3.5 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory work
Between 1994 and 2001 five studies (Borchgrevink and Boster 1994; Sparrowe
1994; Borchgrevink and Boster 1997, 1998; and Borchgrevink et al. 2001)
utilising the LMX leadership theory were published in hospitality journals; since
then a further three LMX-centred studies have been published (Testa 2009; Kim,
B. et al. 2010; Kim, S. et al. 2010).
With the exception of Kim, B. et al. (2010), all of the LMX studies were
undertaken in a USA business organisation context: Testa’s (2009) study, while
based on US cruise companies, specifically examined relationships between
employees from a variety of different countries.
Borchgrevink and colleagues - with Boster (1994, 1997, 1998) and with Cichy
and Mykeltun (2001) - established the construct validity of the LMX relationship
model in a hospitality context and measured the correlations between high- and
low-quality leader-member relationships and a number of causal factors
(antecedents) and outcomes (consequents). In addition to establishing the
construct validity of the LMX model, Borchgrevink and Boster (1998) were also
able to demonstrate (within their sample of hospitality employees drawn from US
university students) that the LMX provided a measure of work-based relationships
which is distinct from other measures of interpersonal relationships.
Across the range of hospitality organisations studied by Borchgrevink and
colleagues, increases in LMX quality were associated with the following outcomes
(consequents):
decreases in staff turnover and burnout;
increases in members’ commitment, job satisfaction, job performance, esteem,
and role quality (members’ satisfaction with their respective work roles); and
increases in leaders’ levels of referent power (which encourages subordinates’
identification with and desire to emulate a superior).
While specific factors accounting for (antecedents) higher-quality LMX
relationships were found to be:
good leader-member communications (Borchgrevink et al. 2001);
mutual leader-member respect and trust (Borchgrevink and Boster 1998);
leaders’ championing of subordinates (Borchgrevink and Boster 1998);
leaders’ high use of reward power and low use of coercive power (Borchgrevink
and Boster 1997); and