Job Performance Based on Leader Member Exchange Theory

Introduction
LMX or (leader member exchange) theory is salient for corporate sustainability and development. Breevaart and coworkers (2015) claim that the theory forms a key instrument in the maintenance of sound manager- subordinate bonds. Increased bond tenure reinforces and improves exchange, thereby positively affecting personnel (Martin et al., 2016). Hence, this paper discusses the LMX theory’s influence on workers’ job performance by discussing and reviewing findings from prior studies.
LMX theory
The theory’s conceptual bases prove salient in several organizational areas. Diefendorff, Kim, and Liu (2015) regard leader member exchange theory as a key tool in the maintenance of effective leader- subordinate bonds. Managerial support is appreciably high among the low LMX cluster, making them socialize via the exchange of desirable behavior. Moreover, LMX theory is rooted in corporate citizenship and personnel behavior since superior- subordinate communication functions as the bridge for the latter to distinguish what the former anticipates him/ her to do (Martin et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2015). Martin and colleagues’ (2016) meta- analysis on the LMX theory reveals LMX is linked closely to job performance, general satisfaction, management, member capability, dedication, role clarity, turnover intent, and role conflict.
According to scholars, leader member exchange perceptions in subordinates are dependent on referents’ impact on individual perspective (frog- pond effect) (Kim et al., 2015). That is, people might compare and apply social information drawn from referents in the assessment of psychological contract realization. With increased LMX variation in a group, high- LMX subordinates’ perceptions of receiving special treatment when compared with peers increases. Thus, a satisfying superior- subordinate interaction is especially important if fellow workers fail to enjoy similarly rewarding interactions. Breevaart and coworkers (2015) maintain that corporate LMX behavior increases productivity, and supervisor and job satisfaction.
LMX and job performance
The element of job performance proves pivotal to firms since it represents a reflection of the company’s progress within the marketplace. Leader member exchange tends to impact workers’ extra- role and in- role performance; these combine and contribute to job satisfaction as well as performance. Furthermore, Hartnell, Walumbwa and Cropanzano (2009) discussed the aforementioned positive results of corporate performance, revealing the fact that personnel depicting mastery- oriented conduct score higher on the measure of manager- rated performance on the job. Kim and colleagues (2015) further corroborate the above reasoning, by banking on the social exchange model in order to connect LMX to job performance and satisfaction. This theory holds that managers’ interaction with subordinates and the company are interlinked, and may be catalyzed via perceived corporate support for improved yield. However, such an exchange may never be expected to take place in one dimension; it has to be of a dyadic nature. Dyadic exchanges are a central LMX element for developing personnel satisfaction; meanwhile, personnel’s work produced, together with a more meaningful relationship, help improve performance. Additionally, Breevaart and coworkers (2015) indicate that personnel with the habit of frequently reporting to their superior exhibit improved performance scores as compared to those who didn’t reported so often. Communication and work delegation (or personnel empowerment) both serve as essential components of increasing productivity.
Conclusion
This paper’s chief aim was gauging the effect leader member exchange has on workers’ job performance; analyzed literature reveals this effect as being positive. The discussion demonstrates the existence of a positive and considerably strong linkage between job performance and LMX. By means of LMX, the superior- subordinate gap decreases. This successively facilitates an improved grasp of bilateral challenges, matters and needs. Further, subsequently, this phenomenon leads to improved individual worker as well as overall organizational performance.








References
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & van den Heuvel, M. (2015). Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 754-770.
Kim, T. Y., Liu, Z., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). Leader–member exchange and job performance: The effects of taking charge and organizational tenure. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 216-231.
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.
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103-1126.