Essay Topic: Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests that supervisors have relatively high

Transcription

1 Essay Topic: Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests that supervisors have relatively high quality exchange relationships with some employees and relatively low-quality relationships with others. Critically examine the usefulness of leader-member exchange theory in explaining productive leader-follower relationships. Provide practical examples of leader-follower relationships and the outcomes they generate. Introduction There are diverse manifold amount (Examiner comment: Either use diverse of manifold) of theories that have been established in the realm of managing leader-subordinate equations, and a lot of them have been adopted by leaders or managers as a framework for approaching their leadership executions (Examiner comment: A bit wordy). However, most of these hypothetical constructs fail to aptly visualise and integrate the internal relationship dynamics of a leader and a subordinate, and the nuanced modifications that such traits inject into the equation (Examiner comment: good critical comment here). The uniqueness of the leader-member exchange theory lies in the fact that it perceives the relation between a leader and a subordinate individualistically and does not integrate this equation within an overall generalised hypothetical treatment (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) (Examiner comment: Good comment about the uniqueness of the theory). As such, each relationship is perceived through a wider scope of considerations where the parameters have a much more diversified variations. The following section examines and enunciates how the theory s injection within a managerial ambience will render engendering of a more fecund leader-follower relationship. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory a brief functional outline

2 The theory originates from the concept of Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) developed in 1975 by Graen, Dansereau and Haga (Dansereau et all, (Examiner comment: Should read et al. and appear in italics. This mistake is made throughout the essay) 1975). Leader-member exchange concept centralises upon the performance and responsibility of a subordinate, which it assumes arises from the relation that the person holds with the leader governing his or her actions, and the nature of this relation is again defined by the form of managerial exchanges that the leader implements with this subordinate (Deluga, 1998). The theory is more applicable in practical terms because it focuses upon the employee s experiences and uses this element to define and enrich organisational behaviour (Liden et all, 1997). However, the concept also has certain fundamental drawbacks, the primary of which is inability to define the traits of a leader that are applied while endeavouring to solve a conflict specific to one particular relationship (Examiner comment: Good acknowledgement of strengths and drawbacks here). The significance of Leader-member exchange within a productive leader-follower relationship While an aptly performing operational unit is formed out of the in-group members, a completely integrated and unified organisational structure necessitates more centralisation on the external unit, that is, the out-group members. Such execution requires varied levels of understandings and initiations, which will thereafter render an increment in the overall organisational performance (Examiner comment: Very wordy). The Lmx theory offers spaces where an apt framework of modified interactions between a leader and a subordinate will render enhancement in equation thereby reflecting in overall productivity. Also, subordinate performance is directly related to factors like means efficacy, self efficacy and the degree of commitment demonstrated by the supervisor (Walumbwa et all, 2011). The following factors play a significant role in defining the usefulness the theory can inject into the formation of a fecund relationship between a leader and a follower.

3 Primary factors for relation evaluation (Examiner comment: Bold this heading) To fully judge the significance of the lmx theory within the organisational domain, firstly the parameters that the concept applies to execute the process of evaluation are needed to be discerned and considered. The importance of the theory primarily lies in these factors, the most fundamental of which is the degree of similarity that is extant between the leader and a follower (Engle & Lord, 1997). Even though this factor is hugely dependent on perception and situational analysis, it plays a role more crucial than demographical parameters like ethnicity, location, age or gender (Murphy & Ensher, 1999). Personal interaction (Examiner comment: Bold this heading) Execution of segmentation within the unit has rendered a leader to garner unique perceptions regarding the individual characteristic personalities of each member within the section. Such segmentation is based on elements like efficacy and relatable degree demonstrated by a follower for the leader (Murphy & Ensher, 1999). When a leader attempts towards personal interaction with each member of the unit, such factors will come into play and the leader needs to consider and discern them in order to manoeuvre the relationship towards the intended direction. This will also require the leader to make himself transparent and accessible to the subordinate in order to garner complete trust and reliance. Core objectives (Examiner comment: Bold this heading) While the theory injects high significance upon the relationship dynamics emerging out a leader-member equation, external factors that play a crucial role in development of such a framework, like organisational values and purpose (Campbell & Nash, 1992), and behavioural standards emerging out of strategies and overall objectives, are areas that are somewhat sidelined by the concept. These factors form the core root from where relationships emerge and are established within an enterprise. The initial exchange relationship will be externally governed by these factors, and establishment of loyalty and reverence will ensure injection of a deeper understanding of these organisational principles. The fact remains that whether the employees have more enhanced relationship with their leader

4 or not should come secondary to the factor of conformism that the former cohort needs to showcase towards the principles of the enterprise. In certain organisations, the primary motive for executing personal relationship development is to endeavour towards alignment of the employee cohort with the overall structure and vision demonstrated by the organisation s functionalities. The management of IBM showcases healthy relationships between the leader and the subordinate employee which translates into personal growth and enhancement of professional ties of the worker with the organisation (Abeyta, 2006). The primary intention of an orientation period in IBM is to inject the core principles of the enterprise into the perception of an employee (Moore, 2009), so that the worker operates in sync to the structural framework and vision characterised by the company. (Examiner comment: Some good arguments about LMX theory here) The employees get trained within a unified organisational culture which enables the enterprise to establish and maintain a similar working atmosphere and behavioural standards throughout the globe. Thereby, in such a case, personal dimensions take a backseat within the functionalities of a relationship as the core objectives and vision of the company take a more dominant position. In such a scenario the priorities and objectives of a leader become more articulated as the manner in which he operates and supervises the operations of his subordinates get governed by certain higher level parameters. (Examiner comment: Good flow across sentences here) Leader-supervisor relation (Examiner comment: Bold this heading) A dyad relation is also extant between the leader and his or her supervisor, and this equation often plays an important role in deciding the nature of direction that the former entity will provide to its subordinates. A healthy relation between a leader and a supervisor will in most cases denote a strong and transparent relationship between the leader and the subordinating cohort that he leads (George & Jones, 2008). Such uniformity is true for enterprises like Apple, which operates keeping its CEO at the centre of all functionalities (Grossman, 2005). The organisational structure of Apple appears very

5 plain and simple, but extremely centralised. It contains two tiers of vice presidents with 31 vice presidents working under 15 senior vice presidents. These senior vice presidents again reported directly to Steve Jobs (Grossman, 2005). Therefore, the entire structure of leader-member is extremely influenced by the overall principles, which again is guided by innovation. Jobs used to believe that structural simplicity will be in sync to the ambience that he wanted to establish, which relied almost completely upon injecting within his employees an urge to create and innovate. (Examiner comment: Good example provided, which is supported by literature) Thus it can be perceived in this case that the leader-member relationship is hugely influenced by certain factors external to this dimension, which are supervisor-leader relationship and the overall guiding principles of the enterprise. A leader-supervisor relation can also be perceived as a pertinent dimension of the leader-member relationship, and such equations can be enhanced through operating in synchronization with the objectives of the overall organisation or of the individual department (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). LMX theory in conflict comprehension (Examiner Comment: Bold this heading and clarify what you mean by conflict comprehension ) Whether the relationship is between the leader and his subordinates, or between the supervisor and the leader, it gets aptly tested when viewed through the scope of a conflict. How a leader will react to and endeavour towards solving of a problem is considerably dependent on certain organisational factors like authorial imposition, conformism to principles, individual decision adopting rights, as well as the nature of the problem in consideration. This is where the theory attains a setback, rendered by its extreme centralization (Examiner Comment: Spelling: Use s instead of z here) upon a single dimension of functionality. The manner in which a leader will approach a problem is vastly dependent upon externalities which the theory conveys nebulously. Again, these issues too play a crucial role in establishing a healthy relationship between the leader and a member, which again develops into a fecund equation.

6 One significant approach that a leader or the organisation as a whole can initiate within this dimension is to execute an internal psychographic inspection that can render formation of segmentation (Heath, 1995), which again will reveal the characteristic nature of each employee. Such inspection is significant to discern how an employee will approach a particular problem. This will give the leader a better idea regarding their attitudes, which thereafter will aid the leader in dealing with an employee when one such problem actually becomes a reality. Centralization (Examiner comment: Spelling use s instead of z ) on individualism The above argument throws light upon another significant dimension of the concept, which is the lack of consideration of employee individualism (Uhlig, 2015). While traits regarding this domain are taken into account, for example, similarity with the leader in terms of demographics or personality, the point of origin of such characteristics, that is, the individualism of the employee as a human being, is a factor that has been considerably eschewed by this concept. A fecund relationship between a leader and a subordinate can derive plausible terms when the two people develop a strong personal equation. This factor is highly dependent on the personality of the two people, which denotes a deeper tier than the objectives and principles demanded out of professional necessitations. This begets the wider question of how to modify or enhance a personality to suit into the behavioral characteristics of a domain. Large enterprises have already engendered frameworks implementation of which enables the organisations to modify personalities to be in conformism with the principles and vision of the company. Google implements a psychometric framework for personality analysis (Johnson et all, 2011), while IBM executes repeated interviews and interactions between employees and managers in order for the former to be in sync with the enterprise behavior. IBM authorial management as a whole provides ample attention towards enrichment of personal relationships within teams, because the organisation discerns the fact that personal relationship enhancement will reflect upon the professional growth of employees (Abeyta, 2006).

7 Group Dynamics The measures adopted by IBM and Google also showcase a dimension that is less focused in the leader member exchange theory, which is reflection of individual relationships upon the group dynamics (Uhlig, 2015). By modifying employee characteristics in accordance to organisational culture, these enterprises also ensure that the employee behaviour will have positive reflections upon the group dynamics of the sub-segment, thereby stimulating organisational operation as a whole. Conclusion The most significant usage that leader-member exchange theory injects into organisational functionalities is its flexibility in usage and its wide scope of implementation. This is referring to a lot of dimensions that the concept injects. Firstly, the theory aids in forming an initial framework of segmentation which acts as a starting point for the next stage of training and developments. Next it implements a perpetual parametric sense of performance evaluation. Thirdly, it synchronizes in an extremely seamless manner with other theories and concepts of organisational evolution. As a result of this, it contributes hugely to form the basis of a structural framework that is developed individually by diverse organisations and therefore act as a significant element of consideration. (Examiner comment: A bit wordy) However, on a negative dimension, the concept eschews certain fundamental requirements that are significant for organisational operation. These are consideration of individual personalities, consideration of overall group dynamic reflection, and integration of core organisational objectives into the functionalities of personal equation.

8 But the aspect which makes this concept actively extant and implemented is its lack of rigidity. Because of such, it functions aptly in amalgamation with other theories, and thereby still operates in the perpetually enhancing domain of enterprise behaviour. (Examiner comment: Good acknowledgement of strengths and drawbacks. However, recommendations could be offered based upon the analysis undertaken)

9 References Abeyta, M. (2006). Organisational Culture. Available: Last accessed 3rd Jun, Campbell, A. & Nash, L (1992). A Sense of Mission: Defining Direction for the Large Corporation. Boston: Addison-Wesley. pp Dansereau Jr., F., Graen, G. & Haga, W., J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organisations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. 13 (1), pp Deluga, R. J.. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organisation Management. 23 (2), pp doi: / (Examiner comment: DOI is not required by Harvard Referencing) Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal. 40(4). pp Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly. 6 (1), pp Grossman, L. (2005). How Apple Does It. Available: Last accessed 3rd Jun, 2015.

10 79. Johnson, G., Whittington, R. & Scholes, K.. (2011). Chapter 12 : Strategy development processes. In: Johnson, G., Whittington, R. & Scholes, K. Exploring strategy [text & cases]. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall. pp Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A (2010). Organisational behaviour. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. pp Heath, R., P. (1995). Psychographics: Q'est-ce que c'est?. American Demographics. Nov (1), pp. 74- Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T. & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 15(1), pp Moore, A. (2009). ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT IBM. (Examiner comment: This should not appear in capital letters) Available: Last accessed 3rd Jun, Murphy, S. E., & Ensher (1999). The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Psychology. 29(7). pp theofficialboard. (2015). IBM. Available: Last accessed 3rd Jun, Uhlig, D., K. (2015). Advantages and Disadvantages of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model. Available: html. Last accessed 12th Aug, 2015.

11 Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2011). How leader-member exchange influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal-external efficacy perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 64 (1), pp

12 Coursework Assessment Feedback Category Presentation of the essay. Clear use of paragraphs and headings and the text is free from typographical and spelling errors. (10%) Referencing of content. Consistent use of Harvard Referencing throughout the essay with adequate citation support for arguments being made. (10%) Analysis. Comprehensive examination of appropriate theoretical frameworks and models. Strong arguments presented with critical insights and good communication skills in evidence. (60%) Conclusions. Clear identification of key themes and issues. Synthesis of core arguments and formulation of insights and recommendations as appropriate (20%) Comment Good use of headings to structure the text and signpost key sections, but these could be bolded. Few apparent spelling or typographical errors (with a couple of American spellings) Solid reference list produced and Harvard Referencing style is clearly followed, with a couple of minor errors. Good citation use within the text itself. Nice opening introduction setting LMX theory within the context of leadership theories. Good identification of a range of factors determining the effectiveness of leader-follower relations. Good examples provided in relation to Apple, Google and IBM along with evidence from the literature. Strong evidence adduced to support the arguments being made. Conclusion presents a good summary of the key arguments raised within the essay itself. General Comments: The student demonstrates a good knowledge of the subject area along with a strong writing style. Missing a critical tone, but otherwise, a very well-produced essay. Overall Grade: P5 Marker: Dr. David McGuire N.B. the percentages are shown as indications of the relative importance of each section and should not be taken as a precise indication of the marking scheme.