A mutual exchange, in-groups, and out-groups

Leadership, in these notes, is influence exchanged between a leader and a follower. Unlike theories that look only at the leader, or only at subordinates and the situation, leader–member exchange stresses a mutual relation. A unique role is formed between a particular leader and a particular member, and members do not all perceive the same leader in an average way; they form one-to-one relations.

Graen and Uhl-Bien, the notes say, reported that a leader can raise leadership effectiveness by developing a high-quality exchange with members. They define that high-level exchange as a relation based on respect, trust, and a continuing reciprocity, a wish to help one another. Pairs whose exchange quality is high are classed as the in-group; those whose quality is low are the out-group. When the relation goes beyond formal work to trust, respect, and a sense of obligation, performance, satisfaction, and a larger share of tasks follow, in this telling.

An implication drawn in the notes is that the higher the mutual exchange with the leader or the organization, the higher the organizational commitment and trust. An organization, they write, should offer active support and training so that members share the goal and the vision, and should keep a human exchange outside the job, so that a spiritual sympathy is maintained. A leader, they add, should focus on the relation with each member, and on that member’s problems, rather than apply a single technique to the whole or remain bound to an average leadership style among the members.

A 1991 leadership-making model, and three role stages in 1999

In 1991, Graen and Uhl-Bien focused a leadership-making model on how the exchange relation between leader and member can be used to make leadership. Leadership-making, in this telling, emphasizes that the leader should form a high-quality exchange with all members, not only with a few. What the two sides exchange is varied: trust, ability, motivation, support, understanding, authority, information, influence on decisions, communication, confidence, delegation, and more. Of these, trust, respect, and a sense of obligation are named as the core.

On that core, leadership-making is said to develop, as time passes, through three stages. In the stranger stage, interaction inside the pair is generally limited to a formal relation, and the member’s motive leans toward private interest rather than the organization’s. In the acquaintance stage, the quality of the exchange is higher than in the stranger stage, and more trust and respect begin to accumulate. In the last, cooperation stage, mutual trust, respect, and obligation are formed, and a highly cooperative relation is in place. A recent claim recorded in the notes is that this interactive view should preferably widen, beyond formal superior–subordinate ties, to horizontal relations among colleagues and to informal networks.

Devorah and Robert (1999), meanwhile, treat the exchange as a mutual role relation and describe three stages over time. In role-taking, the leader assigns a role through work-related demands or task allocation; even if some noise enters the delivery, the subordinate takes the role and acts, and that response feeds back so that the leader can evaluate the behavior and decide whether to assign another role. In role-making, the nature of the relation is at issue: the leader offers a chance for the subordinate to perform unstructured tasks. In role-developing, leader and subordinate are in accord; expectations of one another are high, so they cooperate on unstructured tasks, and the quality of the exchange, in this stage, settles into a more stable state. Those stages stay as the unique body spells them out.

Later behavior studies, Korean sources, and a named limit

Empirical work on leadership behavior in this frame is also cited. Timmons and Spinelli (2009) say that a leader’s relation-oriented behavior — sharing worries or creative ideas with members — or task-oriented behavior — encouraging new ideas and drawing out innovative acts such as product development — raises the quality of the exchange. Yukl and others (2009) find that support, recognition, consultation, delegation, and leading by example positively affect that quality. Gil and others (2005) say that change-oriented behavior, including encouraging innovative thought and risk-taking, positively affects team performance and team satisfaction.

Korean sources named in the notes include So Yi-won, an empirical doctoral thesis on effective military leadership (Chungnam National University, 2010), with pages 14, 48, and 49 cited; Park Jae-chun, on the relations among leadership behavior, leader–member exchange, and leadership effectiveness, focused on the civil service, in Korean Journal of Public Administration 22(1) (2013), with pages 35 and 37 cited; Son Il-gun, a master’s thesis on the effect of LMX on a subordinate’s self-efficacy and job performance (Honam University, 2013); and Lee Kyung-ha, a master’s thesis on the effect of the quality of superior–subordinate exchange on organizational effectiveness, with a focus on interpersonal aspects (Dongguk University, 2005).

A main limit, the notes say, is that LMX applies to general behaviors a leader should show — trust, respect, openness, autonomy, discretion — but does not fully explain specific behaviors, or a leader’s personality and individuality, that dramatically improve the relation. The theory also assumes, they write, that all members have the same amount of trust, the same responsibility for a project, and the same chance of promotion, which often is not so in reality. Moving from the stranger stage to the cooperation stage in the leadership-making model takes a certain amount of time. The account does not include the point that values affect organizational behavior, and it does not explain what role values play in the relation between leader and member. Those limits stay as the notes state them. The same Korean report, at fuller length, is on CampusDown.

Sources

1. Notes on leader–member exchange as a mutual interaction, against theories that look only at the leader or only at subordinates and the situation.
2. Graen and Uhl-Bien on high-quality exchange, in-groups and out-groups, and the 1991 leadership-making model’s stranger, acquaintance, and cooperation stages; Devorah and Robert (1999) on role-taking, role-making, and role-developing.
3. Timmons and Spinelli (2009), Yukl and others (2009), Gil and others (2005); So Yi-won (2010), Park Jae-chun (2013), Son Il-gun (2013), and Lee Kyung-ha (2005); and a named limit on specific behaviors, personality, and values.

Last updated: 14 November 2026