Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Northouse 7 ed. Ch. 7
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2015
- This is a summary of Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). It is an introduction to Chapter 7 of Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.) by Peter C. Northouse. The PowerPoint can be downloaded at www.researchgate.net/profile/...
![Gunna - one of wun [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w_JtBYqMgk8/mqdefault.jpg)
A really well put together explanation. Thank you :)
Very informative and easy to understand. Thanks so much!
thank you ,for taking the time to explain this to me
thank you professor david...you explained it well
Thank you professor, you helped me a lot with my leadership exam tomorrow
superb thanks for sharing valuable knowledge. actually you made it easy
Hi. My professor posts these same ppts but w/o detailed explanations like this. Thanks for all the help.
Thank you for your informative videos
Hello sir, I just like to thank you for posting these videos. I'm taking an online class and your explanations really help me understand the theories. Muchas Gracias!
eric gonzalez
Hi Eric,
I’m glad you’re finding these useful. I produced them for an
online class I teach. They provide an introduction to the key concepts in
Northouse’s textbook Leadership: Theory
and Practice. Hopefully they allow you to put the many concepts found in
the text into perspective. If you want to go deeper than what is covered in
Northouse, I recommend Yukl’s textbook Leadership
in Organizations.
David Dunaetz That it does. It allows me to understand what I'm reading as I go through the chapters. So far I've been doing great on all my assignments thanks to the help provided by the videos.
Thanks, it's very useful :)
This dude is a bawler.
best explanation ever
Hi Sir,
Thanks for a good explanations. Just like to clarify, must an exchange occured between the leader and the member for it to be considered that the leader is practicing LMX Theory of leadership?
Because in the case study I'm assigned with, the leader shows a quite obvious favoritism towards members in his project team, which eventually created two groups; in-group and out-group. But in the case study, it didn't mentioned much on what the exchange processes that occurs. It just that the leader somehow spend more time discussing about works (and personal matters) with 2 members in the projects team while most of the time ignores the other member in the project team (who always failed to get appointment to meet up with the leader to discuss about works) which caused dissatisfaction to the out-group members.
+NUR ZATIL 'ISMA ZAINAL
One doesn't really "practice" LMX. Rather, LMX provides concepts to describe processes that occur in work groups. These processes include interactions between the leader and the subordinates. If the interactions (whatever they are) with one subordinate lead to trust, the subordinate will be a member of the "in-group." If the interactions do not lead to trust, the subordinate will be in the "out-group."
So in your case study, the interactions have already occurred that have determined who is in the out-group and who is in the in-group. Nevertheless, you can predict that those in the in-group will receive more information from the leader, have more influence on him or her, and will receive more concern from the leader than will members of the out-group.
+David Dunaetz
Thanks Sir for the enlightment. Do you think it's also possible to relate the issue of favoritism in the case study by understanding it through metaphors for organisations? As in this case it should be looking at the Organisation as a Political System (Morgan, 1986). I was actually quite confused between explaining the underlying problems betwen those two theory/approach. Should I explain the underlying problems in term of LMX Theory or through Metaphor for Organisation. Or are they actually interrelated?
+NUR ZATIL 'ISMA ZAINAL
It's possible to use the Political System metaphor, if it's really applicable. However, from what you wrote about the case study, it sounds like the leader wanted to include the third subordinate in his or her ingroup, but that the subordinate was avoiding the leader and thus a healthy relationship could not be created. If that's the case, it's not really seem like a political system, nor would it be unfair favoritism.
+David Dunaetz
Prof. David. Thanks for the response. In the case study, the leader (CEO) didn't bother the out-group at all. He's always unavailable when the members from the out-group would like to meet him for work discussions. But always have time for the in-group members (he even invited them for personal coffee session).
*the project team is an Organizational Development (OD) Team. There was no specific leader appointed within the team.
When the out-group members mentioned this issues (about the availability of the CEO for the in-group but not the out-group) sarcastically to the in-group members, the in-group members replied, they were just trying to maintain and develop the group's relationship with 'the client'. To which the the out-group members replied, they thought 'the whole organisation is their client'.
The in-group and out-group members are somehow differentiated in the way they are dressing up and thinking.
In-group members: Dressed formally. Wanted to be accepted first. Favor slower, gradual approach.
Out-group members: Dressed casually. Favor confrontational and aggressive approach. Want innovative change. Overhaul firm's operation.
The CEO were actively involved during planning and designing of the change programme but started to absent during implementation phase (training progress) where critical decision-making need to be consulted and made. This is when he started to shows favoritism in communicating with the members of the OD team. He chose who he want to discuss with.
The more that I read, the more that I found the case study could be analyse better using LMX Theory.
Prof, I would like to get you further opinions on this. I think I'll drop you an email to discuss further.
+NUR ZATIL 'ISMA ZAINAL
(Discussion continued in email)
thanks