LMX Leads to Loyalty

The Leader Member Exchange Theory (LMX) recommends that leaders of small to midsized groups or teams relate to and address members as unique individuals. Further, it predicts that effective leaders must develop these high-quality relationships in order to enhance workers’ well-being, performance, and loyalty. One defining element of the LMX theory is that it focuses on dyadic relationships. However, in most organizations, these relationships do not grow in isolation. There are other people involved and external influencing factors.

I found LMX to be an interesting theory to study within the context of my office because the team is so small. Aside from the chemists, there is mainly one employee in each area/department. The Director of Product Development, Director of Business Development, and Marketing Manager all report to the Vice President, while the Director of Events Marketing reports to the Chief Innovation Officer. This setup makes dyadic relationships inevitable.

The CIO travels frequently and spends much of her time in her office since most of her work is done with colleagues in other offices. She meets with her subordinate from time-to-time, but it is clear that the Events Marketer finds it difficult to find time to speak with her.

While the VP is also very busy, she is able to make time to meet one-on-one with each of her subordinates. In these meetings, they are able to discuss current and future projects, voice any concerns or questions and receive feedback. The VP’s availability and presence in the office result in employees viewing her as a legitimate, effective leader.

One element of LMX that has stood out to me is how it impacts employee loyalty. I have noticed that one of the VP’s subordinates is incredibly loyal to her. She praises her work style and defends her when others complain, excusing the VP’s shortcomings. On most days, I can find this employee in the VP’s office, or vice versa, collaborating closely. However, the one employee who reports to the CIO does not share this loyalty to the VP. Not only does she rarely work with the VP, but there is clear tension between the two. This relationship makes me wonder the benefits and pitfalls of having two central leaders to an organization. Despite the CIO having a higher title, the VP carries a seemingly similar, or even more, amount of power in my office. Does the little time the CIO has to offer her subordinates cause resentment among them? I wonder if there is a benefit to making relationships slightly less personal, in exchange for a larger group bond. These are some questions I hope to answer as I finish up my internship.