Leader Member Exchange Theory and sport: possible applications.

Case, Robert

During the past thirty years, a number of leadership studies have been completed in sport settings. These studies have, for the most part, utilized and tested existing leadership theories and models. Despite these efforts, the study of leadership behavior in sport remains one of the most frequently discussed and least understood research areas.

A review of the literature pertaining to the study of leadership in both sport and nonsport settings reveals that certain research trends have emerged over the years. For example, early leadership studies attempted to identify physical, behavioral and personality traits of recognized leaders. These early "Great Man" studies eventually led to present day "trait" theories of leadership. Partially as a result of the Ohio State and University of Michigan leadership studies completed in the 1950s (e.g., Liken, 1950; Halpin, 1957), a behavioral approach to the study of leadership was developed.

Within the context of the behavioral approach, researchers attempted to examine the behaviors that leaders display as well as the effects of these behaviors on group performance and satisfaction. In recent years, a situational approach to the study of leadership has emerged with leadership being described as a function of the complex interactions among leadership styles and situational variables (Chelladurai and Carron, 1983; Case, 1987; Case, 1990).

In addition, a series of leadership studies (Chelladurai and Arnott, 1985; Chelladurai, Haggerty and Baxter, 1989; Chelladurai and Quek, 1992) have examined the interactions of various decision making models as well as Vroom and Yetton's (1973) Normative Model of Decision Making in sport settings. Findings from these studies have contributed additional insight into the study of leadership in sport.

Recent leadership studies by Weese (1995), Bourner and Weese (1995), and Pruijn and Boucher (1995) have looked at transformational and transactional leadership in sport settings. According to Weese (1994):

Transactional and transformational leadership paradigms have rapidly moved to the forefront of the leadership literature since the 1980s...Sport management scholars have much to learn from the recent transformational leadership developments. . . (180-188)

Another approach to the study of leadership has been the Leader Member Exchange Theory (Graen and Cashman, 1975). This theory examines leadership from the perspective of role theory. Originally termed the Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory, it is now referred to as the Leader Member Exchange Theory. The basic premise of this theory is that role development results in differentiated role exchanges between the leader and subordinates within an organization.

It has been theorized within the context of Leader Member Exchange Theory that because of time restrictions and assorted pressures, leaders generally develop close relationships with only a few key subordinates who are termed the "in group". The leader's relationships with members of the "in group" can result in increased job latitude, influence in decision making, open communications, support for the member's actions, and confidence in and consideration for the member. The member can reciprocate by providing greater availability and commitment to the success of the entire unit or sub-organization. It has been posited by Dienesch and Linden (1986) that "in group" members might eventually serve as assistants or advisors to the leader.

Leader relationships with "out group" members, on the other hand, are characterized by low levels of mutual influence. The primary source of leader influence is legitimate authority in combination with coercive power and a limited degree of reward power. The only requirement for "out group" members to satisfy the terms of the exchange relationship is their compliance with formally prescribed role expectations (e.g., job duties, rules, standard procedures) and with legitimate directions from the leader. As long as such compliance is forthcoming, the subordinate receives the standard benefits (e.g., compensation) for his or her position in the organization.

It has also been suggested that through a series of role episodes and negotiations the leader defines what the subordinate's role expectations will be. This interpersonal exchange relationship is especially pronounced for new organizational members. Graen and Cashman (1975) note that these role expectations develop fairly quickly and remain stable after they have been formed. They point out further that a group member's compatibility, competence, and dependability are significant factors in determining whether an individual becomes a member of the "in" or "out" group.

The main difference between the Leader Member Exchange Model or LMX and other leadership theories is that LMX focuses primarily on the complex role development processes that occur between leader and subordinate dyads. Early Leader Member Exchange studies seem to offer convincing support that such exchanges do occur and that they have a significant impact on employee satisfaction (Graen, Novak and Sommerkamp, 1982), retention and turnover (Ferris, 1985; Graen, Liden and Hoel, 1982), and performance (Vecchio and Gobdel, 1984; Wayne and Ferris, 1990). LMX has also been found to be related to job attitudes, leader attention, leader support, participation in decision making, and amount of time and energy invested in the job (Crouch and Yetton, 1988; Graen and Schiemann, 1978; Kozlowski and Doherty, 1989; Scandura, Graen and Novak, 1986). In general, LMX research completed thus far has tended to support the major propositions of the theory.

Leader member exchange has been operationalized in a number of ways over the past fourteen years. For example, degree of trust, competence, loyalty, perceived equity of exchange, mutual influence, and/or amount of interpersonal attraction between the leader and subordinate have been used to define leader member exchange. An assortment of instruments has been developed to measure leader member exchange. One of the most frequently used instruments has been the Leader Member Exchange Scale developed by Graen and Cashman (1975). This five-question scale is summed for each participant, resulting in a possible range of scores from 5 to 20.

The Leader Member Exchange Theory appears to have possible implications for the sport setting. First, roles or the standardized patterns of behavior required of all persons playing a part in a given functional relationship are an inherent part of the sport setting. Athletes participating in team, dual, or individual sports or involved with sport organizations have experienced the various dynamics associated with role development particularly between coaches and athletes, athletes and other athletes, and/or athletic directors and coaches.

When examining sport teams closely, there is the formation of natural "in" and "out" groups. For instance, on a basketball team, starters possess many of the characteristics of the "in" group referred to by Graen and Cashman (1975). The fact that the coach selects a starting five indicates that certain decisions have been made concerning the starter's capabilities and role expectations related to the team. The very nature of the system allows the starters or "in" group members to have access to more tangible and intangible rewards than nonstarters (e.g., playing time, peer status, media attention...). Within the inner workings of a basketball team, players recognize the "starter" status and work hard to achieve this distinction. Coaches even designate the "starting" or "first unit" at practice sessions with the "first unit" frequently scrimmaging against the "second unit".

A considerable amount of time goes into the starter and nonstarter selection process. Tryout and practice sessions allow coaches time to examine the physical talents, psychological dimensions, and social interactions of players as they relate to the overall role expectations for these players on the team. The starter or nonstarter distinction is not an arbitrary process for the coach. Instead, it is a very systematic, well thought-out and deliberate process.

Despite the research potential that the sport setting offers for testing the Leader Member Exchange Theory, few studies have been completed that directly examine LMX. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the leader member exchange processes that occur between coaches and starters and nonstarters in a summer sport camp setting involving female athletes.

Method

In an effort to examine basic tenets of the Leader Member Exchange Theory, an initial study was conducted that involved 178 female basketball players (ages 13 to 17 years). The athletes were attending a summer basketball skill camp and each player had at least one year of organized basketball playing experience. The athletes were asked to complete the Leader Member Exchange (LMX) Scale during the last day of camp. The questions on the LMX Scale pertained to the athlete's coach at the camp and not her coach at home.

A summer basketball camp was selected because it offered an opportunity to study sport leadership behaviors in a setting with limited distractions. Sport camp athletes were separated into squads or teams during the second day of camp with a head coach assigned to each squad. All the camp coaches had experience coaching basketball either at the junior high, senior high and/or college levels.

Athletes practiced with the same squad and head coach throughout the camp. The head coach would instruct squad members in basketball fundamentals, team play, and game strategy. The campers received over 70 hours of basketball instructional opportunities during the course of the camp. The same amount of instructional opportunities offered during the regular season would equate to almost half a normal basketball season or approximately 7 weeks of practice sessions (2 hours of practice per day, 5 days per week).

Although this was an instructional camp, it should be noted that particular emphasis was placed on team play with lead-up drills and skills practice in order to contribute to team play throughout the camp. Competitive basketball games were played against other camp teams and these games were regulation in length and officiated. The total number of organized basketball games played during the sport camp matched or exceeded eight games.

It was hypothesized that athletes who indicated that they were starters would score their coaches significantly higher on the Leader Member Exchange Scale than nonstarters. Past research has shown that a high score on the LMX instrument is reflective of a supervisor who facilitates a subordinate's role development by providing information, influence, and support beyond that expected in the normal supervisor and subordinate relationship (Graen and Cashman, 1975; Linden and Graen, 1980).

The LMX Scale was originally developed by Dansereau, Graen and Haga (1975) and extended and validated by Graen and Cashman (1975). The refined measures of this construct have been shown to be internally consistent. For example, on a sample of 109 managerial dyads, Kuder-Richardson-20 estimates at three successive quarterly intervals were .76, .80, and .84, respectively; and, Heise test-retest, stability coefficients of .90, .89, and .80 between first and second quarter, second and third quarter, and first and third quarter, respectively, and .91 true reliability. In addition, multi-method, multisource analysis revealed that leader and member estimates showed reliable convergent validity both within two different assessment methods as well as between the two different methods (Graen and Cashman, 1975).

In the present study, a "starter" was defined as any player who started at least one game on the "starting five" at the camp. A total of 131 players were classified as "starters" during the camp and 47 were identified as "nonstarters".

Results

The results of this study confirmed the stated hypothesis. Using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), a significant difference was detected between starters and nonstarters with the starters scoring their coaches higher on the LMX scale than nonstarters, F(1, 176) = 66.65; p [less than] .001.

Discussion

The findings of this study suggest that the Leader Member Exchange Theory has potential for adding insight into the study of leadership behavior in sport settings. Traditional notions of an average leadership style that is consistent for each member of an organization is clearly not supported by the findings of this study. Instead, it is suggested that other factors and situations may exist which directly influence leader member exchanges. One dominant factor that appears to influence leader member exchanges is the phenomenon of role development that takes place between players and coaches.

Leader member exchanges, according to LMX theory, tend to result in an "in" or "out" group exchange distinction. The findings of this study tend to support the "in" and "out" group distinction by defining "in" group members as being "starters" and "out" group members as being "nonstarters". Starters scored significantly higher on each scale than did nonstarters.

Studies completed by Graen and Novak (1982) and Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) point out that leader member exchanges, such as those which exist with "in group" members, are clearly associated with higher performance levels on the part of subordinates. If a coach is aware of the special "in" and "out" exchange relationships which occur, it is possible that he or she may be able to adjust to the needs of potential "out" group members and this may result in enhanced performance by these individuals.

Coaches are also very interested in player retention and satisfaction. Studies completed in non-sport settings indicate that LMX theory may provide additional insight into these areas. If a coach can better understand the subtle exchange and role relationships that occur between himself or herself and an athlete who is a member of the "out" group, it may be possible for coaches to improve these relationships and thus maintain higher retention rates and not have as many athletes "quit" or leave the team. Similarly, a better understanding of the relationship between the coach and a "our" group member may lead to modifications that result in higher levels of player satisfaction and enjoyment with the sport experience.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this study is that it adds further support to the notion that leadership in sport is a very complex phenomenon. Studying leadership from the perspectives of trait, behavioral, path-goal, situational and/or transformational approaches may not be enough. The findings of this study suggest that a role development approach is also worthy of consideration and examination. A multidimensional theoretical approach to the study of sport leadership appears to be necessary in order to tie these various approaches together. Hopefully, this can be accomplished in the future through continued research efforts.

References

Blanchard, K. H. (1985). A situational approach to managing people. Escondido, California: Blanchard Training and Development, Inc.

Branch, D. (1990). Athletic director leader behavior as a predictor of intercollegiate athletic organizational effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 4, 161-173.

Case, R. (1984). Leadership in sport: The situational leadership theory. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 55, 15-16.

Case, R. (1987). Leadership behavior in sport: A field test of the situational leadership theory. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 18, 356-368.

Case, R. (1990). Situational leadership theory and leadership effectiveness in sport settings. in L. Vander Velden & J. H. Humphrey (Eds.), Psychology and sociology of sport: Current selected research 2, (pp. 77-90). New York: AMS Press, Inc.

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 27-41.

Chelladurai, P., & Arnott, M. (1985). Decision styles in coaching: Preferences of basketball players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 15-24.

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.

Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T. R., & Baxter, P.R. (1989). Decision style choices of university basketball coaches and players. Journal of Sport and Exercise. Psychology, 11, 201-215.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 2, 34-45.

Chelladurai, P., & Quek, C. B. (1995). Decision style choices of high school basketball coaches: The effects of situational and coach characteristics. Journal of Sport Behavior. 91-108.

Crouch, A., & Yetton, P. (1988). Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and social contact, manager friendliness and subordinate performance in management groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 65-82.

Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations - a longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 46-78.

Dienesch, R. M., & Linden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 618-634.

Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. in M.D. Dunnett (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers, (pp. 143-165). Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.

Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

Graen, G., Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206-212.

Halpin, A.W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research.

Halpin, A.W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stodgill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 399-451). Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research.

Kozlowski, S.W., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 546-553.

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 345-355.

Liden, R. C., Wayr, S. J. & Stillwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

McClane, W. E. (1991). The interaction of leader and member characteristics in the leader-member exchange (LMX) model of leadership. Small Group Research, 22, 283-300.

Millard, L. (1996). Differences in coaching behaviors of male and female high school soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 19-31.

Neil, G. I., & Kirby, S. L. (1985). Coaching styles and preferred leadership among rowers and paddlers. Journal of Sport Behavior, 8, 3-17.

Phillips, A. S. & Bedeian, A. G. (1984). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 990-1001.

Pruijn, G. H. J., & Boucher, R. L. (1995). The relationship of transactional and transformational leadership to the organizational effectiveness of Dutch National Sport Organizations. European Journal for Sport Management, 2, 72-87.

Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.

Schriesheim, C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual directed and group directed leader behavior description. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 345-355.

Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and filed study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.

Weese, W. J. (1994). A leadership discussion with Dr. Bernard Bass. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 179-189.

Weese, W. J. (1995). A synthesis of leadership theory and a prelude to the five "C" model. European Journal of Sport Management, 2, 59-71.

Weese, W. J., & Bourner, F. (1995). Effective leadership and organizational effectiveness in the Canadian Hockey League. European Journal for Sport Management, 2, 88-100.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of the theory and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251-289.