Leader member exchange theory essay

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2016, Vol. 23(4) 456 –466 © The Authors 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051816630227 jlo.sagepub.com

Article

Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory posits that fol- lowers’ work-related attitudes and behaviors depend on how their leaders treat them. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), followers feel obligated to reciprocate by working hard to benefit their leader when treated favor- ably (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Several meta-analyses have provided strong support to LMX theory and found positive relationships between LMX quality and work per- formance (Gerstner & Day, 1997), citizenship behavior (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), and attitudes such as affective and normative commitment and job satisfaction (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). Finally, a recent meta-analysis of LMX across 23 countries concluded that the relationships of LMX with work perfor- mance and organizational commitment were not affected by national culture (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012). Accordingly, a high-quality LMX relationship is a strong and robust predictor of followers’ work performance and important work-related attitudes. Furthermore, it is typ- ically assumed that LMX relationships fall on a single con- tinuum from high to low quality, where high-quality exchange relationships represent social exchange relation- ships, and low-quality exchange relationships represent economic exchange, or transactional exchange, relation- ships (e.g., Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, & Walker, 2007; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Wayne et al., 2009). The other side of the coin is, therefore, that a transactional LMX

relationship will be associated with lower work perfor- mance and organizational commitment. Unlike a high-qual- ity, or social LMX relationship, a transactional LMX relationship is characterized by economic exchange behav- ior, formal role-defined relations, and unidirectional down- ward influence (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Indeed, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argue that low-quality, or transactional LMX is analogous to transactional leadership in that “the leader makes requests based upon his/her hierarchical status within the organization, and the follower complies because of his/her formal obligation to the leader and because of the economic rewards the leader controls” (p. 232). In this case, followers’ motivations are assumed to be based on the satis- faction of self-interests rather than the prosocial motivation emanating from social exchange of favors (Graen & Uhl- Bien, 1995).

Unfortunately, some dyads may not advance much beyond transactional LMX, as social LMX relationships can be hard to develop owing to personality differences,

630227 JLOXXX10.1177/1548051816630227Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesBuch et al. research-article2016

1Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway 2BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

Corresponding Author: Robert Buch, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Pilestredet 35, 0166 Oslo, Norway. Email: robert.buch@hioa.no

Transactional Leader–Member Exchange Relationships and Followers’ Work Performance: The Moderating Role of Leaders’ Political Skill

Robert Buch1, Geir Thompson2, and Bård Kuvaas2

Abstract In this study, we test whether leader political skill moderates the relationship between more transactional leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships and follower work performance. A field study was conducted among 753 followers and 153 leaders from several Norwegian business organizations. The results showed that the negative relationship between more transactional LMX relationships and follower work performance was weaker for employees with a highly politically skilled leader. Thus, leader political skill seemed in part to mitigate the negative effects of transactional LMX. This is an important observation, since finding alternative routes to enhanced work performance of followers in less favorable transactional LMX relationships is essential. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.