Leader-member exchange (1 Y ) theory and research is one approac 1 to studying organizational liadership. It has developed as an alternative to average leadership style (ALS), which attempts to identiJy a single most effective leadership style. LMXfocuses instead on the heterogeneity of dyadic relationships. LMX theory is not yet well enough developed to be a guide to HRD practitioners, but further research in this area could lead to the development of better theory to guide HRD interventions. There are some strengths and many weaknesses in LMX theory and research. Recent research has supported the theory, but research is needed on instrumentation, the impact ofLMX quality on organizational outcomes, the ways in which leadermember relationships develop, and behavioral components affecting the initiation of leader-member relationships.Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory and research is one approach to studying organizational leadership. Organizational leadership theory can be useful to HRD practitioners designing management development, succession planning, and managerial coaching processes or attempting to solve performance issues in a work group. L,MX theory is not yet well enough developed to be a guide to HRD practitioners, but further research in this area could lead in turn to the development of better theory to guide HRD interventions. This article provides background and suggested directions for HRD researchers who are interested in theoretical and research efforts that lead, ultimately, to improving leader-member relationships.The theory of leader-member exchange maintains that the leader and each individual member of a work group have a unique relationship. In initial interactions, judgments are made and opinions are formed by the leader and the member. If the opinion is positive, the leader will assign better tasks to the HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY. vo1. 10, no 3 . Fall 1999 0 Jossey-Bass Publishers 225

For at least a decade, HRD journals and professional convention programs have discussed spirituality in the workplace. Work is a spiritual journey for many of us, although we talk about it in different ways. Some prefer to use humanistic language. Others are "New Agers." Traditional religious frameworks feel appropriate for other people. Many do not quite fit any system at all, but everyone who has been engaged in these discussions senses the spiritual dimension of work.If we articulate and share our visions and values, we can organize and direct our spiritual experience. If HRD professionals ask questions about both the field and our relationship to it, we may facilitate the emergence of these visions and the articulation of these values. HRD needs a foundation of personal and professional values to move it toward greater maturity. Discussions such as those in this article may help clarify the belief systems, images, and dreams that give energy to us as individuals and to the HRD field, energy for continuing development.At its best, such activity is a kind of soul making or myth making. Theories about the nature of myths are plentiful. According to popular mythologist Joseph Campbell (1964), myths are neither true nor false. Rather they are belief systems, frequently taking the form of stories, that serve four functions, all necessary for people to live well with themselves, with others, and with the earth. The four functions are the following: to elicit and support a sense of awe before the mystery of being; to render a cosmology, an image of the universe; to support the social order and to integrate the individual organically within his group; and to initiate individuals into the order of realities of their own psyches, guiding them toward their own spiritual enrichment and realization. Campbell (1959) also distinguished between functional and nonfunctional myths. Functional myths elicit and direct enera. We all live by them, although frequently almost unconsciously. These are the kind of living myths that we need to discover for the HRD field. Such myths cannot be created by research but rather by reflecting and dreaming and then sharing those dreams. They are neither true nor false but either functional, powerful "Ah ha!" experiences or quickly forgotten.FORUM is a nonrefereed section inviting readers' reactions and opinions.

This exploratory study examined the relationship between management styles, selected potential mediating variables, and employee stress levels. Members of a human resource professional organization who worked in business and industry were randomly selected and asked to complete five survey instruments. Variables included stress level, certain personality and demographic characteristics, and the perceived management style of their managers. Significant differences in employee stress levels were found between the management styles. Different combinations of the mediating variables predicted stress in each of the management styles. In addition, when management style was included as a predictor variable, it was the biggest predictor of stress. The relationship between management style and employee stress level has implications for today's HRD practitioners.

No abstract

No abstract