Problematizing Leader–Member Exchange (LMX): The Case Of Ambivalent Relationships

<p><strong>Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) is widely regarded as a “relationship-based approach” to leadership. However, the understanding of relationships is skewed and incomplete within this theoretical framework. It overlooks the nonlinear development of relationships, which may not evolve into mature and stable dyads but instead devolve and end. It also discounts negative relational experiences and only accounts for positive bases of exchange and association. Finally, it neglects follower perspectives. While data are mainly collected from followers, the underlying assumptions and conceptualization represent leaders and their worldviews.</strong></p><p>This research challenges three core assumptions underpinning the LMX literature and proposes an alternative set of assumptions to expand the study of leader–follower relationships. The primary objective is to facilitate a balanced and comprehensive inquiry, as well as open new avenues for research. The aim is thus both corrective and generative.</p><p>This research offers a conceptual critique, supported by an empirical study. Conceptually, a problematizing review reveals how foundational LMX texts formalized leaders’ perspectives and scoped relationships within a narrow frame of reference. Consequently, relational instability, negativity, and follower perspectives were either missed or discounted. Empirically, a mixed methods study extends insights and substantiates problematization. It uses ambivalent relationships as a demonstrative case. Ambivalent relationships are marked by fluctuating dynamics and opposing sentiments toward a dyadic partner.</p><p>An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was led by the major qualitative component. Interview and focus group data collected from two countries yielded a three-stage process model of ambivalent leader–follower relationships. The stages were marked by changing attributions, uncertainty, negative emotional states, psychological strain, and eventual turnover. Subsequently, a three-wave quantitative survey was conducted. Structural equation modeling confirmed that ambivalence was positively related to followers’ turnover intention via burnout.</p><p>Several contributions are offered. Most importantly, this research provides alternative assumptions acknowledging relational instability, negativity, and necessity of follower perspectives. Additionally, it proposes new avenues of research, including the use of qualitative methods, particularly process strategies, and an alternative relationship classification system. This research also makes an ancillary contribution to the literature on ambivalent relationships.</p>