Tracing Structure, Tie Strength, and Cognitive Networks in LMX Theory and Research

Abstract

This chapter reflects on the growing relationship between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory and research and social network analysis. We first discuss the themes of structure and tie strength in relation to several of the theoretical formulations of LMX theory that have served as the foundation for subsequent research. This section proceeds chronologically, beginning with the earliest work on the Vertical Dyad Linkage (as the LMX perspective was initially known) and concluding with recent empirical research integrating LMX and social networks. Our goal is to provide a narrative review of the development of the themes of structure and tie strength within the LMX literature. We then turn to recent developments in the field in which LMX differentiation figures prominently both theoretically and empirically, and engage in a close critical reading of this work from the perspective of cognitive social networks. We conclude by summarizing the opportunities for future research that emerge from our narrative and conceptual analysis.

Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review

“…With respect to LMX variation, techniques such as social network analysis would be particularly useful (see Sparrowe & Emery, ). For example, if network tie strength is viewed as a proxy for LMX quality, then social network analysis (as described below) could provide a more detailed analysis of the structural configuration of LMX (both variation and shape) than can be achieved by current methods (such as standard deviation).…”

“…For example, it is plausible that good peer relationships (or strong ties with networks outside the work team) may buffer the negative effect of LMX relative position on individual performance (Sparrowe & Liden, ). Although, as described above, recent advances in LMX differentiation research have begun to model different structural configurations of LMX variation, and such configurations may well have implications for the structure of follower relationships (e.g., Li & Liao, ), the social network approach is better suited for directly mapping the broader social structure of the work team (i.e., both LMX variation and member ties; Sparrowe & Emery, ).…”

“…Cognitive social networks constitute mental representations of individual social networks characterized by actors and ties. Sparrowe and Emery () suggest that when team members mentally represent their leader‐member relationships within the work team a cognitive social network is activated about their LMX relative position in the team as well as the structure of LMX variation (which may be different from the actual social network). This raises the interesting question concerning the accuracy of activated cognitive networks and their susceptibility to systematic biases (Brands, ).…”

Leveraging relational analytics in human resource research and practice

“…This is most often not a malicious or Machiavellian strategy, but rather a function of the various competencies, personalities, and resources possessed by both leader and member which drive relationship quality and subsequent outcomes. In some respects, LMX theory fits the prior definition of network theory when it is used to explore the consequences of leader-member relationships and a theory of networks when the antecedents of these relationships are explored (see Sparrowe & Emery, 2016 for a detailed discussion of the intersection of network and LMX theories).…”

The Road to the Future: A Multi-Technique Bibliometric Review and Development Projections of the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Research

“…Some authors (Dulebohn et al, 2017) suggest that a leader-follower relationship is based on trust and respect, and therefore the quality of the relationship is marked by social exchange, building on social exchange theory. On the other hand, others claim that LMX has foundations in role-making processes (Bauer & Erdogan, 2015). These inconsistencies also tap into perceptions of how the research domain has developed and evolved.…”