5.6: Leader-Follower Theory: Concentration of LMX

Heifetz & Laurie, (2001) contends, “Leaders who truly care for their followers expose them to painful reality of their conditions and demand that they fashion a response. Instead of giving people false assurance that their best is good enough, leaders insist that people surpass themselves, and rather than smoothing over conflicts, leaders force disputes to surface” (p. 14).

Standards create minimums, minimums create status-quo, and status-quo creates mediocrity. Leaders must set the bar (standards) as a moveable bar, in one direction, upward. To do otherwise is a disservice to the members of the organization and the community it serves. This is truer today than any other time in the history of this country. The younger generation entering the workforce wants change, they need change, and they rely on change as their only stable in life. Incumbent upon the leader is to provide this change.

In order to accomplish the leader-follower method of leadership a series of relationships must be developed. Relationships, between leadership and follow are essential for motivation. Members of an organization must have a reason for following and more important, you cannot have leaders if you have no followers (Zigarmi et al., 2004).

Hogg, (2001) defines a social identity theory of leadership as “a group process generated by social categorization and prototyped based depersonalization processes associated with social identity” (p.196). In this fashion the leader constructs a self- labeling that invests the most classical member with the appearance of having influence. Following this sequence of thought regarding LMX theory; power is not leadership, leadership is influence which will mobilize the masses (Hogg, 2001; Zigarmi et al., 2005; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Scandura, Graen & Novak, 1986; and Gerstner & Day, 1997). The remainder of this discussion will focus around the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) behavior to further define leader follower relationships and importance.

The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory is replete with operable alternatives to the traditional leadership approaches focused on trait and behaviors. Computation of over 25 years of research involving LMX findings remain enthusiastic, although there remains an ambiguity about the nature of the construct, its measurement, and its relationships with other organizational variables (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Graen and Uhl-Bien, (1995) classified the evolution of LMX theory into four stages:

• Work socialization and vertical dyad linkage where the focus was on the discovery of differential dyads (i.e., in-groups and out-groups);

• LMX where the focus was on the relationship quality and its outcomes;

• A prescriptive approach to dyadic partnership building (A dyad (from Greek dýo, "two") in sociology is a noun used to describe a group of two people. A dyad is the smallest possible social group. (Sociology); and

• LMX as a systems-level perspective (i.e., moving beyond the dyad to group and network levels) (p.226).

Albeit the final two stages are relatively new and the majority of the empirical data relates to the first two stages, the latter stages may offer a deeper understanding of LMX in more complex organizations. However, the LMX theory describes leadership and it prescribes leadership. Descriptively it suggests that it is important to recognize the existence of in-groups and out-groups within a group or organization (Northouse, 2010).

Prescriptively, leaders should create a relationship with all subordinates offering each the opportunity to take on new roles and responsibilities and nurture the high-quality exchange between subordinate and leader rather than restricting the leaders focus on differences between in-groups and out-groups (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Regardless if considered descriptive or prescriptive, LMX focuses leader attention on the special relationships created between leader and follower. Although it makes sense to define workers or work groups as productive, or minimal contributors, or unwarranted existence (specifically in highly unionized settings) and rewards are distributed accordingly this may establish the perception of unequal or unfair treatment. LMX theory however validates our experience of how people within organizations relate to each other and the leader and some will contribute more than others and receive more than others accordingly (Northouse, 2010). The LMX approach emphasizes the importance of communications between the leader-member and in fact is bound by extremely high communicative measures making this approach effective and it is the one leadership theory that has as its central concept the reality of the dyadic relationship that exists in organizations and specifically policing (Scandura, Graen & et al Novak, 1986).

Finally, paramount to this discussion is the looming alert for leaders, warning of bias decision making when determining who is invited into groups (Northouse, 2010). Specific to this point is the fact that diversity is the key to changing the cultural differences in policing today. The due process courts of the 1960’s have prevailed in policing and are the singular success story for establishing more equality in police hiring via quotas. Diversity is credited with the dissolution of cultural barriers at a more rapid pace, reductions of brutality complaints and further erosion of the blue wall of silence (Sklansky, 2006). The principles outlined in the LMX approach remind leaders of fairness and equality. Herein another concern arises and that is of generational differences and how they may impact this relationship. Research according to Salahuddin, (2010) indicates that “failing to recognize generational differences do in fact impact organizational outcomes,” but with aggressive communications and difference deployment (aligning the member with the correct leadership style) is indicative of the LMX approach.