Running head: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 1

Theoretical Analysis

Esperanza Salgado

Loyola University Chicago

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 2
LMX Theory Synthesis

Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) focuses on the relationship between leaders and

members (Northouse, 2015). LMX centers on the dyadic, reciprocal relationships between those

considered the leader and those considered the members. In this theory, the leader and the

members both have much to gain and lose. Much of this theory depends on the characteristics

and personalities of individuals and how they interact with each other. Personal characteristics

and the interactions between the leader and individual members creates two opposite groups.

They are referred to as in and out groups by Dansereau, Green, and Haga in 1975 (Northouse,

2015). These groups are defined by who works the best with the leader, as well as whos

personalities align the most with the leader. These groups are also defined by who is willing to

contribute the most to the workplace or environment. It creates a level of give to get. The

individuals of the in-group see various benefits because they are part of this group and are

willing to give more of their time and put in a greater effort. These benefits are bound to the

relationship they have with the leader. According to Dansereau individuals in the in-group are

trusted more by the leader, thus they are privy to more information and yield more influence

(Northouse, 2015). They are seen in a better light than those in the out-group. Those deemed as

the out-group are perceived to be less dependable and less committed to the organization.

Essentially, the out-group is seen as less invested and thus receives less.

Further study of LMX continues to reveal benefits for the leader and those in the in-

group,

Researchers found that high-quality leader-member exchanges produced less employee

turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater

organizational commitment, more desirable work assignments, better job attitudes, more
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 3
attention and support from the leader, greater participation, and faster career progress

over 25 years (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Linden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) in Northouse

(2015).

Even further research highlights that the members cycle through phases to get to the in-group,

the stranger, acquaintance and mature partnership phases are all elements of becoming part of the

in-group and acquiring benefits and privileges. It is important to note the fluidity of the model as

one can move out of the out-group and into the in-group or move out of the in-group and into the

out-group.

Certain elements of LMX are crucial to environments and developing effective

communication with members of the group. But there are also elements that lessen the impact of

this theory. For instance, it does not account for privileging those that are most like the leader,

which ignores the potential of implicit bias from the leaders perspective. This can continue to

perpetuate privilege and prevents those who are othered from advancement in the environment.

It is clear that this theory highlights providing special privileges to certain members of the

organization with little focus on how to better build relationships with those in the out-group.

LMX Theory Analysis

The elements of LMX that are effective revolve around communication and building

valuable relationships with members. However, effective communication to build successful

relationships seems to be a component of multiple leadership theories, relationship theories,

work environments, home environments, and most anything else. Components of LMX can

hinder organizational environments, for instance, members of the out-group can have a negative

experience created by the leader. Additionally, those part of the out-group are not asked to

clarify why they might not work longer hours or commit to more work assignments. It appears
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 4
that members of the out-group are being punished for what might be occurring in their personal

life or for not going above and beyond the work requirements. They do not seem to be

acknowledged for the work they are doing, even if they are doing what is part of their

responsibilities; even if they are successful at it.

This theory does little to grow the leadership capacity of members, aside from those in

the in-group, acquiring more work experience and potentially moving up within the organization

(Dugan, 2017). It also does not speak to the leadership efficacy or capacity of the leader.

Rather, LMX focuses on the motivation and enactment of the leader without specifying how any

of these domains can be improved or worked upon by the leader or the members.

It is necessary to use tools of deconstruction and reconstruction to break down LMX to

its core to pull out the elements that perpetuate privilege and unfairness in groups (Dugan, 2017).

It is also important to focus on the elements that provide useful perspectives for leader-member

relationships. The tool of deconstruction is a process of deeply examining taken for granted

assumptions related to stocks of knowledge, ideology/hegemony, and social location in

leadership theory (Dugan 2017, p.9). Deconstruction is essential to look at leadership theories

and dismantle what they mean and how they are utilized. Reconstruction is crucial to adjust

theories to account for their shortcomings and refocus them to be socially just.

Deconstruction

At its core, LMX focuses on the preferential treatment of some over others based on

perceptions and without accounting for the leaders own personal beliefs. LMX points out the

significance of personal characteristics and individual personalities as a central tenet to how

relationships are formed and developed. However, LMX does not account for how ones own

personal beliefs can be preferential toward those who have similar personal experiences: the
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 5
same race, age, gender, and ability, among a multitude of identities. LMX assumes that people

are aware of their own social location and biases enough to curtail impartial relationships. This

assumption discredits this theory as one that can explain the growth and development of leaders.

A leader could learn to be strategic in the relationships that they cultivate in order to

increase productivity from certain members. The members are subject to give more to get more

if they want to be part of the in-group. They must contribute more than those who are in the out-

group, they must be more committed and focused on their work than the other members.

Additionally, LMX researchers have created survey instruments to quantify the quality of

relationships. This can be appealing for leaders or organizations that want to focus on the good

relationships already established and could further justify the leadership approach of the leader,

without acknowledging how it can promote potentially ineffective leadership.

Members of the in-group and even members of the out-group can be aware that some

people are receiving better assignments, more information, and are more trusted, however, both

have something to lose if they challenge the status-quo. Those in the in-group risk no longer

being a part of the in-group if they point out the preferential treatment, while those in the out-

group, although already on the fringe, risks losing their opportunity to be involved. So, staying

silent is often the safest route for either group. The flow of power in LMX is fixed on the leader,

the group members do not have power other than doing more or not doing more. Ultimately, the

leader selects which relationship they will cultivate versus which relationships are not as

significant. With power centered on the leader, the members have little power and autonomy to

make changes when necessary. For those that are part of the in-group, acknowledging the leader

as having power could be a way for them to continue to be members of this group. But the

power can only be acknowledged and not challenged.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 6
Reconstruction

Reconstruction must focus on how much more beneficial a theory like this be if leaders

focused on their exchanges with all members to be fair regardless of race, gender, and/or age,

etc. What would happen if high impact relationships were developed with all members?

Developing and creating positive leader-member exchanges with all members will have the same

benefits of higher productivity, more commitment to the organization, and less turnover. This

would benefit the organization as a whole and the overall team morale. Positive leader-member

relationships with everyone helps disrupt the dichotomy of two groups. In the rethinking of

LMX, the leader must intentionally try to grow positive leader-member relationships with all

team members and not a select few.

LMX theory utilizes words such as leader and members, but does not draw obvious

connections to power. Not addressing the power of the leader is a part of the deconstruction of

LMX, as part of the reconstruction, one must acknowledge that the leader has power over the

members. However, one can try to decipher how the members can yield some of that power. In

a new version of LMX, the leader must acknowledge their power and the implications it has on

the members, furthermore the leader must be willing to forgo some of that power for the

collective good of the organization. Taking a team-oriented approach (Team Leadership

Theory), power must be named and it is important that all members be included and have an

impact (Northouse, 2015). Elements of being an effective leader, specifically attending to

power, require critical self-reflection. Preskill and Brookfield (2009) highlight the importance of

critical self-reflection in relation to power and the individuals, The concern here is to

understand how power dynamics affect the ability of peopleboth leaders and followersto do
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 7
satisfying work for the common good (p. 42). Reimagining LMX must include critical self-

reflection.

All members hold an interest in beneficial, effective relationships with the leader.

Individuals on the same playing field for promotions, acknowledgments, and organizational

satisfaction have equal footing and can then know that their work is being valued because of the

quality of work, rather than personal characteristics or individual personalities. A reimagined

LMX would mean acknowledging that there should be a just and fair process to group benefits

but also rethinking what diversity and inclusion mean for the team and how being diverse and

inclusive is a benefit to the team overall. Without diverse and inclusive teams, efforts for social

change may not be as effective. Moreover, without diverse and inclusive teams one could argue

that real social change cannot happen.

Members should have the agency to be able to engage in relationships that are mutually

beneficial and all members should have the opportunity to partake in such relationships. If all

members are considered as equal members of the team, then their collective agency can develop

without being undermined by preferential treatment from the leader. Additionally, the individual

agency can amount to collective capacity to effectuate social change. LMX reimagined

acknowledges the role of a leader as the decentralized power to be shared and harnessed by the

team, allowing for members to move forward with their own agency and the freedom and

support to have collective agency as interest convergence for social change develops.

Case Analysis

In the case of Northeasternish State University (NSU), LMX theory can be utilized to

reflect on the situation. While a reimagined LMX theory can be utilized to improve and begin to

solve the situation. Issues of student dissatisfaction about the lack of support programs and
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 8
services for students of color continue to afflict the institution. Despite the creation of

Multicultural Student Affairs stand-alone department, it is clear that at many levels there has not

been a level of effectiveness in providing and improving services for students of color. It is also

clear that the leadership of some of the players is counterproductive to the growth and

effectiveness of this department.

The creation of in and out groups in relation to Raymond Nguyen as the director and the

leader for MSA is apparent and detrimental to the overall growth and morale of the team. He has

created an in-group who is supportive of his moves and approaches across departments and

programs, at the same time alienating staff that has the most knowledge on existing departmental

programming and efforts. Additionally, those who are part of the in-group are admonished when

they speak against the narrative put forth by the director. Raymond has also created an amount

of distrust with other departments, distancing areas such as the Student Union and its director Dr.

Donna Marshall. She adjusted her own approach with her own staff to safeguard her team from

Raymonds approach of seeking negative feedback.

Because of the lack of oversight and structure, Raymond is able to utilize LMX in an

informal matter, his biases towards people he has worked with before are reflected in the team

hiring. Raymond does not account for his own biases but rather decides to utilize those in a way

that he believes will advantage him. Raymond is not doing anything to grow the abilities or

leadership potential of the previous assistant director and continues to distance him from work

that falls under his responsibility. He is also trying to sell this new department as the premier

department for handling all programs falling within a multicultural area. Raymond has

positioned himself and in turn the department as the area where all multicultural programming
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 9
needs to come from without consideration for the areas that host the programming and their

reasoning.

Despite the concerns with Raymonds leadership, there has not been a lot of speaking out

against his aggressive approach. Perhaps holding back from calling attention to the issue helps

keep a calm atmosphere or minimize tensions that could escalate if people were to speak out

against Raymonds actions. Others on his team, like the assistant director, cannot speak out

against Raymond for fear of losing their livelihood. The power for this case comes from various

areas, from NSUs president to the vice president for student affairs, to individual directors of

departments. There are so many layers in this situation that power is not centralized. The

president does not always have all the information and is not always aware of the issues each

unit faces, or the extent of the strain felt by these areas. Therefore, the power is centered on the

leader of the unit. In this cases, some yielding their power to protect their teams while others

work on their agenda to grow their own departments.

Raymond must be compelled to develop high impact and effective communication with

other team members as well as other departments and areas within NSU. Borrowing elements

from other theories can help improve the teams outlook and perceptions from other groups.

Taking a more team-oriented approach and focusing on distributing power amongst the team

would attend to the issues of power that are currently at work within the unit. Also, Raymond

must work on building trust among the team and other areas within student affairs. The level of

mistrust toward his actions has grown throughout the year and must be intentionally resolved.

Once the MSA team has effective communication and has rebuilt trust within student affairs,

their efforts might be looked at as authentic versus self-interested. Additionally, none of these

efforts can be accomplished without strategic collaborations with other offices and departments.
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 10
A collaborative approach will garner more buy-in from the parties involved, will make sure

departments are on the same page in terms of supporting students of color, and will present a

united stance to the students who need to feel that they are essential to NSU.

The goal of creating this department was to provide better programs and support systems

for students of color. In the turnover and mistrust, it seems like the unit has lost sight of what it

set out to accomplish. In the pull of power and territory, Raymond has allowed services to

students of color to continue to not grow and not be effective. Students continue to be

dissatisfied, as represented in the campus climate survey. Allowing power hungry motives to

take over a unit does not help students of color, instead, it continues to perpetuate a barrier to

retention and persistence for students of color.

Looking at the leadership of student affairs units and multicultural student affairs

departments to truly be focused on the serving students is crucial. There needs to be an

intentional thought process in creating programs and developing staff as leaders and students as

leaders. Being intentional means hiring more staff of color, bringing more faculty of color,

building programming in conjunction with students to reflect student needs and expectations.

NSUs Multicultural Student Affairs department has not taken part in any of this with

intentionally or focus. There has to be a deliberate approach to creating social change on

campus.

Recommendation

Recommendations for NSU center around reevaluating the position of director for MSA

and MSA itself. In reevaluating MSA there is a need for defined goals, learning outcomes, and

timelines. These new goals and objectives must go beyond merely focusing on student

perceptions, but instead really tackle issues at their core. These goals and learning objectives
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 11
must be created with a cross-collaborative approach; one that involves different offices,

departments, students, and student affairs leadership team members. The most critical element to

defining goals and outcomes is student feedback and involvement. Without the intentional

inclusion of students, MSA will continue to fall short in meeting the needs of students of color.

Creating new units and providing instructions with a broad stroke but not focusing on

measurable outcomes hinders the effectiveness of the services the unit aims to offer.

Additionally, only looking to appease perceptions does not get at the core of creating a socially

just environment for minoritized students.

The reevaluation of the director position has to begin with an established vision of what

MSA is for Northeasternish State University. Secondly, there needs to be a larger element of

support for this position and growing department that has yet to establish itself. The student

affairs vice-president must be integral in the development of the responsibilities for this position.

It is recommended that a new search for a new director be implemented. It is never easy to

terminate an employee, however, throughout the year there have been instances of concern

relating to lack of student participation, programs that sacrificed student learning, staff turnover,

low team morale, and continued student dissatisfaction. Growing tensions across units in the

Student Union and concerns raised from other high-level staff might all indicate that the current

director is not the best fit for a department dependent on cross-collaboration for its sustainability.

NSU must also utilize the assets it has in continuing to development a department that is

supposed to shift NSU into a more inclusive and socially just place for students of color. For this

reason, the numerous scholar-practitioners, student affairs staff should be called upon to help

develop a department and conceptual framework that is grounded in theory and research.

Including these staff in planning meetings can offer perspectives that may result as helpful in
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 12
developing MSA into a department that listens to student voices, builds student advocacy, and

support programs.

Conclusion

LMX has some elements that get at the importance of developing meaningful leader-

member exchanges or relationships. But there is a need to reimagine LMX into a theory that

incorporates critical perspectives to make the theory and the work through this theory more

socially just and aware. It does not suffice to build positive leader-member exchanges with a

select few, there needs to be a focus on developing these relationships with all members

regardless of the setting. The reimaging of this theory calls for an awareness of biases from the

leader and how those impact their relationships with each member. There must also be an

element of decentralizing power and a collaborative approach to distributing power and

developing agency, akin to Team Leadership Theory (Northhouse, 2015; Dugan, 2017).

Applying a reimagined LMX in combination with a variety of approaches would be a benefit to

an institution like Northesternish State University and their need to provide programs, services,

and an environment reflective of the needs of students of color.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 13
References

Dugan, J. P. (in press). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. D., (2009). Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from the

struggle for social justice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.