Interpersonal Communication Exchanges: A look into Leadership–Member Exchange and Team–Member Exchange

It is no surprise that time can be a leading factor in developing successful relationships between subordinates and leaders; regardless of factors such as time, abilities, and resources the relationship between the leader and the subordinate are jeopardized and the subordinate’s perceptions of unfairness rise a social comparison is made between them and the other team members. Team–Member Exchange tries answer the cause of Leader–Member Exchange. LMX is primarily associated with the leader’s ability to make the subordinates feel welcome in the in-group, and in tern, a higher workflow thrives. The LMX leads the subordinates to build TMX relationships among themselves, which further promote the principles and virtues of the leader. These relationship themselves push the company to flourish. This essay will discuss the details of the conclusion of “ A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work (Herman, Dasbrorough, and Ashkanasy, 2008),” and how chapter 7 of “Leadership: Theory and Practice (Northouse, 2016)” refutes or supports the findings of Herman et al.

Herman et al talk about a “[depicted]...multi-level model in which workplace friendship is a mediator linking the relationship between LMX and TMX at the individual level, and affective climate serves as a group-level moderator to buffer the relationship between LMX and workplace friendship at the individual level.” Essentially one has the affective climate, which affects the LMX, leading to the workplace friendship, which in tern affects the TMX. The affective climate serves as the wonderful moderator of the group, and every other individual level is affected by an affective climate. The findings are simple, “followers in high-quality LMX relationships enjoy greater openness and frequency in communication, voice, feedback opportunities, attention, participation and involvement in decision making and related matters, cooperative and receptive information sharing, and person-oriented message exchanges that determine their communication satisfaction (Baker & Ganster, 1985; Kacmar, Witt, Zivnusa, & Gully, 2003; Lee & Jablin, 1995).” The findings also indicate “climate perceptions originate within individuals… [and] climate perceptions are expected to be shared by members within discrete workgroups (Herman et al).” Every group has a different climate and it affects positive or negative relationships on the workflow of the group.  Furthermore they discovered that “affective climate at the group level moderate the LMX–TMX relationship at the individual level, and discovering that affective climate at the group level moderate the LMX–workplace friendship relationship (Herman et al).” Effective group development and structure strongly correlates with the climate of the organization and the ability of the leader to build strong and lasting relationships with his/her subordinates.

In relation to the book, Leadership: Theory and Practice” strongly supports this conclusion. The book however takes it in a different approach and discusses in-groups and out-groups, but the understanding of the lasting relationships is predominately similar. I cannot say I disagree with these findings because I have lived them myself: I have felt excluded at one point or another, and it has made me want to try less. I had a terrible experience when I was in college where the professor created a ghastly climate where she was never to be questioned. As a leader, she was horrendous, and it really affected the subordinates around her. Her lack of leadership made the climate negative, and many believed that learning was a waste of time, since she would refute any idea the students brought her way. These theories really helped me understand that a leader can either deteriorate a group or make them better. Because I have lived these experiences firsthand, I cannot disagree with the findings of the research article.