'The key to effective leadership is the quality of leader-follower relationship.' Critically discuss based on theory and evidence.

Introduction

Leadership is crucial in an organisational setting, influencing effectiveness and performance (DeRue et al., 2011). It involves inspiring a group towards shared objectives, with the leader-follower relationship being fundamental (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).  This paper will critically examine the statement, “The key to effective leadership lies in the quality of the leader-follower relationship”. This suggests a leader’s effectiveness depends on the quality of these relationships. Using relevant leadership theories and empirical evidence, this paper will scrutinise (1) various leadership styles, (2) the role of trust, communication, and understanding in strengthening leader-follower relationships, and (3) the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory’s emphasis on high-quality leader-follower relationships.

Theories

As a process of social influence, leadership aims to stimulate followers to contribute actively towards achieving organisational goals (Hogg, 2001). This is more comprehensively understood by examining three key leadership theories: Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and Servant Leadership.

Transformational Leadership is characterised by leaders who inspire followers to transcend their interests for the collective benefit of the organisation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). This leadership style is ingrained in a relationship that requires mutual trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect between the leader and the followers (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).

In contrast, Transactional Leadership operates on a system of rewards and penalties, focusing on role clarity and task completion (Howell & Avolio, 1993). The leader-follower relationship in this model is more contractual, based on successfully executing tasks.

Servant Leadership prioritises followers' needs, emphasising their development and well-being (Liden et al., 2008). This style nurtures a high-trust ethical environment, thereby enriching the leader-follower relationship.

Moreover, the leader-follower relationship is integral to effective leadership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). This relationship, which is the leadership style, can shape the degree of trust, cooperation, and reciprocal respect between the leader and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). For example, while a transformational leader might foster a more inspiring and motivational environment, a transactional leader could create a more directive and restrictive one (Bass et al., 2003). Regardless of the style, the quality of the leader-follower relationships remains a determinant of effective leadership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).

Significance

A core concept in understanding leader-follower dynamics is mutual influence, encapsulated in the LMX theory (Dulebohn et al., 2012). This theory proposes that leaders and followers foster unique, mutually beneficial relationships over time (Ilies et al., 2007). The quality of these relationships can enhance both individual and organisational performance. For instance, leaders with high-quality LMX relationships tend to have followers with greater organisational citizenship behaviours (Gottfredson & Aguinis, 2017).

High-quality leader-follower relationships can significantly improve organisational performance and employee satisfaction (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Gerstner and Day’s (1997) research supports this, finding correlation between high-quality LMX relationships and positive job attitudes, increased satisfaction, and improved performance.

However, it is important to address potential biases in these relationships.  Leaders may show favouritism towards certain followers, leading to perceived or actual inequality and possibly disrupting team unity and productivity (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010). Lastly, it is worth noting that while a strong leader-follower relationship is a cornerstone of effective leadership, it is influenced by several factors, such as personal traits, organisational culture, and external factors (Wang et al., 2005).

Evaluation

LMX emphasises the impact of the quality of leader-follower relationships on effective leadership, stating that individual relationships can significantly influence team and organisational outcomes (Dulebohn et al., 2012). However, high-quality relationships can also have potentially negative implications.

Firstly, favouritism can arise when leaders develop closer relationships with certain followers, leading to an unfair distribution of resources, opportunities, and attention (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010). Secondly, such relationships can lead to over-reliance, potentially stifling follower imitative and development (Harris et al., 2011). Thirdly, leaders may struggle to maintain objectivity when relationships are close, possibly overlooking follower mistakes (Martin et al., 2016). Lastly, followers in a high-quality relationship may resist change if it threatens their relationship with the leader, potentially repressing innovation and adaptability.

In contrast, the Trait Theory of Leadership posits that certain inherent traits such as intelligence, self-assurance, determination, and integrity are fundamental for effective leadership (Judge et al., 2002). It suggests that leaders are born, not made, and these inborn traits are key to their success.

Furthermore, Hersey-Blanchard’s situational leadership theory underscores the importance of leaders adapting their style to match their followers' maturity and competence level, which varies depending on the situation (Graeff, 1997). This theory emphasises the fluidity of leadership and that effectiveness depends on the leader’s ability to respond to changing circumstances (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009).

Research on leader-follower relationships often relies on self-reported data, leading to potential biases such as social desirability bias and the halo effect, which may overemphasise the role of relationships in leadership (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Moreover, while the quality of leader-follower relationships is a significant aspect of effective leadership, it is not the only determinant (Yukl, 2012). Aspects such as inherent leadership traits, adaptability to situational demands, potential research biases, and the potential negative effects of high-quality relationships must all be considered for a comprehensive understanding of effective leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003).

Conclusion

To conclude, it can be argued that the quality of the leader-follower relationship has a significant role in effective leadership. Theories such as Transactional, Transactional, and Servant Leadership indicate the importance of relationship dynamics in motivating followers, achieving organisational goals, and fostering a positive work environment (Dulebohn et al., 2012). LMX further implies that high-quality relationships might enhance individual and organisational performance (Rockstuhl et al., 2012).

However, other factors, such as inherent leadership traits, as proposed by the Trait Theory of Leadership, and adaptability to situational demands, as suggested by Hersey-Blanchard’s situational leadership theory, also appear to have a significant role (Judge et al., 2002). Moreover, it could be beneficial to consider potential research biases and the possible negative effects of high-quality relationships, such as favouritism and over-reliance (Martin et al., 2016).

Although the quality of leader-follower relationships could be a key component in leadership effectiveness, it appears to operate amidst a complex nexus of other factors (House & Aditya, 1997). These encompass individual traits, situational variables, organisational culture, and external factors (Mumford et al., 2000). A comprehensive understanding of effective leadership may require a multifaceted perspective considering all these elements and how they interact to influence leadership outcomes. The success of a leader is ultimately contingent on their capacity to establish high-quality relationships with followers while also managing these other critical aspects of leadership effectively (House & Aditya, 1997).

References

  • Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
  • Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
  • Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T.N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104-1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020578
  • DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S.E. (2011). Trait and behavioural theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
  • Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L., & Ferris, G.R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
  • Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
  • Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
  • Gottfredson, R.K., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Leadership behaviours and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 38(4), 558-591. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2152
  • Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
  • Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R., & Kacmar, K.M. (2011). The mediating role of organisational job embeddedness in the LMX–outcomes relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 271-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.003
  • Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1
  • House, R.J., & Aditya, R.N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis. Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300306
  • Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
  • Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviours: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
  • Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
  • Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
  • Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
  • Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100
  • Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T.O., & Fleishman, E.A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7
  • Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  • Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J.H., Ang, S., & Shore, L.M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097-1130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029978
  • Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R.P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014
  • Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z.X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organisational citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407908
  • Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R.E., Lowe, K.B., & Carsten, M.K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
  • Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behaviour: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088
MSc Human Resource Management
Deepen your understanding of Human Resource Management and its role in the organisational psychology of modern workplaces.
University of London
Share this post