Relationship Between Leaders And Follower Selves

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory is centered on interactions between the leader and follower. In this case the leader is Jerry and my coworkers and I are the followers. The relationship between leader and the follower in this relationship is defined by formal roles. The formal roles in which I am speaking about is only working

The Jake’s Pet Land case study is an example of leadership and follower situations, highlighting the key points of each role within an organization. This case is a study on how the leader-member exchange (LMX) impacts the outcomes of workplaces. According to Daft, LMX is individualized leader model that explores how the relationship between leader and follower develops over time and how the quality of the exchange relationship affects outcomes (Daft, 2015, p. 54). The LMX in many cases is the foundation an organization is built upon, because of this comes a great understanding between management and subordinates. There is a massive difference between being a manager and an effective leader, and throughout Jake’s Pet Land case study this notion is very evident.

In followership there needs to be a leader that inspires and bonds followers together as a unit moving in one direction. Today’s leader has to be more than someone that was placed in a position of authority, a person with a title and a higher salary level. A real leader is found when the behaviors and attitudes of their

The leader-member exchange theory often referred to as LMX, is a management theory which analyzes the relationship maintained between the manager or the leader and the members or subordinates within a group and organization. It further explains how this relation can either help the firm in growing or hold it back to its current position.

Adam and Phillip had a good leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship. It appeared that Phillip had established an in-group exchange relationship with his employees, which resulted in them having similar characteristics, one of which was a dedication to customer satisfaction. The benefits of having a good LMX relationship for the follower include more interesting assignments, greater authority, and tangible rewards such as pay increases. For the leader, benefits include increased effort and initiative of followers to carry out assignments and tasks successfully (Daft, 2015, pg. 54).

The role of the follower and the quality of the relationship itself are informally negotiated between followers and their leaders over time (Gils, Quaquebeke, & Knippenberg, 2009). Based on the LMX theory, leaders build a special relationship with an inner circle, or “in-group”, of followers, who often get high levels of responsibility and access to resources. The in-group members work harder and are more committed to task objectives. They are also expected to be totally committed and loyal to their leader. Conversely, other followers fall in the “out-group" and are given low levels of choice or influence. Aggression, sarcasm and a self-centered view are qualities seen in the out-group. The quality of the LMX relationship varies and is better when the challenge of the job is extremely high or extremely low (Graen et al., 1982).

1. When discussing leadership and followership, there is often a split in personal opinion when it comes to which one is more important. Leadership and followership both offer unique benefits in their own right and have supporting factors, which give them the perceived appearance of being more important. The focus for this paper will be to advocate the importance of followership over that of leadership. This will be accomplished by addressing the pros of followership to include some core skills of followership and the effects followership has on the development of a leader. The expectation of an officer however, places a high amount of emphasis on leadership more so than that of followership. Given this perceived importance of leadership as an officer, an effective leadership style will be explained and how officers develop this particular leadership style. While leadership has a distinct presence within the professional work environment, followership is considered the underlying backbone in developing an effective high performing team.

According to the leader-member exchange theory the relationship between leader and the member develops over a period of time.

Besides, LMX is strongly related to justice, quality and trust. Three sorts of individual justice observations including procedural, interactional, and distributive have been concentrated on as for LMX. Furthermore, LMX is also focus on quality between members and leaders, and the quality of leader-member exchange is different. In addition, LMX has its influence on trust as well. Regardless of the way that exploration on trust is crucial to a more profound comprehension of LMX connections, past examination on LMX analyzed trust as an undimentional develop, and research has yet to look at changed trust measurements in the setting of LMX connections (Terri A.Scandura) . Basically, scientists have proposed that high-quality LMX relations include

According to my reading of the book Peter G. Northouse(p120-121). Yes, A leaders should set boundaries between there followers. Leaders and followers must work together and have trust with each other. Setting boundaries only separate who is leader and who is the followers, these boundaries does not make you greater a responsibility. “Being a leader shows great styles that interacts with characteristics of followers and the work setting to affect the motivation of followers.”

Many researchers have empirically found that LMX quality is quite unstable over time, in other words, relationships can develop and worsen over time (Bauer and Green, 1996; Epitropaki and Martin, 2005). Eberly et al. (2011, 2017) suggest that relational attributions can assist to figure out the circumstances where leader who trigger relational improvement behaviors would be inspired to develop an existing relationship rather than external or internal attributions, consequently help provide how LMX quality may be maintained and improved. Therefore, I hypothesize that

The concept of followership has existed for decades, but only in relatively recent times has the idea received more attention. The dictionary definition of the word followership is “the capacity or willingness to support a leader”.

Bridget H. Mueller and Jaesub Lee developed the Leader-Member Exchange/Leadership Scale in 2002. Unlike the average scale, this particular scale consists of seven questions at the end of the article. Each question measures leadership based on the topic of leader- member exchange in some shape or form. As far as reliability, Mueller and Lee explains, “subordinates’ LMXs with their superiors are tightly coupled with larger group and organizational contexts with respect to communication

Riggio, R., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds) (2008). The Art of Followership How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Shared collective and leader-member exchange (LMX) represent two types of leadership approaches utilized in organizations. Each approach represents a different set of relationships between leaders and followers and the impact the relationship has on organizational outcomes. Baghai and Quigley (2012) write the definition of leadership has continued to evolve and symbolizes different concepts such as productivity, purpose, and people. This paper will explore both the shared collective approach and the leader-member exchange approach and the relevance of each approach to current organizations.