Dear George:
I wrote my position paper in an scientific way and did not label or attack anyone in an ad-hominem manner, like you do below. I believe your message to the list violates the posting guidelines of the academy:
http://aomlists.pace.edu/guidelines.asp
I am copying the moderator in this regard.
That said, if you carefully read my position paper, I was critical of many leadership constructs, including transformational and charismatic leadership--the former being one of my defining areas of research. It is important to ensure the exogeneity of the modeled independent variable in models--else, a causal claim cannot be made. In fact, I said too on page 10:
"LMX theory is not the only one at fault. Many leadership models, including the transformational-transactional leadership
model, are on weak theoretical scaffolding (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) and composed of endogenous variables
(Antonakis et al., 2016). For instance, leader intellectual stimulation of followers, a key part of transformational leadership, is conceptualized and measured to be an important predictor of follower performance. Yet, a leader may show more or less intellectual stimulation to a follower depending on follower skills or performance, because of other leader- or follower-level variables (e.g., personality), or because of organizational-level variables. If any of these variables correlate with follower outcomes and are omitted from the model, estimates for intellectual stimulation will be biased."
Understanding causal claims is an area of research that I know pretty well--if you wish to engage me on this point, then do so in a scientific way and we can talk about statistics, estimation consistency, or what have you, preferably using proofs--I don't mind to do that. To me, it is clear that LMX is the outcome of some process and must be modeled as such, just like any other endogenous variable or perceptual variable; else the estimator must account for omitted variables by including all known controls, by using instrumental-variable estimation, or some other procedure. These issues, regarding what drives LMX, were brought to the fore a long time ago:
House, R. J. & Aditya, R. N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3): 409-473.
However, in my assessment, the literature has not fully addressed them yet. Also, what I wrote about LMX was summarized from previous publications, which I would suggest you consult to better understand the issues at play so you can be fully informed on my position:
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2014. Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations: 93-117. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fairhurst, G. T. & Antonakis, J. 2012. A Research Agenda for Relational Leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & S. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing Relational Leadership Theory: A Conversation among Perspectives: 433-459. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Issues regarding causality, are elaborated here too:
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2010. On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 1086-1120.
As well as here more recently here (about the problem of modeling endogenous leadership variables):
Antonakis, J. & House, R. J. 2014. Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 746-771.
Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. 2016. Leadership process model: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206316682830.
I have referred to LMX too as an outcome of leadership or effective leader member relations in the past, even in a book chapter that you accepted:
Antonakis, J. 2009. "Emotional intelligence": What does it measure and does it matter for leadership? In G. B. Graen (Ed.), LMX leadership--Game-Changing Designs: Research-Based Tools Vol. Vol. VII: 163-192. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Having an effective working relationship with a leader or confidence in the leader, or affect in the leader are outcomes--it is hard to see how these things can be manipulated . You can, of course, do an experiment where you train managers to actively listen or what have you--but actively listening is not LMX; it is a driver of LMX as per how LMX is usually defined. If you think that LMX is exogenous and not endogenous, then argue your point; but I think that it is hard to make these arguments given what LMX measures.
Let publications speak--at the end, science if well done and if properly identified from a causal point of view will be self correcting. Thus, if you believe in the causal impact of LMX on outcomes you should discuss, demonstrate, and argue this point of view in scientific publications.
Best regards,
John Antonakis
P. S. My Harvard Business Review piece that you cite below was based on the following experiments:
Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. 2011. Can Charisma Be Taught? Tests of Two Interventions. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(3): 374-396.
__________________________________________ John Antonakis Professor of Organizational Behavior Director, Ph.D. Program in Management Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC) University of Lausanne Internef #618 CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny Switzerland Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438 Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305 http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis Editor in Chief: The Leadership Quarterly __________________________________________
196d03a.55fd3f92.45e92819@aol.com" type="cite">
In a 2017 self-reviewed manuscript in the Leadership Quarterly, the new Editor carefully demonstrated his lack of understanding of Leader-Member Exchange theory (Antonakis, 2017). He claims that LMX theory cannot change follower's performance. He showed poor scholarship in not reading studies clearly demonstrating change (Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen, Scandura & Graen, 1986). In these field experiments, leaders were trained in LMX leadership practice or transformation leadership and both groups communicated to their followers using these protocols. Only the LMX treatment showed large and significant gains in follower performance. In addition, this LMX model was supported by comparative meta analyses of structural equation (Gottfredson, & Aguinis, 2016). The complete holistic theory is presented in the Oxford Bibliography of New Team Leadership (Graen & Canedo, 2017).
Before claiming to be a high priest of leadership research John must demonstrate a full career of discoveries in the field. John's publications pale in comparison to the proven masters. In addition, the arrogant style of John's first issue is not supported by the trustworthiness of his work (Antonakis, Fenley & Liecht, 2013) where he claims to teach managers to be charismatic leaders in his management development seminars without convincing data. John may profit from talking the masters in the field and acting more like a scientist. I wish him the best as Editor.
Cheers,
George Graen
jag
References
Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 28 pp 5-21.
Antonakis, J., Fenle, M. & Liechti, S. (2013). Learning Charisma Harvard Business Review, June, Issue.
Gottfredson, R. K., & Aguinis, H. (2016). Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Wiley Online Library.
Graen, G. B. & Canedo J.C. (2016). New Oxford Research Bibliography on the "New Workplace Leadership Development for Knowledge Teams in Companies Ricky Griffin, Editor of Series. Oxford University Press Management Bibliography Series.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., 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. B., Scandura, T., & Graen, M. R. 1986. A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 484-491.