Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study investigates the implications of the high-quality Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model on the dynamics of leader-follower relationships. It critically examines the model's limitations in addressing behavior, fairness, and mutual responsibilities within changing organizational contexts. A thorough literature review was conducted to analyze the relationship between LMX theory and its effects on key organizational outcomes, such as employee commitment, retention, and organizational culture. The result of this study states that the enhanced high-quality Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model emphasizes the critical role of reciprocal obligations between leaders and employees in fostering affective, continuance, and normative commitment—key factors for improving employee retention. It also underscores the importance of cultivating an organizational culture that aligns with employee values, enhancing job satisfaction and reducing turnover. Strengthened high-quality LMX relationships ultimately contribute to sustainable organizational success. Practical Implications of this study state that organizations and scholars can apply the proposed model to improve leadership practices by fostering equitable, supportive, and robust LMX interactions. Addressing potential inequities and promoting inclusivity within the workplace can further enhance employee retention and satisfaction. This study advances the existing body of knowledge by introducing a conceptual model derived from literature. It demonstrates how mutual respect, friendships, and reciprocal responsibilities are precursors to employee commitment. The findings provide actionable insights for practitioners and policymakers to foster positive leader-member relationships and implement more effective and inclusive organizational structures.

Keywords

Commitment Employee Retention Fairness Leader-Member Exchange Organisation Culture Reciprocal Obligation

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Willie, M. M. (2025). Enhancing Culture and Retention through an Expanded Leader-Member Exchange Theory: A Focus on Commitment and Fairness. Golden Ratio of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.52970/grhrm.v5i2.705
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organisational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
  2. Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organisations. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
  3. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of the relationship between leader-member exchange and job performance. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1716–1750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312453827
  4. Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2015). Leader-member exchange theory: A glimpse into the future. In T. N. Bauer & B. Erdogan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange (pp. 413–422). Oxford University Press.
  5. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of LMX leadership theory over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90037-7
  6. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
  7. Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). In context, leader-member exchange (LMX): How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.001
  8. Chen, Z. (2018). A literature review of team-member exchange and prospects. Journal of Service Science and Management, 11, 433–454. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2018.114030
  9. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Daval Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organisational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392
  10. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). Examining the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407
  11. Nur Insan, A., & Masmarulan, R. (2020). Effects of leader-member exchange and organisational culture on work engagement and employee performance. Management Science Letters, 10(12), 2825-2832. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.10.011
  12. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualisation of organisational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
  13. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences: affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organisation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
  14. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organisational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  15. Hirvi, S., Laulainen, S., Junttila, K., & Lammintakanen, J. (2022). The dynamic nature of leader–member exchange relationships in healthcare organisations. Leadership in Health Services, 36(3), 374-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-06-2022-0073