable effects on the group as a whole. Whether LMX theory actually creates inequalities is questionable (cf. Harter & Ev anecky, 2002; Scandura, 1999). If a leader does not intentionally keep outgroup members “out,” and if they are free to become members of the ingroup, then LMX theory may not create inequalities. However, the theory does no t elaborate on strategies for how one gains access to the ingroup if one chooses to do so. Furthermore, LMX theory does not address other fairness issues, such as followe rs’ perceptions of the fairness of pay increases and promotion opportunities (dist ributive justice), decisionmaking rules (procedural justice), or communication of issues within the organiz ation (interactional justice) (Scandura, 1999). There is a need for further researc h on how these types of fairness issues affect the development and maintenance of LMX relationships. A second criticism of LMX theory is that the basic ideas of the theory are not fully developed. For example, the theory does not fully explain how highquality leader– member exchanges are created (Anand et al., 2011). In the early studies, it was i mplied that they were formed when a leader found certain followers more comp atible in regard to personality, interpersonal skills, or job competencies, but thes e studies never described the relative importance of these factors or how this pro cess worked (Yukl, 1994). Research has suggested that leaders should work to cr eate highquality exchanges with all followers, but the guidelines for how this is done are n ot clearly spelled out. Fairhurst and UhlBien (2012) have done research into the construction of the LMX relationship, bu t more work needs to be done to substantiate and clarify guidelines. For example, the model of leadership making highlights the importance of role making, incre mental influence, and type of reciprocity (Table 7.1), but it does not explain how t hese concepts function to build mature partnerships. Similarly, the model strongl y promotes building trust, respect, and obligation in leader– follower relationships, but it does not describe the means by which these factors are developed in relationships. Based on an examination of 147 studies of leader– member exchange, Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999) concluded that impr oved theorization about leader– member exchange and its basic processes is needed. Similarly, in a review of the research on relational leadership, UhlBien, Maslyn, and Ospina (2012) point to the need for further understanding of h ow high- and low-quality relationships develop in leader– member exchange. Although many studies have been conducted on leader– member exchange, these studies have not resulted in a clear, refined set of definit ions, concepts, and propositions about the theory. A third criticism of the theory is that researchers have not adequately explained t he contextual factors that may have an impact on LMX relationships (Anand et al. , 2011). Since leader– member exchange is often studied in isolation, researchers have not examined th e potential impact of other variables on LMX dyads. For example, workplace nor ms and other organizational culture variables are likely to influence leader– member exchange. There is a need to explore how the surrounding constellations of social networks influence specific LMX relationships and the individuals in tho se relationships. Finally, questions have been raised about the measurement of leader– member exchanges in LMX theory (Graen & UhlBien, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999; Schriesheim et al., 2001). For example, no e mpirical studies have used dyadic measures to analyze the LMX process (Schries heim et al., 2001). In addition, leader– member exchanges have been measured with different versions of leader– member exchange scales and with different levels of analysis, so the results are n ot always directly comparable. Furthermore, the content validity and dimensiona lity of the scales have been questioned (Graen & UhlBien, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 2001).
Purchase answer to see full attachment