Leader‐member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and HRD

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between leader‐member exchange (LMX) and human resource development (HRD) to gain a better understanding of the LMX‐performance relationship through connecting LMX and HRD theory.Design/methodology/approachDubin's framework is used for the purpose of linking LMX with HRD. Except that the last three steps (empirical indicators of key terms, hypotheses, testing) involved conducting empirical research, the authors employ steps 1 through 5 to build an HRD‐based LMX model, i.e. the first step specifies that the units of the theory be identified; the second step involves establishing the laws of interaction applicable to the units of the theory. The third and fourth steps define boundaries for an HRD‐based LMX model and suggest propositions for future empirical research. In addition, to lessen the likelihood of some redundancy the system states are included with the laws of interaction.FindingsLMX and HRD (as represented by identified outcomes) theories are linked by at least three key factors: trust, empowerment, and performance. A theoretical model linking LMX and HRD also describes the contributions of trust, empowerment, and performance to LMX theory of leadership with the help of two specific HRD interventions – trust building and empowerment facilitation.Research limitations/implicationsThe confirmation of the theoretical model through empirical research is still required.Practical implicationsIn the aspect of relational performance, this paper proposes a basis for designing and implementing strategic HRD activities and recommends the conceptual model as an intervention technique for organizational change.Originality/valueThis paper illuminates the base of LMX leadership theory and seeks to develop new practical insights of the theory. In so doing, it aims to contribute to reducing the tension between leadership theorists and leadership development practitioners, described as validity versus usefulness.