In what way does LMX theory help leadership create an inclusionary work environment?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Key points from text may include: Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) is particularly helpful in understanding leadership at the dyadic level—the quality of the relationship between a supervisor and a supervisee—and is, therefore, particularly suitable for the study of diversity relationships in work organizations. The theory focuses on the unique relationship between leaders and each one of their subordinates (Graen, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Lidden Sparrow and Wayne). It challenges the traditional leadership theories that suggest that leaders treat all of their subordinates in a uniform way (Martin et al., 2005). For this reason, LMX theory has been claimed to be particularly suited for understanding supervisor-supervisee relationship in the context of contemporary workplace environments that are characterized by diversity. Reflecting on the centrality of the supervisor-supervisee relationship in the context of workforce diversity, Graen (2003) has stated “LMX relationships are at the core of a successful diversity management initiative.”
LMX theory relies on role theory, indicating that an employee’s direct supervisor is dominant in the role-making process of the dyad and that the process has three stages: roletaking, rolemaking, and roleroutinization (Graen and Scandura, 1987). At the initial stage of the relationship, the role-taking stage, the supervisor’s expectations are central and these expectations are guided by such factors as the supervisor’s previous personal expectations, the supervisee’s personal characteristics, and the organizational context (Graen, 2003). If the supervisor has limited or negative experience with members of diverse groups, it could affect her/his expectations of the supervisee’s performance and affect the quality of their relationships. At the second stage, role-making, the supervisor and supervisee begin to mutually influence each other’s attitudes and behaviors. During this stage the supervisor delegates work assignments to the supervisees who are perceived by her or him as competent and if they are successful in completing the tasks, they earn the supervisor’s respect and, as a result, mutual trust between the two would emerge (Goldberg, & McKay, 2015). Finally, the third LMX stage, role routinization, is when a sense of mutual obligation is formed between the supervisor and the supervisee. Based on mutual services that they provided for one another, there is a sense of shared understanding regarding goals and behavioral norms and that their career trajectories are interdependent. The relationship at this point is highly predictable and mutually beneficial (Goldberg, & McKay, 2015).
The quality of LMX at the group level can influence important employee and organizational outcomes, as demonstrated by a study of 348 supermarket departments that examined LMX as a moderator of the relationships between diversity characteristics and turnover (Nishi and Mayer, 2009). The study findings indicate that group managers created an atmosphere of inclusion through the quality of their relationships with their subordinates. As a result, in groups where the quality of the relationship between the group managers and their subordinates (LMX) was high on average, the positive relationship between diversity and turnover was weaker compared to groups in which the LMX was low. In other words, members of diverse groups were less likely to leave the organization if the quality of the supervisor-supervisee relationships (LMX) in their group was high.
According to the LMX theory, the quality of leader-member relationships falls on a continuum ranging from low-to-high quality. At the low end of the spectrum the exchange between the leader and the subordinate will be limited to the employment contract and the strict expectations that follow from it. At the high-quality end, on the other hand, the relationship will be based on mutual liking, trust, respect, and influence (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Based on social exchange theory, we can assume that a relationship at the higher end of the spectrum will be perceived by both parties as mutually beneficiary. Employees in the latter type of relationships are more likely to report better working conditions with more autonomy and more possibilities for participation due to their positive working relationship with their superior. In addition, we should assume that they report more social support and good communication with their leader and increased affective attachment between the supervisor and the subordinate (Gerstner and Day, 1997).