Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
For the last 20 years, Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX) has been associated with the quality of relationships between leaders and followers, accounting for quality through the four dimensions of contribution, affect, loyalty and respect. This paper contributes to our understanding of relationship quality by presenting an extension to LMX theory. With a more comprehensive view of the development of leader-follower relationship quality than existing LMX theory, we propose the explanatory construct of Dyadic Relationship Quality (DRQ) development. The DRQ model demonstrates how trusting behaviours have hitherto been overlooked as the key to positive initial interactions. We show how performance and relationship quality are active dimensions of relationship development rather than outcomes of the relational process. The paper elaborates the experiential nature of leader-follower relationship quality by utilising a relatively rare methodology in LMX studies, a longitudinal qualitative study of leaders and followers in high-tech start-up organisations.
Keywords
- relationship quality
- followers
- leaders
- LMX
- trust
1. Introduction
The number of studies into quality of leader-follower relationships grows year on year, for which researchers often rely on the perceived explanatory power of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theories [2, 3, 4]. Despite the dominance of LMX to explain these relationships [1], the construct has come under critique (see [5] for an overview). The majority of studies are quantitative, based on surveys [6] and single time-point studies that focus on the four main dimensions of LMX (explained later) and describe antecedents, outcomes and mediating/moderating variables of leader-follower relationships [7]. Too few qualitative studies have been undertaken that elaborate the experiential nature of relationship quality and how it may be constructed through a ‘two-way interactional process’ ([8], p. 15). In addition: 1. The majority of LMX studies relating relationship quality and performance are based on the perceptions of leaders or followers with few matched dyads being explored [9]; 2. There is relatively little research on factors disrupting relationship quality [10]; and 3. The role of time on relationship quality is under-researched [2]. Importantly, whilst trust is acknowledged as essential to the leader-follower relationship [11], most existing studies position trusting behaviours, performance and relationship quality as
Please note that whilst leaders and managers are different constructs where managers effect their authority and leaders exercise influence [16], we use the terms interchangeably here as the context for the study was the start-up environment where teams were small and those in leadership positions also enacted management activities [17].
This paper addresses a number of critiques of LMX theory, particularly the need as highlighted by Sheer [5] to address LMX as a construct that is applicable to real-world situations. Following Benson et al [18], we are interested in exploring the meanings that leaders and – in our case – also followers ascribe to their relationship: meanings that ‘cannot be isolated from the context in which they are embedded’ (p. 951). We explain how leader-follower relationship quality develops over time and is based on trusting assessments and behaviours of both leaders and followers. In doing so, we propose three additions to current LMX theory and the new construct of Dyadic Relationship Quality (DRQ). The three additions are that: 1. Trust and trusting behaviours occur at the beginning of relationships rather than just as outcomes of relationship stability; 2.
By including additional dimensions of trust, performance, perceived relationship quality, etc. we offer a more comprehensive view of the development of relationship quality than existing LMX theories and introduce the explanatory construct of Dyadic Relationship Quality (DRQ) development. DRQ explains more fully the dimensions required to describe the development of relationship quality over time. We conceptualise DRQ development as:
The findings are based on a longitudinal qualitative research study consisting of in-depth sequential interviews of 12 leader-follower dyads over a 6–9-month period. The study’s overarching research question of
provided the basis for identifying and explaining the various factors that influence how relationship quality develops over time. An important addition to LMX research is that we suggest relationship quality encompasses the perceptions and actions of
The paper is organised as follows: First, we discuss why there is a need to extend Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), we then explain the methodology and study findings, offering an explanatory construct for relationship quality development. Finally, we discuss the implications for theory and practice.
2. The need to expand theorising on leader-follower relationship quality
While leadership and trust literatures discuss how relationships between leaders and followers develop, little qualitative work has been done on elaborating the nature of relationship quality and the factors that contribute to, or detract from, its development. The theory most commonly used to describe the quality of relationships between leaders and followers is Leader-Member Exchange theory, where:
LMX theorists suggest that leadership is effective when relationships are characterised by high levels of trust, affect (liking), loyalty, respect and contribution [20, 21]. High-quality relationships are likely to be long-term in focus, with quality growing over time unless negative events derail the relationship development process [22]. Poor quality exists when relationships are seen instrumentally as a way of improving productivity and are characterised by transactional interactions [23, 24]. This results in low trust and low levels of affect, loyalty and respect.
2.1 Definitional, theoretical and methodological issues with LMX
LMX offers a useful way of describing the quality of leader-follower relationships; however, there are still definitional, theoretical and methodological issues [5], pointing to the need for further in-depth experientially based qualitative research.
2.1.1 Definitional issues
LMX is defined and employed in many ways, with each definition addressing different aspects of the dyadic relationship [25]. This can be seen in the confusing array of descriptions of how leaders and followers relate including: leader-follower exchanges (i.e. anything that passes between leader and follower), exchange quality (the quality of anything that passes between leader and follower), relationship exchange quality (the quality of the exchanges within the relationship) or relationship quality (the quality of the relationship itself) [5]. This lack of clarity about the nature of the relationship being explored results in theoretical confusion, for example, whether the focus is on leaders, followers or both, on exchanges, perceptions of exchanges or on perceptions of relationship quality. As Hiller et al. [26] argue, leader-member relationships are multidimensional, and it is important to find a way of exploring and mapping their temporal and multifaceted nature. From these definitional problems, theoretical issues then arise.
2.1.2 Theoretical issues
Today, LMX is seen as a key construct in the leadership realm ([25], p. 3), and many measures and variables link it with a range of other variables (see, for instance: [27, 28, 29]). By 1995, LMX was seen as synonymous with relationship quality despite the absence of theoretical or empirical links between them. Sheer describes how this link was probably derived from the need to ‘to capture a cocktail of attributes that include leader characteristics, relationship quality, and exchange-related attributes’ creating a ‘tautological fallacy’ which ‘nullified a central thesis of the theory’ (2015: 217). The four main LMX dimensions of contribution, affect, respect and loyalty are mainly used as core dimensions of quality, and while they are a useful start, they fail to capture other aspects of high-quality relationships such as high trust, interaction, support and rewards ([22], p. 257), honesty, openness, advice and socio-emotional influences such as friendship [30, 31, 32].
A further theoretical shortfall emerges in relation to the role of trust. Trust appears in the LMX literature in early works such as Dienesch and Liden [33] who identified trust as important to exchange relationships. However, the role and influence of trustworthiness, trusting behaviours and communication in relationship quality have remained unclear [34], and theory is largely unsupported by empirical studies [30, 35, 36].
Finally, existing studies theorise trust, performance and relationship quality as
2.1.3 Methodological issues
3. Methodology
The research was based on a qualitative longitudinal study of 12 leader-follower dyads consisting of 21 individuals across eight hi-tech start-up firms in England. The context was chosen because leader-follower relationship quality is important in new technology firms which ‘are known to be volatile dynamic organizations whose innovations are subject to short life cycles and product imitability’ ([38], p. 27). The high-tech environment also offers an alternative to the majority of leadership research, which is carried out in corporate firms [39]. This context therefore offers a fresh perspective on how relationship quality functioned between leaders and followers.
The world of hi-tech start-ups is a fairly closed community, generally accessed through recommendation and personal introductions [40] because of the competitive/sensitive nature of their business, therefore a snowball sampling technique was used to gain access to a group of individuals who are unlikely to respond using cold contact methods.
Sixty semi-structured interviews took place, with each leader-follower dyad (members of each dyad being interviewed separately) carried on a 3-monthly cycle. The questions were informed by the theory but left open so that additional issues could emerge. The interviews took place in a variety of locations, depending on convenience and the need for privacy for respondents. These venues included local coffee shops, work-space offices and where necessary over Skype or telephone. All conversations were recorded digitally, anonymised to maintain confidentiality, and the transcript was shared with each respondent to ensure they were happy with the information they had provided. Liden et al. ([3], p. 415) note that to answer the question of how LMX develops, it is important to identify and examine new dyads early in the life of the relationship and that such studies are rare. The initial leader-follower dyad interviews in this study were carried out soon after recruitment. In total, 60 interviews were recorded resulting in over 35,000 words to be analysed.
Data were interpreted inductively through thematic analysis, which allowed the identification of issues that participants saw as important [41]. This involved a fine-grained reading of each interview transcript, identifying 304 primary themes within each interview that related to the research question [42]. These themes were then compared across the data set, related to theory and grouped into 14 (secondary) themes. Of these, three themes were additional to current theory; others (also reported here) corroborated existing literature and as a result, have received less attention in this paper. The themes were reviewed iteratively against each interview to identify specific salient statements and examples and to check the veracity of each theme. The themes are defined and elaborated in the following section through excerpts from the interviews.
This qualitative methodology facilitated an in-depth exploratory discussion of the perceptions and experiences of leaders and followers around the nature of their relationship. The longitudinal qualitative methodology provides a contrast with current LMX research, which is mainly quantitative and tends to focus on one time-point [6].
4. The development of relationship quality between leaders and followers
Three major themes of trust, performance and ongoing assessment of relationship quality emerged from the data analysis. These themes constitute important differences from the majority of LMX research, highlighting the temporal and interactional nature of relationship quality. Specifically: (1) Assessments of trustworthiness and trusting behaviours were present from the initial interaction of the leader and follower onwards, rather than being an outcome of relationship development; (2)
4.1 Theme 1: trustworthiness and trusting behaviours
In LMX theory, trust is extended from leaders towards followers, resulting in high LMX and outcomes such as the empowerment of subordinates [13]. Here, trust is theorised as a psychological state where one individual is willing to make themselves vulnerable to another [43]. Assessments of trustworthiness are made on the basis of the other party’s: (1) ability to fulfil a role; (2) benevolence, i.e. kindness, support and consideration; (3) integrity, i.e. fair, ethical, honest, etc. [36] and (4) predictability/reliability [44]. Trusting behaviours are conceptualised as risk-taking actions by which leaders or followers make themselves vulnerable to the actions of the other [45]. Such leader behaviours include the disclosure of information, delegation or autonomy, support for progression and promotion and the introduction of followers to social and professional networks. Trusting behaviours of followers include offering discretionary effort, disclosing information and benevolent actions towards the leader [45]. While these trusting behaviours were identified by study participants, they additional actions included being open about fears and problems and being willing and trusted to deal with difficult tasks and issues. Both leaders and followers made their decision to act based on their assessment of the trustworthiness of the other party – as can be seen in the excerpts below, which illustrate how assessments of trustworthiness and the enactment of trusting behaviours were perceived.
Trustworthiness was evident in Ken’s (F) and Lloyd’s (L) first interviews. Lloyd felt from their initial meeting that Ken was honest and that there was no ‘bullshit
For Ken, Lloyd’s initial openness about the company, disclosure of its financial position and the vision for its future were evidence of his honesty and integrity:
Ken and Lloyd’s comments illustrate the reciprocal and subjective (individually perceived and context-related) nature of trust – that Lloyd saw Ken as honest and likable and in return Ken trusted Lloyd’s transparency and willingness to follow through. In addition, while the literature suggests that trusting behaviours only tend to appear once a relationship has developed, the interviews above (and below) present a different picture, suggesting that trusting behaviours occur during initial interactions between leaders and followers. This is important because it places trusting behaviour as essential to the early relationship-building process – to whether the leader and/or follower might trust the other and invest in the relationship – rather than as an outcome of relationship development. This represents a significant departure from existing theories (e.g. [44]) that posit trusting behaviours occurring as the relationship matures in response to a bank of events and experiences between both parties.
In another dyad, Lance (L) decided during the interview processes that he trusted his new recruit, Adrian (F), and as a result gave him access to the company’s most prized asset – the code base – the software that allows customer access to the company’s product online. This was significant because developments in code are commercially sensitive and have a financial value in a market where competitors are racing to produce better applications and web experiences. This was a potentially vulnerable – and very visible – action on Lance’s part, reciprocated by Adrian returning this trusting behaviour by signing an employment contract that gave Lance control of any material that he produced outside of work hours. In the first interview, a week after he’d accepted a position at Lance’s firm, Adrian (F) recalled that by signing the employment contract anything he produced in or outside of work would be owned by the firm. Adrian viewed signing the contract as evidence of his trust that Lance would not take advantage of this legal relationship.
When asked if he trusted that Lance would not take advantage, Adrian’s response was: ‘Yes’, thus indicating that they trusted each other as a result of open communication in terms of clarifying rights of intellectual property. Both Lance and Adrian’s actions also indicate a degree of risk-taking on both parts that the other can be trusted to reciprocate and engage in trusting behaviours – an issue we will discuss later.
Another example of trusting behaviour and risk-taking based on initial perceptions of both leader and follower occurred at the start of Lisa and Izzy’s relationship. Izzy (F) had returned from the USA and wanted an internship. She contacted Lisa (L), whose company she had recently researched, feeling it offered an exciting opportunity that she would like to be involved with. At their initial meeting, Lisa was aware of Izzy’s lack of formal experience but took the risk of giving her a job, trusting that she could do it.
From Izzy’s perspective, she was prepared to offer her services for free on the basis of her first impressions of Lisa’s talent and energy, trusting that she would eventually be financially rewarded:
Her decision was based not only on an assessment of Lisa’s achievements so far, but also on her feelings of admiration for how much had been accomplished and the women-focused social ethos of the company, which Izzy found appealing.
Lance and Adrian, Lloyd and Ken, and Lisa and Izzy’s relationships illustrate the complexity of trust. The interviews highlighted a significant departure from much of the trust literature, which suggests that trusting behaviours will only occur after a period of time during which one party assesses the trustworthiness of the other and then decides that they trust enough to engage in risk-taking behaviours [46]. We contest this view of trusting behaviours. Instead, we find that they occur during the initial interaction and early phases of relational development between leader and follower. The interelated nature of trust and risk-taking is particularly important in the context of high-tech start-ups where the rapid pace of developments makes speed and effective interaction with others important, and investing in people is a major decision. The trusting behaviours described above (sharing confidential information, being open about intellectual property, making public statements of confidence, offering to work for free) demonstrate that leaders and followers make positive assessments and act on these during the first meeting. Such actions have two explanations in the literature, although we also suggest a third alternative here.
The first recognition of early trusting behaviours is found in work on predispositions to trust (see [47]), followed up by more recent work on the influence of prior knowledge before leaders and followers meet. McKnight et al. suggested that individuals were more predisposed to trust if they had both a general ‘faith in humanity’ and a ‘trusting stance’ (where benefits derive from treating others as though they are trustworthy until proved unreliable). This work was expanded upon by Delgado-Márquez et al. [48], who used laboratory methods to argue that a trustor’s prior knowledge about a trustee influences trusting behaviours because initial knowledge reduces uncertainty and allows a trustor to more accurately determine how a trustee might behave in future situations. Certainly, in this study, both leaders and followers made crucial assessments in their initial meeting about the trustworthiness of the other and whether they could behave in a trusting manner.
However, whilst our data support these findings that prior knowledge in the form of information about the company and some respondents in the data volunteered a position on their predispositions to trust, the extent of trusting behaviours exhibited in this data set requires a more robust explanation than predispositions and efforts to gather prior information can reasonably account for.
A second explanation for these findings is that they are a function of the start-up context. Scarbrough et al. [49] looked at the relations between entrepreneurs and angel investors. They found that the display of risk-taking, trusting behaviours during the initial interaction and early relationship stages was linked to greater success in terms of gaining funding for new ventures. The suggestion is that such behaviours relfect the high-risk environment in which investors and entrepreneurs meet. However, it is unclear whether early trusting behaviours are a purely phenomenon of the start-up environment rather than a feature of relationships more broadly and again, this explaination is not convincing.
Our third explanation is that the initial display of trusting behaviours has been under-explored. Whilst in this study, participants acted on early trust-based assessments of what the relationship might offer in the long-term, it could well be that all relationships begin with behavioural signals around trust. When these are displayed by something as simple as sharing personal information or taking the time to listen to the other party, the relationships gets off to a good start; when absent, leaders and followers are likely to be more cautious and trust will take longer to develop. The trust literature is largely based on the results of quantiative surveys, which are confirmatory rather than exploratory by nature. The deductive models on which quantitative studies are based have largely ignored trusting behaviours at the beginning of relations, so trusting actions have largely gone un-noticed. We suspect that early trusting behaviours are prevalent in all relationships. Their absence in the literature is a ‘blind spot’ resulting from a preponderence of confirmatory research approaches, but more empirical material is required to substantiate our asssertion.
Our findings coroborate the less explored body of work on the longitudinal process of trust development [50]. Whereas much trust research focuses on how followers demonstrate how they trust leaders or engender trust from their superiors, our data suggest that trust can be mutually developed depending on how leaders and followers interpret each others’ words and actions.
Although the study contained mostly positive assessments of trustworthiness leading to trusting behaviours early in the relationship, the opposite did occur and relationship quality was disrupted [10]. Sadly, Lloyd (L) and another employee, Maddie (F), quickly learned not to trust each other. For Lloyd, this related to his feelings and assessment relating to Maddie’s signs of extreme discomfort when she felt under stress:
From Lloyd’s perspective, Maddie’s lack of ability to multitask and cope with stress was the undoing of their relationship and caused him to reflect on his own judgement. While from Maddie’s perspective, she felt she was asked to take unacceptable shortcuts:
The quality of their relationship quality suffered because Maddie felt that Lloyd had let her down – she had trusted him to provide a role that she could fulfil and he had failed to behave in a way that protected her interests or supported her to act with integrity towards clients. Lloyd felt that Maddie was unable to cope with the work and that her personal standards were more important than the company’s needs. Both withdrew trusting behaviours, Lloyd stopped delegating any tasks that were above routine, and Maddie resigned shortly after the interview, thus showing the dark side of trust and how it may decrease over time and disrupt relationship quality.
To summarise, Dietz and Den Hartog [44] argue that trust is based on an assessment that the other person will eventually engage in trustworthy behaviour following a positive decision to act. The relationships described here recount trusting actions and draw attention to the willingness of both parties to take a risk. All four dyads illustrate that ability, benevolence and integrity are key aspects of trustworthiness [51, 52, 53] in both positive (trusting) and negative (non-trusting) ways. While there are questions in the literature around whether ability, benevolence and integrity have a unique or collective impact [54], our findings are that they are mutually implicated and that trust is an issue for both leaders and followers.
The study also draws attention to
4.2 Theme 2: performance, disruption and relationship quality
While no specific questions were asked about performance, the topic emerged inductively. Comments from participants indicated that they constantly assessed each other’s performance and that this was embedded in the development of relationship quality from day 1. Leader and follower dyads identified a number of positive aspects of performance, which included liking and loving the job, being proud of achievements, being organised, having skills and talent, growing in ability, having experience and working hard. Negative perceptions of performance included assessments by
Consequently, the data show that positive perceptions of performance reassure both leaders and followers and impact confidence in the quality of the relationship. Jeremy’s (F) relationship with Lois (L) is a good example of mutual appreciation and affect based on performance. Jeremy viewed Lois almost as a superwoman in terms of what she managed to do and how she contributed to the business, attributing company results to Lois and the team’s input. The assessments they made of each other’s performance started early in the relationship, as both recounted being impressed with the other’s ability to perform.
This initial and continual assessment of ability to perform by both leaders and followers was evident in other leader-follower relationships. Nine out of the 12 dyads echoed Jeremy and Lois’s experiences, where an assessment of performance and ability occurred in the initial interaction and was re-evaluated throughout the relationship. For example, Laurence’s (L) early positive assessment of Fred’s (F) ability to perform was upgraded as they got to know each other better over time, and by the last interview, he had complete faith in Fred based on a set of judgements made over the preceding months:
Laurence valued not only Fred’s ability to perform but also his integrity as a moral human being and someone who would stand up for himself. This was reciprocal, Fred was aware of being appreciated and also respected Laurence’s abilities as a leader in creating success:
This suggests that performance assessments are reciprocal and involve more than work outcomes, they encompass perceptions of personal factors such as integrity (‘great morals’) and an ability to bring people together to create a culture of success. Consequently, these perceptions played an important part in the development of relationship quality as confidence in each other increased.
However, for Edward and Leon, the opposite also occurred and relationship quality disrupted. Soon after Edward (F) began his position, Leon (L) learned that he was struggling with the numeracy aspect of his work. Their relationship quickly took a downturn as Leon’s faith in Edward’s ability to perform diminished and trusting behaviour in the form of autonomy was withdrawn:
Edward was aware of being under pressure with metrics being used to measure his performance. This increased his sense of being undervalued:
This change in the leader’s and follower’s perception of each other’s ability to perform led to a deterioration in both relationship quality and trust, which resulted in Edward seeking alternative employment and leaving Leon’s firm.
Likewise, Lisa (L) and Izzy’s (F) relationship – which started off on a positive footing (see page 11) – was disrupted and relationship quality decreased. In the final interview, Lisa was struggling with Izzy’s inability to perform, despite providing mentoring and training. Her comments highlight how being able to trust an employee to perform is crucial:
Izzy was made redundant a few weeks after this interview as Lisa restructured the team.
In the three examples of the disruption and deterioration of relationship quality over time (Edward, Izzy and Maddie), it appeared that negative assessments of performance by leaders and/or followers led to a decline in trust, and their view of the relationship was downgraded. There came a point where after a reassessment of performance and relationship quality, one member of the dyad decided to terminate the relationship. Edward (F) and Maddie (F) resigned, Lisa (L) made Izzy redundant. This finding accords with recent literature where trust is a predictor of performance (e.g. [55]) but supplements the considerably fewer studies exploring how performance may be a predictor of trust (e.g. [56]).
4.3 Theme 3: the development of relationship quality over time
The study highlights two important issues that supplement current LMX theory: the iterative and temporal nature of relationship quality. Whereas most measures of LMX are based on single point surveys aimed at predicting outcomes, the surveys do not offer detailed explanations of the development and fluctuations in leader and follower relationships over time. Nor do they offer insights on the interactional and iterative nature of the relationship. The value of a longitudinal qualitative study lies in highlighting how leaders and followers make assessments of each other on an ongoing basis and those assessments may support or disrupt relationships, i.e. result in high- or low-quality relationships. In our study, relationship quality remained fluid and emergent for far longer than the 6 months suggested by Nahrgang et al. [22] and was seen to improve or deteriorate in response to specific events, behaviours and/or actions that took place between leader and follower.
The examples in the previous section show how perceptions of relationship quality are fluid, temporal and interdependent with other dimensions in relationship development.. All but one of the participants volunteered comments on the quality of their relationship with their leader or follower at each of the three interviews over the 6–9 month period. Most perceptions of relationship quality were positive and appeared to strengthen over time, but as seen in above, three of relationships were disrupted through negative assessments (Leon and Edward; Maddie and Lloyd; Lisa and Izzy). Based on the data, we argue that ongoing assessments of the relationship’s value, by both leaders and followers, are an integral part of the development of relationship quality. Such assessments include subjective perceptions of trustworthiness, performance and trusting behaviours, all of which interact to shape opinions about the relationship’s current quality.
As Lloyd (L) commented about Ken (F), in the final interview, his estimation of the quality of their relationship was based on a number of factors:
For Lloyd, relationship quality is based on a number of factors he has experienced in working with Ken over a period of time, and on that basis he was keen to promote him. In particular, his comments illustrate affect (liking), performance (he’s hard working), respect (he’s capable) and socio-emotional qualities (cheerful, getting on with others). Trust also appears to be important in their relationship in terms of Ken’s reliability. As a result, Ken was promoted, indicating benevolence and trusting behaviours on Lloyd’s part.
In contrast, Edward’s (F) and Leon’s (L) experiences became increasingly negative over time. Leon commented that the Board had no faith in Edward, leaving Edward insecure and unhappy:
Because their perception of the benevolence, performance, commitment and trustworthiness of the other decreased, so did their relationship quality and their relationship development took a downturn, indicating the interdependent nature of perceptions of trustworthiness, trust in action and relationship quality. For Edward and Leon, neither party seemed to feel that the relationship could be restored and their increasingly negative views of each other were expressed though their social and emotional interactions.
The data therefore show that relationship quality is temporal, emerging and changing over time in both positive and negative ways and reciprocal in terms of involving both leader and follower assessments.
4.4 Additional themes in the data: socio-emotionality, transactional elements, communication, loyalty and respect
A number of themes appeared in the data that support current LMX literature. As a result, they are noted here rather than described in detail. These themes were: (1) the role of affect and socio-emotional elements; (2) feelings of respect and loyalty; and (3) the role of transactional aspects of the relationship (4) The value of communication. These are each described briefly below, starting with affect and socio-emotional dimensions.
First, LMX studies of relationship quality often include ‘affect’ or liking as a dimension, and Social LMX theory expands this to include socio-emotional elements of fun, laughter, commitment, benevolence and mutual trust [57, 58]. Our data indicate that socio-emotional aspects of relationships are important and that they interact with the other dimensions described so far. The findings are in line with recent literature around workplace relationships where affect and leadership are closely linked [59]. In addition, friendship is associated with positive emotions at work and personal growth links to life satisfaction [60] higher creativity, performance and reduced staff turnover [57, 61]. They also appear to confirm Dysvik et al. [62] findings that the better the quality of socio-emotional relations, the greater the likelihood of co-operation and information exchange between leaders and followers.
Secondly, respect and loyalty, two dimensions of multi-dimensional LMX [20], appeared strongly in the data. Both leaders and followers made comments regarding respect, including: ‘having respect for each other’, ‘admiring’ the other party and feeling respected where role-boundaries were clear and maintained. Loyalty took the forms of ‘not wanting to let the other party down’, responding favourably to or delegating tasks, and ‘doing well’ for the other person. Perceptions of both dimensions had a temporal aspect, growing more positive over time unless there was a negative event that disrupted the relationship development process.
The third additional theme relates to transactional (or economic) relationship dynamics, which are more contractual, self-interested relationship dimensions with relatively short-term tangible economic-based pay-offs (e.g. [63]). Positive assessments occurred where promises had been fulfilled, and contractual terms upheld. Negative perspectives included feelings of having been let down, demotivated or over-managed (on the part of employees), of promises or contracts being broken. The extent to which this influenced relationship quality, performance and trust depended on the calibre and style of leadership and procedures for management. Where these transactions involved share options and share values, there was a slight improvement over time if both parties felt that the firm’s performance was increasing share value in the long term.
Finally, the extent to which individuals perceived their relationship to be good was reinforced by their view of the quality of the communication between their leader/follower. Our findings agreed with Abu Bakar and Sheer [64] and Sheer [5] where positive perceptions were linked to commitment, support, trust, transactional dimensions and individual performance.
In summary, we suggest that relationship quality is interrelated with: trustworthiness, risk-taking, trusting behaviours; subjective perceptions of relationship quality; and an individuals’ ability to perform their roles. In addition, a range of dimensions covering both transactional and socio-emotional aspects of working life feed into this relationship development process. Additionally, as Kuvaas et al. [65] note, socio-emotional relationships are ‘characterized by a long-term orientation, where the exchanges between leaders and followers are on-going and based on feelings of diffuse obligation, and less in need of an immediate “pay off”.’ These sentiments were reflected in our data: where relationships were positive both leader and follower wanted it to continue. When asked if Jeremy would like to continue working with Lois, even if the company were bought out, his answer was an unequivocal:
Assessments of these dimensions are made continually throughout the relationship’s lifetime rather than being outcomes that occur after a period of time. The concept of trust and relationship quality as interdependent is not new in the literature, but there are no qualitative empirical studies that explain how trust, performance, leader-follower perceptions and relationship quality are interrelated and develop over time. We now discuss how each is connected and present a model for Dyadic Relationship Quality (DRQ) that encapsulates the dimensions of relationship development.
5. Discussion
Participants in the study were clear that a good-quality relationship existed where leaders and followers liked each other (affect), where they considered the other trustworthy and where the other’s ability to perform was enacted, acknowledged and valued. The contribution to LMX theory based on the data indicates that both leaders and followers identified a number of influences on the quality of their relationship and that relationship quality started to develop from their initial interaction (see Figure 1 below). If both parties anticipate trust and perceive trusting behaviours, then along with a sense of liking, admiring and/or assessing the other party as open, positive first impressions are formed. These first impressions can influence the relationship for some time to come [29, 66, 67] unless a disruption occurs, i.e. no trusting behaviours appear, performance expectations of either leader or follower are not met, or either party’s liking and/or respect for the other deteriorates. Then the quality of the relationship is affected in a negative way. This underlines the need for more longitudinal studies of relationship quality.
Figure 1.
Dyadic relationship quality process over time.
In much LMX-based research, performance is seen as an outcome of relationship development. Findings from this study indicate that performance (whether potential or realised) is assessed from the beginning of the relationship and that this changes how relationship quality is viewed. Where performance is strong, relationship quality, trust and relationship dynamics remain positive, where performance fails (as for Edward and Izzy), then parties lose faith in the relationship and the other dimensions also start to fall in quality terms.
Based on the empirical data, we propose the following definition for Dyadic Relationship Quality (DRQ) development:
Figure 1 (see below) maps the interrelationship of the various influences on leader-follower relationship quality over time – emphasising its temporal nature. This process generally starts before leader and follower meet, where through personal, social or media networks both parties are likely to have prior knowledge of the other, their achievements and previous employment history. With this knowledge, and each person’s antecedents, the initial interaction takes place.
During the first encounter, each party decides whether they think they can or do like the other person (affect), whether they think they are trustworthy and easy to communicate with and crucially takes a risk in displaying some form of trusting behaviour. In the study, this took the form of offering/accepting an unpaid job (Lisa and Izzy) and access to the code base/signing an intellectual property agreement (Lance and Adrian). These four dimensions (affect, trustworthiness, communication and trusting behaviours) impact the relationship for the remainder of its lifespan and interact with all other dimensions of relationship quality.
Findings also suggest that both leaders and followers assessed the actual or potential performance of their leader/follower and the relationship quality over time, ascribing value, based on their experience of the relationship. This assessment considered perceptions of: trust, communication, liking and emotions. In some dyads, the relationship developed in a mutually constructive way, for others, in a negative direction. Participant comments also illustrate that relationship quality is more complex and multifaceted than conceived of by LMX theory. In addition to trust, both leader and follower perceptions of the socio-emotional aspects of their relationship and their assessment of each other’s performance interact to influence relationship quality. These dimensions (as described above) are generally treated as outcomes of relationship development but were, in this data set, active influences on the emergence of relationship quality over time – in both supportive (e.g. Jeremy and Lois) and disruptive (e.g. Edward and Leon) ways.
Another major difference between this study and much existing work on LMX and interpersonal trust is that rather than looking for determinants and dependent and independent variables of interpersonal trust or increased performance, we argue that trust, relationship quality, performance and ongoing leader and follower assessments of each other and their relationship quality are interdependent, iterative and embedded in the context in which they work. The picture of how relationship quality develops and is maintained, therefore, is far more complex and nuanced than current descriptions of the types of leader behaviours that will induce follower trust (e.g. [12]), or how trust improves outcomes [68, 69, 70].
6. Conclusion: further considerations
The significance of the study lies in the conceptualisation of relationship quality not as an outcome, but as integral to ongoing assessments made by both leaders and followers based on many factors. The findings show that these multiple factors continue to influence perceptions of relationship quality over time and that both leaders and followers review their perceptions and assessments throughout the development process. Significantly, perceptions of relationship quality are not an outcome of dyadic relations but part of the relationship quality development process itself, interdependent and potentially changing through the lifetime of the relationship.
A wholistic approach will be required to fully understand how workplace experiences, relationships and productivity function, within relationship contexts and treating the combination of these elements as interdependent and emergent.
The study also suggests that contrary to many LMX studies, relationship quality cannot be determined by surveying leaders and followers separately on the basis of four dimensions. Rather, the entwined, personal and lived nature of leader-follower relationships and the agency of both leaders and followers in assessing, influencing and acting upon subjective perceptions of relationship quality suggest that qualitative longitudinal research on how both leaders and followers perceive their relationship would be beneficial in furthering the development of theory [71]. This should also offer organisations with practical opportunities to improve relationship quality and performance at work.
The practical implications of this study lie in the immediate applicability to the workplace. If leaders are aware of and demonstrate trusting behaviours as new hires are inducted, and also know what to look for, they can both support positive relationship beginnings and recognise when reciprocal behaviours occur. Likewise, understanding the value of social, emotional, respect and good communication will help to ‘oil the wheels’ of relationships as they progress [72]. Conversely, if leaders and followers note the absence of these key dimensions of relationships, they are then equipped to describe how a relationship is lacking, take remedial action to improve and/or end the relations in the workplace. Key to empowering leaders and followers to recognise and act on positive or negative behaviour patterns will be leadership training and development [73].
Finally, this study examined vertical relationships between leaders and followers in a high-tech start-up context in the United Kingdom. Future work could extend qualitative and quantitative studies across different contexts with more diverse settings, paying attention to the lenses of gender, race, ethnicity and sexual identity. In addition, it may be interesting to address whether similar results might result in relation to horizontal, co-worker relationship quality.
Acknowledgments
Firstly, thank you to the entrepreneurs and their staff who took part in the research: for their time, honesty and openness. Secondly, to Ann Cunliffe for her indomitable determination and cheerful guidance. Finally, to my ever-supportive family and friends for their enduring patience.
References
- 1.
Erdogan B, Bauer TN. Leader-member exchange (lmx) theory: the relational approach to leadership. In: Day DV, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 2015. pp. 407-433 - 2.
Day D, Miscenko D. Leader-member exchange (LMX): Construction evolution, contributions, and future prospects for advancing leadership theory. In: Erdogan B, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015. pp. 9-28 - 3.
Liden RC, Wu J, Cao AX, Wayne SJ. Leader-member exchange measurement. In: Bauer TN, Erdogan B, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2015. pp. 29-54 - 4.
Carsten MK, Bligh MC, Kohles JC, et al. A follower-centric approach to the 2016 US presidential election: Candidate rhetoric and follower attributions of charisma and effectiveness. Leadership 2019; 15 (2):179-204 - 5.
Sheer VC. Exchange lost in leader-member exchange theory and research: A critique and a reconceptualization. Leadership. 2015; 11 (2):213-229 - 6.
Stentz JE, Plano Clark VL, Matkin GS. Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 (6):1173-1183 - 7.
Dinh JE, Lord RG, Gardner WL, Meuser JD, Liden RC, Hu J. Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadership Quarterly. 2014; 25 (1):36-62 - 8.
Kabalo P. David Ben-Gurion’s leadership as a “two-way interaction process”. Leadership. 2017; 13 (3):320-342. DOI: 10.1177/1742715015589645 - 9.
Tourish D. Leadership, more or less? A processual, communication perspective on the role of agency in leadership theory. Leadership. 2014; 10 (1):79-98 - 10.
Nahrgang J, Seo JJ. How and why high leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships develop: Examining the antecedents of LMX. In: Bauer TN, Erdogan B, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 87-118 - 11.
Bligh MC, Kohles JC. Do I trust you to lead the way? Exploring trust and mistrucst in leader-follwer relations. In: Leonard JPHS, Lewis R, Freedman AM, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership, Change and Organizational Development. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2013. pp. 89-112 - 12.
Hernandez M, Long CP, Sitkin SB. Cultivating follower trust: Are all leader behaviors equally influential? Organization Studies. 2014; 35 (12):1867-1892 - 13.
Wang KY, Clegg S. Managing to lead in private enterprise in China: Work values, demography and the development of trust. Leadership. 2007; 3 (2):149-172 - 14.
McCauley CD, Palus CJ. Developing the theory and practice of leadership development: A relational view. The Leadership Quarterly. 2021; 32 (5):101456 - 15.
Ayoko OB, Tan PP, Li Y. Leader–follower interpersonal behaviors, emotional regulation and LMX quality. Journal of Management & Organization. 2022:1-18. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2022.26 - 16.
Planchy RJ, Smunt TL. Rethinking managership, leadership, followership, and partnership. Business Horizons. 2022; 65 (4):401-411 - 17.
Oberer B, Alptekin E. Leadership 4.0: Digital leaders in the age of industry 4.0. International Journal of Organizational Leadership. 2018 - 18.
Benson AJ, Hardy J, Eys M. Contextualizing leaders’ interpretation s of proactive followership. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2016; 37 :949-966 - 19.
Le Blanc PM, González-Romá V. A team level investigation of the relationship between leader–member exchange (lmx) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 (3):534-544 - 20.
Schyns B, Day D. Critique and review of leader – member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2010; 19 (1):1-29 - 21.
Graen GB, Scandura TA. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1987 - 22.
Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Ilies R. The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2009; 108 (2):256-266 - 23.
Dansereau F, Cashman J, Graen G. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1973; 10 (2):184-200 - 24.
Martin R, Guillaume Y, Thomas G, Lee A, Epitropaki O. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology. 2015:1-55. DOI: 10.1111/pepa.12100 - 25.
Bauer TN, Erdogan B. Introduction to this handbook. In: Bauer TN, Erdogan B, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 3-8 - 26.
Hiller NJ, DeChurch LA, Murase T, Doty D. Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management. 2011; 37 :1137-1177 - 27.
Bernerth JB, Walker HJ, Harris SG. Rethinking the benefits and pitfalls of leader-member exchange: a reciprocity versus self-protection perspective. Human Relations. 2016; 69 (3):661-684 - 28.
Boon C, Biron M. Temporal issues in person-organization fit, person-job fit and turnover: The role of leader-member exchange. Human Relations. 2016; 69 (12):2177-2200. DOI: 10.1177/0018726716636945 - 29.
Hu J, Wayne SJ, Bauer TN, Erdogan B, Liden RC. Self and senior executive perceptions of fit and performance: A time-lagged examination of newly-hired executives. Human Relations. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715609108 - 30.
Bernerth JB, Armenakis A, Field HS, Giles WF, Walker HJ. Leader – member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2007; 28 :979-1003 - 31.
Buch R, Kuvaas B, Dysvik A. If and when social and economic leader-member exchange relationships predict follower work effort. The moderating role of work motivation. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 2014; 35 (8):725-739 - 32.
Buch R, Kuvaas B, Dysvik A, Schyns B. If and when social and economic leader-member exchange relationships predict follower work effort: The moderating role of work motivation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal; 2014 - 33.
Dienesch RM, Liden RC. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: a critique and further development. Academy of Management Review. 1986; 11 (3):618-634 - 34.
Ikonen M. Trust development and dynamics at dyadic level: A narrative approach to studying processes of interpersonal trust in leader-follower relationships. [Thesis Dissertation, Pulications of the University of Eastern Finland, No. 53]. 2013 - 35.
Dulebohn JH, Bommer WH, Liden RC, Brouer RL, Ferris GR. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management. 2011; 38 (6):1715-1759 - 36.
Nienaber AM, Hofeditz M, Romeike PD. Vulnerability and trust in leader-follower relationships. Personnel Review. 2015; 44 (4):567-591 - 37.
Schermuly CC, Meyer B. Good relationships at work: The effects of leader-member exchange and team-member Exchange on psychological empowerment, emotional exhaustion, and depression. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2016; 37 (5):673-691 - 38.
Gannon MJ, Pillai R. Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 34 Nations, Clusters of Nations, Continents, and Diversity. Sage Publications; 2015 - 39.
Ayman R, Korabik K. Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. The American Psychologist. 2010; 65 :157-170 - 40.
Browne K. Snowball sampling: using social networks to research non-heterosexual women. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):47-60 - 41.
Crist JD, Tanner C. Interpretation/analysis methods in hermeneutic interpretive phenomenology. Nursing Research. 2003; 50 (3):202-205 - 42.
Braun V, Clark V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3 (2):77-101 - 43.
Rousseau D, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review. 1998; 23 :393-404 - 44.
Dietz G, Hartog DN Den. Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review. 2006; 35 (5):557-588 - 45.
Wasti SA, Tan HH, Erdil SE. Antecedents of trust across foci: A comparative study of Turkey and China. Management and Organization Review. 2011; 7 (2):279-302 - 46.
Dietz G. Going back to the source: why do people trust eachother? Journal of Trust Research. 2011; 1 (2):215-222 - 47.
McKnight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review. 1998; 23 (3):473 - 48.
Delgado-Márquez BL et al. Does knowledge explain trust behaviors and outcomes? The different influences of initial knowledge and experiential knowledge on personal trust interactions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2014; July :1-16 - 49.
Scarbrough H et al. Exploring the role of trust in the deal-making process for early-stage technology ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 2013; 37 (5):1203-1228 - 50.
Van der Werff L, Buckley F. Getting to know you: A longitudinal examination of trust cues and trust development during socialization. Journal of Management. 2017; 43 (3):742-770 - 51.
Colquitt JA, Scott BA, JA LP. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92 (4):909-927 - 52.
Frazier LM, Tupper C, Fainshmidt S. Where are you going? A comparative analysis of job and career change intentions among USA IT workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2016. DOI: 10.1002/job.2091 - 53.
Mayer RC, Gavin MB. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal. 2005; 48 (5):874-888 - 54.
Poon JML. Effects of benevolence, integrity, and ability on trust-in-supervisor. Employee Relations. 2013; 35 (4):396-407 - 55.
Gupta N, Ho V, Pollack JM, Lai L. A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust: Individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2016; 37 (8):1271-1292. DOI: 10.1002/job.2104 A - 56.
Peterson RS, Behfar KJ. The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2003; 92 (1-2, 112):102 - 57.
Buch R, Kuvaas B. Capitalizing on Creativity at Work: Fostering the Implementation of Creative Ideas in Organizations M. Skerlavaj et al. (eds) Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar. Publishing Ltd; 2016 - 58.
Buch R, Dysvik A, Kuvaas B, Nerstad CG. It takes three to tango: Exploring the interplay among training intensity, job autonomy, and supervisor support in predicting knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management. 2015; 54 (4):623-635 - 59.
Rowold J, Borgmann L. Interpersonal affect and the assessment of interrelationship between leadership constructs. Leadership. 2014; 10 (3):301-325 - 60.
Colbert AE, Bono JE, Puranova RK. Flourishing via workplace relationships: Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of Management Journal. 2015. DOI: amj-2014 - 61.
Little LM, Gooty J, Williams M. The role of leader emotion management in leader-member exchange and follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly. 2016; 27 (1):85-97 - 62.
Dysvik A, Buch R, Kuvaas B. Knowledge donating and knowledge collecting. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2015; 36 (1):35-53 - 63.
Kuvaas B, Buch R, Dysvik A, et al. Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 (5):756-765 - 64.
Abu Bakar H, Sheer VC. The mediating role of perceived cooperative communication in the relationship between interpersonal exchange relationships and perceived group cohesion. Management Communication Quarterly. 2013; 27 :443-465 - 65.
Kuvaas B, Buch R, Dysvik A, Haerem T. Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 (5):756-765 - 66.
Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Stilwell D. A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78 (4):662-674 - 67.
Kangas HM. The development of the LMX relationships after a newly appointed leader enters an organization. Human Resource Development International. 2013; 16 (5):575-589 - 68.
Werbel J, Henriques P. Different views of trust and relational leadership: Supervisor and subordinate perspectives. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2009; 24 (8):780-796 - 69.
Yang J, Mossholder KW. Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. The Leadership Quarterly. 2010; 21 (1):50-63 - 70.
Zhu W, Newman A, Miao Q , Hooke A. Revisiting the mediating role of trust in transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference? The Leadership Quarterly. 2013; 24 (1):94-105 - 71.
Cunliffe A, Eriksen M. Relational leadership. Human Relations 2011; 64 (11):1425-1449 - 72.
Adams BG, Meyers MC, Sekaja L. Positive leadership: Relationships with employee inclusion, discrimination, and well-being. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2020; 69 (4):1145-1173 - 73.
Cunliffe A, Wilson JA. Can Leadership be Taught. In: The Routledge companion to leadership. s.l.: Routledge; 2016. pp. 527-566