War is not won by the Army, but by the General. Troops are all same; it’s the officers who make the difference. Lee Iaococa turned Chrysler around. Bill Gates has shaped the destiny of ICT industry. Genghis Khan conquered almost whole globe with half the number of people running Municipality of Delhi. Be it the theatre of war or commerce, we often come across assertions such as these that attribute all successes and failures to leaders. Followers have no active role to play and are passive recipients of leadership efforts. Further, most leadership theories treat subordinates as homogeneous entity. These theories do not even recognize the possibility of subordinates exercising active participation in leader-member exchange process. Bhal and Ansari build on an alternative hypothesis that aims at correcting this “averaging tendency”.

“All other leadership models average because of two assumptions. First, all the members in a unit are treated as a homogenous lot, so far as their work experiences are concerned. Consequently, they are all clubbed together and are treated as one entity- the work group. Second, the leader is believed to behave essentially in the same consistent manner towards all the subordinates.” To illustrate, earliest theories hypothesized that leaders have some ‘traits’ that distinguish them from others who don’t have these. However, research found no empirical support for it. Then came the era of behavioural theories that focussed on ‘what leaders do’. Further research lead to inclusion of situational variables in leadership models (contingency theories). However, all these models have tended to focus on leader alone- what he has, what he does or what he ought to do. Possibility of differences across different subordinates or behaving differently with different people is not even entertained. “As opposed to such approaches, Vertical Dyadic Linkages (VDL) theory has been developed. Such an approach begins by investigating the leadership phenomena at the dyadic levels in the organizations and then tries to understand the phenomena in terms of other organizational events.” In essence, the approach states that relationship between leader and each of subordinates is unique and different. Members have different interactions with the leader because they define their roles differently. All organizations need to adapt to changing demands of their environment. This makes it obligatory for leaders to be able to respond to unforeseen situations. “Working on these tasks is not a part of the formal organizational contract of the members. All the same, leader has to get the task done for which he needs to use influence, which is not a part of organizational contract. Since all members are not obliged to work on these tasks, the leader develops an interaction only with a few members who collaborate with him.” Though each dyadic interaction is unique, process described above leads to two extreme interactions that are of particular interest- high quality of interaction/ exchange and poor quality, commonly known as In/Out group relationships. How some members become part of In-group and others remain in Out-group? The authors explain it in terms of theory of social exchange. “After evaluating the skills of a member, the leader offers a member an opportunity to work on unstructured tasks. The offer contains the leader’s expectation about member’s input and the rewards that the member gets in return. The member evaluates it in terms of his capabilities and attractiveness of the reward. Since the interaction is based on exchanges, a perception of equity is a must for exchanges to continue. Of course, each party must have resources valued by the others for the exchanges to take place”. The interactions between leader and members, in reality, vary on a continuum between these extremes.
In my opinion, the reason, for formation of In/Out groups, mentioned by the authors is too restrictive. It is not just for carrying out unstructured tasks that the leader and members collaborate with each other. Personal likings, choices based on archaic criteria such as caste and community, nepotism, situational variables, cultural factors etc may all play a role in determining these relationships. The authors themselves, while discussing the result of their study in the context of Indian social milieu and the Indian value system, note that family, friends, coworkers, caste men, persons speaking same language, etc may form the In-groups. But, clearly this is no more than a footnote style reference, because they completely fail to consider these factors while expounding their model. When they themselves recognize that criteria for selection of In-group may completely ignore organizational goals, it is hard to understand why they fail to account for these factors in the criteria for leader-member collaboration. Remember that authors mention carrying out unstructured tasks to be the sole reason for the collaboration. Further, in an organization (eg. Govt. Dept.), where people avoid work, anyone who performs even normal responsibility may find himself in the In-group of the leader. Similarly, if the leader himself does not value work, his In-group will consist only of people with similar attitudes to work.

VDL framework has some recognizable advantages. Job-related experiences like satisfaction, quality of exchanges, employee turnover, etc are better measured and understood in a dyadic framework. It evaluates the outcomes for subordinates individually. There is no tendency to average out or club everyone together in the same category. The framework corrects an imbalance in leadership research that focussed exclusively on leader. However, just as the concept of variation cannot reduce the importance of concept of averages, the framework cannot take away the importance of conventional leadership theories. Variation can and do point out the fallacy in exclusive reliance on measures of averaging. They cannot but just supplement the averages to impart better comprehension of the phenomena. Similarly, dyadic framework imparts richness to leadership research. Further research on the subject needs to develop on both these streams. It could be on the lines of Burns’ multi-level theory that encompasses both the dyad and group level of analyses.

Additionally, the theory has interesting normative implications like essentiality on the part of effective leaders to establish relationships with all members, not just a few special individuals. Similarly, it is imperative for them to avoid pitfalls like Pygmalion Effect, which is rewarding select subordinates who demonstrate loyalty, commitment, dedication, and trust and manage to get higher performance ratings as a result.

The authors have used sophisticated statistical analysis for their research. But, the sample size used is rather small. The research is based on two studies in five (4+1) manufacturing concerns. Though, it does not detract away from the intuitive appeal of the concept, some of the conclusions reached may change under larger studies. For measurement of quality of interaction, they have used three dimensions- perceived contributions to the exchange, loyalty and, affect. “Perceived contribution relates to amount, direction and quality of work turned out by each member. By loyalty, authors imply expression of public support for the goals. Affect is the mutual affection the members have based primarily on interpersonal attraction rather than work”. The research findings indicate that there is a mutuality of perception between the leader and the member. “ Thus` if the leader feels that member’s contribution is high, member also feels the same for the leader”. Converse is also equally true.
Authors’ research also aimed at ascertaining “whether dyadic interactions are a function of (a) leader’s and member’s general disposition towards work (b) preferred leadership orientation or (c) organizational climate. The chapter that lists the result of this analysis makes for an interesting reading. The analysis discusses, among others, the impact of various leadership styles and organizational climates on the performance and satisfaction of different types of subordinates. The authors also discuss the strategies used by leaders and members to influence each other; and the outcome of these interactions on the satisfaction and commitment of the subordinates. Their research throws up some interesting results and it definitely does make for an engaging reading.

Punit Arora is an expert on management and public policy in developing countries. He can be reached at pun8max@gmail.com.