Attachment Styles In Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Running head: THE ROLE OF ATTACHMENT STYLES IN LMX
The Role of Attachment Styles in Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Will A. Gibson
Kansas State University Abstract
Leader-member Exchange Theory (LMX) deals with the quality of a work relationship between a leader and a member. A higher quality LMX places members in an in-group with their leader and therefore benefit from increased communication, attention, and consideration. When there is a lower LMX, members are in an out-group characterized by less communication and effort on behalf of the member. This proposal hypothesizes that the basis for formation of in-groups and out-groups is related to the attachment styles of both the leader and member. Leader-member Exchange (LMX) Theory was first formally conceptualized by George Graen (1978). The theory posits that the dynamic existing between a leader (or manager, supervisor, etc.) and their member (employee, subordinate, …show more content…
etc) is a product of three separate factors. First are the traits, behaviors, and attitudes of the leader. This is one of the more obvious of the three criteria. If a manager has very poor leadership skills and does not enjoy working with people, it may be very difficult for that manager to form successful working relationships with his or her employees. Similarly, traits, behaviors, and attitudes of the followers affect the working relationship between the leader and the follower. The third and final factor is the exchange, or the interaction between the two individuals' traits and personalities.
Leader-member exchange materializes into a dichotomy of workplace relationships. When there is a high degree of LMX between a leader and any member, that member is considered to be in the "in-group." Members in an in-group profit from increased communication and interaction with the leader. Often members in an in-group receive preferential treatment and individualized consideration. They may be privy to more information. Members of in-groups have been shown to have higher amounts of job satisfaction and productivity, as well as decreases in errors (Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Scandura & Graen, 1984). On the other hand, when there is a low degree of LMX between a leader and member, that member exists in the "out-group." This group is characterized by lower levels of communication and interaction with the leader. Members of this group may often have a "just get by" attitude and thus perform only the minimum expectations that their position may require (Schultz & Schultz, 1998; Dansereau et al., 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980; Muchinsky, 2000).
The critical component of a leader-member exchange appears to be mutual trust and respect. It stands to reason that if a leader trusts a member a great deal, that member would become included in an in-group relationship with the leader. Similarly, if a member trusts his or her leader, there is less chance of employee turnover or job dissatisfaction (Gomez & Rosen, 2001).
The quality of leader-member relationships in the workplace is quite important to the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Research has shown that when a high degree of leader-member exchange is present, work productivity and job satisfaction increase exponentially. According to Liden et al. (1997), " members who receive more information and support from the leader and who engage in tasks that require challenge and responsibility are expected to have more positive job attitudes and engage in more positive behaviors than members whose support is limited to what is required by the employment contract" (p.60). The important question is, then, why are some members in an in-group and others in an out-group? The purpose of this experiment is to determine which factors affect the quality of leader-member exchange. Specifically, I will be studying the role of attachment styles in determining quality of leader-member exchange. Attachment styles have been studied largely in the field of developmental psychology, but scarcely in the field of industrial/organizational psychology. The theory behind attachment styles states that each individual has a particular style of attachment which is a result of developmental childhood social experiences. A person's attachment style affects how that person interacts with others, how easily they form relationships, and how willing they are to trust other people. Traditionally, childhood attachment theory has focused on three different types of attachment: secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent (Carver & Scheier, 1996). However, as Bartholomew (1990) and Sumer and Knight (2001) point out, there are four distinct attachment styles evident in adults. The four styles I discuss in this proposal are the secure, avoidant, preoccupied, and dismissing attachment styles. These attachment styles result from different combinations of two different factors: image of self and image of others. Each factor can either be positive or negative, allowing for four possible combinations of self/other image.
A person with a secure attachment style exhibits a positive view of themselves and also of others. This individual is typified by high self-esteem and high esteem of other people. The following quote from an inventory by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) typifies a person with a secure attachment style. "It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me."
A person with a dismissing attachment style displays a positive view of themselves but a negative view of others.
This individual may seem egotistical, arrogant, and self-centered to others. This statement is an example of what a dismissive person might say: "I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me" (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Someone who has a preoccupied attachment style has a negative view of themselves but a positive view of others. This person exhibits lower self-esteem and may thrive on social interaction, attention, and affection from other people. They are characterized by this statement: "I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them" (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991).
Lastly, someone with a fearful attachment style has a negative view of both themselves and others. They will have both lower self-esteem yet an inherent distrust of other people. They are typified by the statement: "I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others" (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). I hypothesize that there will be a relationship between the quality of LMX and attachment styles. Specifically, I believe that when both a leader and member have secure attachment styles that a high quality of LMX will be observed. Additionally, I believe that when either a leader or member has an insecure attachment style, the quality of LMX will be substantially lower. To test my hypotheses I propose a quasi-experimental design to ascertain the relationship between LMX and attachment styles.
Method
Participants Due to the introductory nature of this experiment and the lack of previous research on this specific area, the initial sample will be a convenience sample composed of graduate student/advisor dyads. We operate with the assumption that graduate students will exhibit different levels LMX relationships with their advisors enough so as to discriminate between in-groups and out-groups. We will have a total of 35 dyads in our sample. This number was obtained from a correlational power table. Because we hope to account for 10% of the variance in this quasi-experiment, an r-value of roughly 0.33 is necessary. Therefore with a p
The Role of Attachment Styles in Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Will A. Gibson
Kansas State University Abstract
Leader-member Exchange Theory (LMX) deals with the quality of a work relationship between a leader and a member. A higher quality LMX places members in an in-group with their leader and therefore benefit from increased communication, attention, and consideration. When there is a lower LMX, members are in an out-group characterized by less communication and effort on behalf of the member. This proposal hypothesizes that the basis for formation of in-groups and out-groups is related to the attachment styles of both the leader and member. Leader-member Exchange (LMX) Theory was first formally conceptualized by George Graen (1978). The theory posits that the dynamic existing between a leader (or manager, supervisor, etc.) and their member (employee, subordinate, …show more content…
etc) is a product of three separate factors. First are the traits, behaviors, and attitudes of the leader. This is one of the more obvious of the three criteria. If a manager has very poor leadership skills and does not enjoy working with people, it may be very difficult for that manager to form successful working relationships with his or her employees. Similarly, traits, behaviors, and attitudes of the followers affect the working relationship between the leader and the follower. The third and final factor is the exchange, or the interaction between the two individuals' traits and personalities.
Leader-member exchange materializes into a dichotomy of workplace relationships. When there is a high degree of LMX between a leader and any member, that member is considered to be in the "in-group." Members in an in-group profit from increased communication and interaction with the leader. Often members in an in-group receive preferential treatment and individualized consideration. They may be privy to more information. Members of in-groups have been shown to have higher amounts of job satisfaction and productivity, as well as decreases in errors (Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Scandura & Graen, 1984). On the other hand, when there is a low degree of LMX between a leader and member, that member exists in the "out-group." This group is characterized by lower levels of communication and interaction with the leader. Members of this group may often have a "just get by" attitude and thus perform only the minimum expectations that their position may require (Schultz & Schultz, 1998; Dansereau et al., 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980; Muchinsky, 2000).
The critical component of a leader-member exchange appears to be mutual trust and respect. It stands to reason that if a leader trusts a member a great deal, that member would become included in an in-group relationship with the leader. Similarly, if a member trusts his or her leader, there is less chance of employee turnover or job dissatisfaction (Gomez & Rosen, 2001).
The quality of leader-member relationships in the workplace is quite important to the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Research has shown that when a high degree of leader-member exchange is present, work productivity and job satisfaction increase exponentially. According to Liden et al. (1997), " members who receive more information and support from the leader and who engage in tasks that require challenge and responsibility are expected to have more positive job attitudes and engage in more positive behaviors than members whose support is limited to what is required by the employment contract" (p.60). The important question is, then, why are some members in an in-group and others in an out-group? The purpose of this experiment is to determine which factors affect the quality of leader-member exchange. Specifically, I will be studying the role of attachment styles in determining quality of leader-member exchange. Attachment styles have been studied largely in the field of developmental psychology, but scarcely in the field of industrial/organizational psychology. The theory behind attachment styles states that each individual has a particular style of attachment which is a result of developmental childhood social experiences. A person's attachment style affects how that person interacts with others, how easily they form relationships, and how willing they are to trust other people. Traditionally, childhood attachment theory has focused on three different types of attachment: secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent (Carver & Scheier, 1996). However, as Bartholomew (1990) and Sumer and Knight (2001) point out, there are four distinct attachment styles evident in adults. The four styles I discuss in this proposal are the secure, avoidant, preoccupied, and dismissing attachment styles. These attachment styles result from different combinations of two different factors: image of self and image of others. Each factor can either be positive or negative, allowing for four possible combinations of self/other image.
A person with a secure attachment style exhibits a positive view of themselves and also of others. This individual is typified by high self-esteem and high esteem of other people. The following quote from an inventory by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) typifies a person with a secure attachment style. "It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me."
A person with a dismissing attachment style displays a positive view of themselves but a negative view of others.
This individual may seem egotistical, arrogant, and self-centered to others. This statement is an example of what a dismissive person might say: "I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me" (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Someone who has a preoccupied attachment style has a negative view of themselves but a positive view of others. This person exhibits lower self-esteem and may thrive on social interaction, attention, and affection from other people. They are characterized by this statement: "I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them" (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991).
Lastly, someone with a fearful attachment style has a negative view of both themselves and others. They will have both lower self-esteem yet an inherent distrust of other people. They are typified by the statement: "I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others" (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). I hypothesize that there will be a relationship between the quality of LMX and attachment styles. Specifically, I believe that when both a leader and member have secure attachment styles that a high quality of LMX will be observed. Additionally, I believe that when either a leader or member has an insecure attachment style, the quality of LMX will be substantially lower. To test my hypotheses I propose a quasi-experimental design to ascertain the relationship between LMX and attachment styles.
Method
Participants Due to the introductory nature of this experiment and the lack of previous research on this specific area, the initial sample will be a convenience sample composed of graduate student/advisor dyads. We operate with the assumption that graduate students will exhibit different levels LMX relationships with their advisors enough so as to discriminate between in-groups and out-groups. We will have a total of 35 dyads in our sample. This number was obtained from a correlational power table. Because we hope to account for 10% of the variance in this quasi-experiment, an r-value of roughly 0.33 is necessary. Therefore with a p