The Efficacy of Leader-Member Exchange Theory for Leading Generation Z in the Manufacturing Industry
| Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the efficacy of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory as a means for leading Generation Z in the manufacturing industry. To accomplish this, a brief overview is provided of traditional manufacturing leadership, characteristics associated with Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory, and the unique attributes of Generation Z. Next, existing literature on the effectiveness of LMX for leadership of Generation Z and literature on the effectiveness of LMX for leadership in the manufacturing industry are reviewed. The comparison of existing literature suggests that LMX may be a viable leadership methodology for meeting the distinct needs of Generation Z in the manufacturing industry.
Keywords: Generation Z, leader-member exchange theory, manufacturing industry, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, employee engagement, work motivation
The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory as a means for leading Generation Z in the manufacturing industry. To accomplish this, the writing will begin by exploring traditional management models used in manufacturing. Next, the paper will expand on the challenges of managing multigenerational workforces to include the emergence of Generation Z. This is followed by a brief overview of the history and principles of LMX Theory. Next, the paper will explore existing literature on the positive aspects of LMX Theory when employed to Lead Generation Z. Finally, a connection is drawn to suggest that LMX Theory may be well suited for leading Generation Z in the manufacturing industry while also meeting the needs of the organization.
At present, the labor force in any United States manufacturing company may contain up to five distinct generations (Bencsik et al., 2016). The Greatest Generation, born 1925-1946, has dwindling numbers remaining in the workforce, Baby Boomers, born 1946-1960, are at or near retirement age, Generation X, born 1960-1980, has been working for several decades, all of Generation Y, born 1980-1995, is of employable age, and Generation Z, born 1995-2010, is beginning to enter the workforce (Bencsik et al., 2016). Each generation has its own worldview, attitude, norms, value system, and technical knowledge level. Today's business leaders are challenged with creating a culture where teamwork, understanding, and knowledge sharing occur across generational borders (Bako, 2018). This task is complicated by the arrival of Generation Z, which has its own unique set of needs, expectations, communication styles, personality traits, and work habits (Anderson et al., 2016; Singh & Dangmei, 2016). Viewed categorically, the characteristics attributed to Generation Z are unlike those of preceding generations (Anderson et al., 2016; Bako, 2018; Bencsik et al., 2016; Dwivedula et al., 2019). When compared to other age groups, Generation Z is better defined by the ways they differ from preceding generations rather than looking at the attributes they share (Bencsik et al., 2016; Kirchmayer&Fratricová,2020). Currently, Generation Z accounts for a small percentage of the workforce, but their influence will grow in the years to come as their representation in the workforce peaks at over two billion (McCrindle, 2014). Current and future business leaders must understand and embrace the diversity of Generation Z to achieve business goals and maintain a multigenerational environment with effective communication, shared motivation, and a healthy corporate culture (Bencsik et al., 2016).
Scholars have established that more research is required to understand the work preferences and expectations of Generation Z (Dick, 2019; Dwivedula et al., 2019; Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2020). Business leaders in all industries, to include manufacturing, must understand what factors promote job satisfaction, work motivation, and organizational commitment within the Gen Z population to limit intergenerational conflict, attract new talent, and retain employees (Nabahani & Riyanto, 2020). The unique preferences of Generation Z present a major challenge for leaders in the manufacturing industry. Research has shown that this age group is highly entrepreneurial, values trust-based relationships with open communication, and actively looks for jobs with perks such as flexible work hours (Singh & Dangmei, 2016). These preferences are largely incompatible with traditional manufacturing industry management methods that evolved from early theorists such as Frederick Winslow Taylor (Taylor, 2011).
Traditional Leadership Models in The Manufacturing Industry
In manufacturing management, there is a notion left over from the rise of scientific management theory that employee satisfaction and corporate profits are incompatible (Lawler III & Hackman, 1971). Many of these traditional management structures can trace their origins to Frederick Winslow Taylor and his theory of scientific management (Taylor, 2011). Management systems operating under Taylor's theory operate under four principles. The first principle is that each job role should be studied scientifically, thus establishing a standard of work (Hodgetts & Greenwood, 1995). The second principle proposes that management select workers for specific jobs scientifically and then training them to perform the role to the best of their ability (Taylor, 2011). The third concept involves changing the mindset of company managers and workers to think in terms of mutual interests and maximum earnings for all parties (Hodgetts & Greenwood, 1995). Finally, the fourth principle of Taylor's Scientific Management philosophy suggests that managers handle the tasks for which they are best suited while workers handle the rest (Taylor, 2011).
Though his theory has a proven history of success, Taylor's principles have not been without critique (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). From the beginning, labor advocates were quick to voice their contempt for the theories of scientific management. These attacks on Taylor's ideas went as far as a congressional investigation in 1910 (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Valid criticism of Taylor's principles has been offered to note that this system removes the humanity and dignity of the employee (Zuffo, 2011). In addition, focusing on scientific methods and ignoring ethics can quickly turn an attempt to create resources and generate wealth into a means to maintain power and control over employees. McClenahen (2002) made clear the adverse effects of this management model.
There is a residual distrust of business that has its origins in the management excesses of the Industrial Revolution, first in England in the late 18th century and then in the U.S. For example, stark images of greed, dishonesty, and disingenuousness persist. (p. 40).
There are many similarities between Taylorism and transactional leadership, but a notable shared principle is that both view frontline workers as an exchange of money for skilled labor. Frangieh and Rusu (2021) described transactional leadership as "Carrot and stick" leadership. This simple analogy drives home the basic workings of transactional leadership in the manufacturing industry. Looking through the lens of this metaphor, it is apparent why transactional leadership often went hand in hand with Taylorism, scientific management theory, and traditional models of manufacturing management. It seems reasonable to assert that as long as management maintains a carrot employees perceive as worth pursuing and keep a stick long enough to keep them from getting the whole reward, employees will continue to provide labor for management.
Complexities of the Multigenerational Workforce
A Generation can be defined as a group of people that are born within a determined range of years and, in turn, are similarly influenced and affected by a culmination of social events occurring during a particular time period (Kirchmayer&Fratricová,2020). While there does not exist a clear border in the transitions from generation to generation, the general characteristic features found in each timeline are adequate for the whole age group in general (Bencsik et al., 2016). Though there is general disagreement in academia as to the labels associated with generations, but this writing will accept the designations presented in Figure 1.
Note. Adapted from “Y and Z Generations at Workplaces” by A. Bencsik, G. Horváth-Csikós, T. Juhász, 2016, Journal of Competitiveness, 6(3), p. 92, https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.03.06
The mass retirement of the Baby Boomers from manufacturing has been described as an impending "Silver Tsunami" due to the devastating effect on the industry if employers cannot attract new talent from younger generations (Lynch et al., 2019). A 2012 study by McCann and Holt used the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) to evaluate how 7,233 manufacturing employees in the United States viewed the integrity of their leadership. An overarching theme that resulted is that ethical leadership is critical in the eyes of manufacturing employees. McCann and Holt acknowledged that leaders in manufacturing face increased pressure to shift their focus to social responsibility and profits. Panico (2003) clearly stated that business leaders in manufacturing have a responsibility to set an ethical example, and these ethics must be reinforced at every organizational level until it becomes a way of life.
The work of Bencsik et al. (2016) concurred with preceding literature that conflicts can occur as a result of multiple generations working together. They found that there were significant differences between each age group's way of thinking, attitude, behavior, value system, flexibility, and technical knowledge. This study showed that generational differences materialize in the work environment as conflicts in the areas of cooperation, knowledge-sharing, and knowledge transfer. Based on these findings, Bencsik et al. (2016) suggested that a plan of simply tolerating differing generational preferences in the workplace will be insufficient to generate success in modern corporations. Thus, a major consideration for business leaders is how to manage the diverse needs of multiple age groups while meeting corporate goals. Bencsik et al. (2016) called for continued research in the field of intergenerational management to better understand and offer valuable insight for business leaders on the unique and challenging task of fostering cooperation and handover of knowledge in organizations with multiple generations cohabitating.
A recent article by Bako (2018) looked specifically at the impact leadership style has on different generations. The author identified shared generational preferences and values and used these as indicators to see how particular leadership styles affected behavior. The study separated participants by their respective generational age ranges: Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z. This article noted the unique ability to analyze four generations of workers in the same work sphere and highlighted the leadership challenges that arise from the coexistence of multiple generations in the workplace. The author echoed the sentiments of other scholars that problems are likely to occur if leaders fail to acknowledge the differences and preferences of each generation. Bako (2018) concluded that these differences present a challenge to leaders who attempt a one-size-fits-all approach to managing multiple generations of workers. This study made a significant contribution by confirming the need to understand what leadership styles are effective in meeting the needs of generations established in the workforce as well as those entering the workforce.
The Emergence of Generation Z in the Workplace
As Generation Z continues to build its presence in the workplace, organizations must look beyond meeting the needs and expectations of the established generations (Bako, 2018). To be successful in the years to come, they must anticipate the workplace needs and expectations of the Generation Z and plan for the challenges of adding yet another generational dynamic age group to the mix (Knoll, 2014). To accomplish this, traditional means, such as Taylorism, of leading, motivating, and retaining employees will be ineffective (Mansor et al., 2017).
Work by Singh & Dangmei (2016) looked specifically at the defining attributes of Generation Z, the positive traits they bring to the workplace, and their potentially negative characteristics as perceived by others. This article noted that this group is characterized by a digital-centric life where technology is a core component of their identity and their human experience. As a result, they employ an informal and to-the-point communication style that fits well within social networks that they perceive as an essential part of their lives. In addition, this study pointed out that Generation Z possesses unique attributes that offer great promise to the workforce; they are the most diverse and technically competent population to date. In addition, they are mainly self-directed, entrepreneurial, tolerant, trustworthy, and optimistic about the future (Schawbel, 2014; Singh & Dangmei, 2016).
In addition to the promising traits that Generation Z offers employers, Singh & Dangmei (2016) found traits that will cause conflict if not managed correctly in the workplace. These characteristics include impatience, lack of ambition, short attention span, an overreliance on technology, a deficit in critical thinking, a lack of problem-solving skills, a tendency to consider their own needs first, and lower job commitment compared to preceding generations. Limiting the impact of Generation Z's shortcomings while maximizing their positive attributes will be critical for future organizational growth and success (Singh & Dangmei, 2016).
Singh & Dangmei (2016) also studied the needs of Generation Z to provide business leaders with more information to understand this age group. One of the most important findings was that Generation Z needs leadership that motivates, inspires, and pays attention to them. In addition, they list transparency, self-reliance, flexibility, and personal freedom as non-negotiables for Generation Z. The study found this age group places great importance on mentoring relationships, opportunities for learning and development, working in a friendly and flexible workplace, working for a company they see as innovative, and working for a socially and environmentally responsible company. Finally, Generation Z needs to be informed and have their opinions heard and acknowledged. The authors concluded that business leaders who fail to understand and adapt to this emerging generation will likely face many difficulties, from filling positions to creating a healthy work environment and culture.
The work of Bencsik et al. (2016) went beyond the analysis of the complexities of a multigenerational workforce by identifying the unique characteristics of Generation Z and how these factors affect the workplace and their peers belonging to other generations. As an entry point in understanding this group, the article noted that technology is so rooted in their being that it can be considered part of their DNA. Further discussion pointed out that Gen Z has not known a world without the internet; thus, they are accustomed to having instant access to a breadth of information. Bencsik et al. (2016) suggested that much of the personality, attributes, needs, and expectations of Gen Z result from growing up in uncertain and complex times combined with the majority role technology has played in their maturation and identity formation. In turn, this generation possesses new norms, language, and communication preferences that are different from the norms and preferences of the previous generations. The authors suggest these differences can contribute to workplace conflict, misunderstanding, and isolation.
In exploring Generation Z, Bencsik et al. (2016) distinguished quite a few notable characteristics that put this emerging workforce at odds with their coworkers. Compared to preceding generations, Gen Z is more impatient, is less focused, lacks critical thinking skills, does not consider the consequences of decisions, and struggles with commitment. In addition, the article found them to be unrealistically overconfident in their skills and abilities, unable to handle conflict constructively, in need of constant feedback or praise, and largely dependent upon the internet to find solutions for problems versus seeking solutions on their own. The article also found that Gen Z does not like or tolerate monotony. This fact is of great importance for the manufacturing industry, that relies on employees to fill a multitude of roles with repetitive tasks.
In contrast to the characteristics of Generation Z that open the door to conflict and misunderstanding in the work environment, Generation Z brings many unique attributes to the workplace that will benefit business leaders and their multigenerational coworkers alike (Bencsik et al., 2016). For example, the authors found that Generation Z has a contagious positive attitude, an openness to differing opinions, a willingness to learn new things, and can learn new things via unconventional methods. In addition, this study found Gen Z to be practical, intelligent, brave, unafraid of change, and willing to take charge.
There is one trait associated with Generation Z that scholars caution could be both useful and detrimental (Bencsik et al., 2016). This group wants to choose their own professional path and have opportunities to grow (Singh & Dangmei, 2016). While this independence and entrepreneurial spirit provide value to employers, Generation Z's inexperience in the workforce prevents them from understanding why exercising these traits is sometimes detrimental to the company's mission (Bencsik et al., 2016). In these instances, business leaders must bridge the gap between Gen Z's naïve expectations and the needs of the business (Bencsik et al., 2016; Nabahani & Riyanto, 2020). There is a good chance these young professionals will leave an organization if their expectations are not met or if they feel like they are being trapped (Bencsik et al., 2016).
In their examination of Generation Z, Bencsik et al., (2016) also looked at the defining needs of this generation. The authors pointed to this generation's maturation in the age of the internet as a contributor to their determination to find employment that maximizes technology and innovations for success, culture, and employee quality of life. These innovative solutions may include home-office hours, remote work, collaborative open workspaces, or flexible work hours. In addition, the emphasis on environmental and cultural issues leads them to seek work that contributes to a better world. Also, workplace stability, healthy work-life balance, and freedom rate high among Gen Z's employment priorities. Bencsik et al. (2016) found Gen Z to be wary of job instability or risk of unemployment, roles that stall progress towards their career goals or advancement, or positions that limit professional growth and further development of their skills. Regarding direct needs from leaders, the authors suggested Generation Z desires continual feedback and has an intrinsic need for performance praise.
Leader Member-Exchange Theory
The roles of and relationship between leadership and trust have been thoroughly explored through various disciplines such as business management, philosophy, psychology, and religion (Brower et al., 2020). Leadership is a timeless part of the human experience, and themes involving leadership often appear in mythology and literature spanning a wide range of time periods and cultures. The past few decades have seen increased interest in the role of trust within organizations, particularly within the relationships between managers and subordinates (Mayer et al., 1995).
Traditionally, leadership theories have focused on the impact of leader personality, behaviors, and traits have on followers (Brower et al., 2020; Burke et al., 2007). Traditional models aimed to prescribe specific characteristics or actionable steps to leaders in order to make them more effective in their task of managing employees (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). However, some scholars have deviated from these models and shown an increasing interest in leader-follower interpersonal relationships (Brower et al., 2020). Relationships are based on either the presence of or lack of trust. Relationships are damaged by breeches of trust, and, in turn, relationships can be strengthened by building trust (Robinson, 1996). As a result, greater emphasis has developed between general theories on the workings of interpersonal trust between leader and follower.
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory evolved from vertical dyad linkage theory (VDL) that asserted leaders tailor the way they manage subordinates based on the individual (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987). Over time, VDL made way for LMX, a theory that has shown considerable promise as a means for more effective leadership by focusing on the development and maintenance of mature leader-follower relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). LMX Theory acknowledges that relationships exist between the leader and group but focuses on the importance of the dyadic relationship that exists between the leader and each follower (Graen, 2002). LMX Theory also differs from previous models as it is dyadic, relational in nature, and dependent upon interpersonal trust (Brower et al., 2020). Graen and Uhl-Bien, (1995) pointed out that the traditional leadership theories only addressed one component of the leadership equation. They suggested that focusing solely on the leader results in the follower and the dyadic relationship between the two being ignored. LMX theory considers all three participants in the leader-follower relationship and operates on the principle that effective leadership occurs when leaders and followers develop mature relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Research by Mayer et al. (1995) focused on the role of trust in establishing and maintaining relationships. This article suggested that trust, simply put, is the acceptance of vulnerability. The work of Mayer et al. (1995) provided a foundation for Brower et al. (2020) to establish the role of trust in LMX theory, the similarities between LMX and trust, as well as their difference.
One of the important distinctions made by Brower et al. (2020) is that the relational nature of LMX makes this theory inherently dependent upon interpersonal trust. The authors claimed that both trust and LMX theory are founded on reciprocity, assuming each relationship member has something of value to exchange.
The article by Brower et al. (2000) continued the work of preceding LMX research by further exploring the interactions that occur as a relationship matures and studying the role of trust throughout the lifecycle. They noted that, at first, the LMX relationship is formed through interpersonal exchanges in which parties to the relationship evaluate the ability, benevolence, and integrity of each other. The authors also pointed to the importance of the role-making process that occurs in the early stages of relationship formation, where each member develops a sense of what their roles will be and what they can expect from the other member (Graen & Scandura, 1987). They suggested that this role-making process is one component of LMX that establishes to what level each member expects to trust the other.
As the members interact and build a history of exchange, a relationship is formed. Scholars believe the relationship between the two parties will reach an equilibrium where both parties perceive the relationship as fair and valuable (Emerson, 1962; Brower et al., 2000). They noted that the key difference between LMX and trust lies in reciprocity (Brower et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 1995). Reciprocity is a requirement of LMX though the exchange may not be equal. If one member fails to meet reciprocity expectations, the relationship will likely fail. In contrast, reciprocity is not a requirement for trust. For example, the trustor may have complete trust for the trustee while the trustee has no trust in the trustor. This can be seen in dysfunctional supervisor-employee relationships.
The distinction between LMX and trust was taken further by noting that trust is a fluid continuum; it may change, may not be held equally between members, and one member may not have trust for the other at all (Babič, 2014; Brower et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 1995). Although reciprocity and reliable behavior usually contribute to trust between the trustor and trustee, there are no guarantees. In leader-follower relationships, the leader evaluates follower task performance, skills, social behaviors, and integrity compared to expectations (Mayer et al., 1995). Over time, the leader contrasts these observations against the leader's own values and expectations for the employee. A level of trustworthiness is formed based on the extent to which the follower meets expectations and aligns with the leader's values (Babič, 2014; Mayer et al., 1995).
The work of Mayer et al. (1995) established that levels of trust for each member of a relationship are independent and do not have to be equal or reciprocated at all; however, the work of Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) found that the quality of LMX relationships is dependent upon the presence of respect and trust. Furthermore, Schriesheim et al. (1999) established that LMX has six predominant dimensions; mutual support, loyalty, trust, latitude, liking, and attention. Based on these precedents, Brower et al. (2020) found that demonstrations of trust in relationships can create feedback loops strengthening trust for both leader and follower, leading to higher levels of LMX (Bauer & Green, 1996; Brower et al., 2000).
An important conclusion drawn from these studies is that mutual trust, loyalty, and a willingness to go beyond one's job duties or expectations are commonly found in high LMX relationships (Bauer & Green, 1996; Brower et al., 2000). Conversely, unwillingness to go beyond job expectations or duties are indicators of a low LMX relationship (Brower et al., 2000). Often in these instances, a person will perform up to the limit of their duties or expectations but will not contribute anything extra to group or corporate efforts.
Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, Organizational Commitment as a Measure of LMX Effectiveness
Job satisfaction can be defined as a positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job and job experiences (Ilies & Judge, 2004). Research by Pardhi (2018) studied the factors affecting employee job satisfaction in the industrial sector. This research found that job satisfaction directly impacts organizational performance. The study pointed to intercompany relationships, leader behavior (including ethics such as trustworthiness), working conditions, and effective communication as essential factors contributing to job satisfaction in addition to pay and benefits. Pardhi noted that it is critical for industries to achieve the maximum output by ensuring employee job satisfaction. They concluded that a sense of achievement, advancement opportunities, autonomy, opportunities for growth, recognition for achievements, and the nature of the work required are all critical factors affecting employee motivation, satisfaction, and productivity. Metwally et al. (2019) stated that leader ethical behavior and overall trustworthiness substantially affect building trust within organizations, boosting employee job satisfaction, and better task performance. These factors align well with the components of transformational leadership, suggesting that transformational leadership contributes to employee job satisfaction and better organizational performance.
A recent article by Hapsari et al. (2019) made a significant contribution by examining the impact generational membership and LMX has on employee engagement (EE) and innovative work behaviors. The authors found that EE is highest when leaders understand, honor, and leverage generational diversity. In turn, high levels of EE present in multiple generations of employees promote elevated levels of LMX and innovation. Though only Baby Boomers, Generation Y, and Generation Z participated in this study, it provided results that highlight the importance of continued research on this topic and the importance of including Generation Z in future research.
Nabahani and Riyanto (2020) used Gen Z's unique perspectives, needs, and expectations to identify contributors to Generation Z's job satisfaction, work motivation, and organizational commitment. The authors noted that Gen Z has gained a reputation for being job hoppers and attributed this behavior to technology's role in their maturation. Growing up immersed in technology, Generation Z is accustomed to the ease with which incorrect or unappealing things can be changed or deleted in the digital world. The authors claimed that this digital behavior had carried over into behaviors in the workplace, contributing to low job commitment within this age group.
Nabahani and Riyanto (2020) further dissected the interrelations of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work motivation to understand how business leaders can better meet the needs of Gen Z. The article defines job satisfaction as the level at which an employee feels their work, the organization, and their treatment within the company meets their needs and expectations. Further, organizational commitment is described as the level of involvement an employee feels within the company and the extent to which the employee wishes to stay as a member of the organization. Organizational commitment can also be described as an emotional bond or relationship between the member and the organization (Santoso & Riyanto, 2020). This bond generates a feeling of responsibility to care for the company and strive to achieve organizational goals.
Nabahani and Riyanto (2020) found that elevated job satisfaction directly contributes to work motivation and vice versa. In addition, high levels of job satisfaction and work motivation foster a sense of belonging, loyalty, and organizational commitment. This is significant because it offers business leaders a starting point and direction for positively affecting Gen Z organizational commitment, ultimately having a positive effect on retaining employees from this generation.
In their discussion on workplace motivation, Nabahani and Riyanto (2020) stated that Generation Z employees have a strong preference for and are motivated by stimulating work that makes use of their skills. In contrast, they exhibit lower work motivation and tend to avoid low-skilled jobs that are monotonous and repetitive in nature (Berkup, 2014; Nabahani & Riyanto, 2020). Though studies do not focus specifically on the manufacturing industry, these findings and related discussions are critically important for leaders in the manufacturing industry. The work of Nabahani and Riyanto indicated that the magnitude of work motivation is a predictor for work effort exerted by an employee. In addition, work motivation directly contributes to organizational commitment, and lack of work motivation contributes to employee turnover (Nabahani & Riyanto, 2020; Suryani, 2018).
Discussion
In manufacturing, the magnitude of employee job satisfaction is dependent upon working conditions, the nature of the assigned work, relationships with coworkers, and effective supervision (Mathur & Salunke, 2013). Lack of purpose and job satisfaction occur in organizations with poor working conditions, where employees are assigned tiresome or monotonous tasks, and where ineffective supervisors are present. Manufacturing employees across multiple generations, to include Generation Z, prefer a job that is stimulating and makes use of their skills rather than monotonous and repetitive tasks (Nabahani & Riyanto, 2020).
Another layer of complexity added by Generation Z is their requirement that leaders are trustworthy and demonstrate integrity behave ethically (Anderson et al., 2017; Bako, 2018; Bencsik et al., 2016; Dick, 2019; Dwivedula et al., 2019, Singh & Dangmei, 2016). Research studies have also shown that leader integrity and trustworthiness are important for employees in the manufacturing industry (Frangieh & Rusu, 2021; Longo et al., 2020; McCann & Holt, 2012; Pardi, 2018). The relational aspect of LMX requires a level of trust to exist between leader and follower (Babič, 2014; Bedi et al., 2016; Brower et al., 2020; Burke et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Based on these conditions, it follows that LMX may be well suited to meet the needs for leader integrity and trustworthiness desired by both Generation Z and workers in the manufacturing industry.
Generation Z also seeks job opportunities where they feel empowered and have opportunities for growth and development (Anderson et al., 2017; Bencsik et al., 2016; Dwivedula et al., 2019; Fratričová & Kirchmayer, 2018). A desire for empowerment, opportunities for growth, and pathways for development are also desired by employees in the manufacturing industry (Clegg et al., 1987; Hodson, 1996; Longo et al., 2020; McCann & Sparks, 2019). There is evidence that LMX contributes to employee empowerment, growth, and development (Graen & Schiemann, 2013; Jackson & Johnson, 2012; Riggs & Porter, 2017). The attributes of LMX may make this theory best for meeting Generation Z's requirements, and manufacturing employees' wishes, for empowerment and opportunities for growth and development.
A sense of freedom to be in control of their own destiny is another requirement for Generation Z (Bako, 2018; Bencsik et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Dick, 2019; Dwivedula et al., 2019; Nabahani & Riyanto, 2020; Singh & Dangmei, 2016). Freedom to be in control of one's destiny and work practices has also been a wish for workers in the manufacturing industry (Clegg et al., 1987; McCann & Sparks, 2019). One characteristic of LMX theory is that it provides followers with a sense of empowerment, job autonomy, and freedom (Omilion-Hodges & Ptacek, 2021; Volmer et al., 2012). Based on these premises, LMX theory may be able to provide the freedom and sense of control over one's own destiny required by Generation Z and sought after by employees in the manufacturing industry.
Generation Z is wary of job instability or risk of unemployment, roles that stall personal progress towards their career goals or advancement, or positions that limit professional growth and further development (Bencsik et al., 2016). Generation Z needs leadership that motivates, inspires, and does not dismiss them (Singh & Dangmei, 2016). This generation also requires continual feedback and has an intrinsic need for performance praise. This opens an enormous opportunity for Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory as it provides the relational aspect that Generation Z requires. The supervisor's concern for the employee's welfare begins to build trust between leader and follower (Brower et al., 2020: Mayer, 1995).
In regard to establishing organizational commitment in Generation Z, research by Wardhani et al. (2020) indicated that components of psychological capital increase this age group's commitment. Psychological factors such as optimism, resilience, belief in one's own abilities, and hope all positively impact organizational commitment in Generation Z (Warhani et al., 2020). When workers have a positive feeling toward their job, their productivity is higher than their coworkers that feel negatively towards their job (Ali & Farooqi, 2014). Leaders must continually engage with employees over the span of their tenure to maintain job satisfaction and work motivation (Suryani, 2018). This, in turn, will maximize their contributions to company goals and contribute to organization commitment to retain them as employees.
Conclusion
This writing has reviewed existing literature on LMX theory, traditional manufacturing methods, challenges of multigenerational workforces, and positive psychological measures which include job satisfaction, employee engagement, work motivation, and organizational commitment. Based on this review, it may be possible that LMX is well suited to meet the needs of Generation Z in the manufacturing industry while accomplishing company goals.
References
Ali, S., & Farooqi, Y. A. (2014). Effect of work overload on job satisfaction, effect of job satisfaction on employee performance and employee engagement (a case of public sector university of Gujranwala division). International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 5(8), 23-30.
Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001
Babič, Š. (2014). Ethical leadership and leader member exchange (LMX) theory. CRIS - Bulletin of the Centre for Research and Interdisciplinary Study, 2014(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.2478/cris-2014-0004
Bako, M. (2018). Different leadership style choices, different generations. Prizren Social Science Journal, 2(2), 127-143.
Berkup, S. B. (2014). Working with generations X And Y in Generation Z Period: Management of different generations in business life. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(19). https://doi.org/DOI:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n19p218
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567. https://doi.org/10.5465/257068
Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1
Bencsik, A., Horváth-Csikós, G., & Juhász, T. (2016). Y and Z generations at workplaces. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(3)
Berkup, S. B. (2014). Working with Generations X And Y in Generation Z period: Management of different generations in business life. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(19). https://doi.org/DOI:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n19p218
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227-250 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00040-0
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006
Clegg, C., Wall, T., & Kemp, N. (1987). Women on the assembly line: A comparison of main and interactive explanations of job satisfaction, absence and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1987.tb00260.x
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
Dick, S. D. (2019). Generational similarities in work values of Generations X, Y and Z. Journal of Human Resource Management, XXII(2), 10–27. https://www.jhrm.eu/2019/12/10-generational-similarities-in-work-values-of-generations-xy-and-z/
Dwivedula, R., Singh, P., & Azaran, M. (2019). Gen Z: Where are we now, and future pathways. Journal of Human Resource Management, XXII(2), 28–40. https://www.jhrm.eu/2019/12/28-gen-z-where-are-we-now-and-future-pathways/
Emerson, R. M. (1964). Power-dependence relations: Two experiments. Sociometry, 27(3), 282-298. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785619
Frangieh, M., & Rusu, D. (2021). The effect of the carrot and stick transactional leadership style in motivating employees in SMEs. Review of International Comparative Management / Revista De Management Comparat International, 22(2), 242-252. https://login.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=151253303&site=eds-live
Graen, G. B. (2002). It's all about LMXs, stupid": Collect high-quality data, follow it, trust LMXs, and always seek serendipity. In A. G. Bedeian (Ed.), Management laureates: A collection of autobiographical essays. Volume 6(Vol. 6, pp. 55–81). Routledge.
Graen, G. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). Leadership-Making Applies Equally Well to Sponsors, Competence Networks, and Teammates. Journal of Management Systems, 3, 375–380. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/58/
Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a Psychology of Dyadic Organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://terriscandura.com/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Toward-a-Psychology-of-Dyadic-Organizing-Graen-Scandura87.pdf
Graen, G. B., & Schiemann, W. A. (2013). Leadership‐motivated excellence theory: An extension of LMX. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(5), 452–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2012-0351
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Hapsari, C., Stoffers, J., & Gunawan, A. (2019). The influence of generational diversity management and Leader–Member exchange on innovative work behaviors mediated by employee engagement. Null, 20(2), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2019.1610684
Hodgetts, R. M., & Greenwood, R. (1995). Frederick taylor: Alive and well and ready for the 21st century
Hodson, R. (1996). Dignity in the Workplace Under Participative Management: Alienation and Freedom Revisited. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 719–738. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096450
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2004). An experience-sampling measure of job satisfaction and its relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (Print), 13(3), 367-389. https://login.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edscal&AN=edscal.16081125&site=eds-live
Jackson, E. M., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). When opposites do (and do not) attract: Interplay of leader and follower self-identities and its consequences for leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.003
Kirchmayer, Z., & Fratričová, J. (2020). What motivates generation Z at work? insights into motivation drivers of business students in slovakia. Proceedings of the Innovation Management and Education Excellence through Vision, 6019-6030. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zuzana-Kirchmayer/publication/324797364_What_Motivates_Generation_Z_at_Work_Insights_into_Motivation_Drivers_of_Business_Students_in_Slovakia/links/5b8e9796a6fdcc1ddd0e3430/What-Motivates-Generation-Z-at-Work-Insights-into-Motivation-Drivers-of-Business-Students-in-Slovakia.pdf
Knoll. (2014, What comes after Y? Generation Z: Arriving to the office soon. https://www.knoll.com/document/1399972440568/What-Comes-After-Y.pdf
Lawler III, E. E., & HACKMAN, R. J. (1971). Corporate profits and employee satisfaction: Must they be in conflict? California Management Review, 14(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164365
Longo, F., Padovano, A., & Umbrello, S. (2020). Value-oriented and ethical technology engineering in industry 5.0: A human-centric perspective for the design of the factory of the future. Applied Sciences, 10(12), 4182. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124182
Lynch, P. C., Wilck, J., & Gaughan, E.Changing the manufacturing perception of millennial and generation Z engineering students. Paper presented at the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--32503
Mansor, Z. D., Mun, C. P., Farhana, B. N., & Tarmizi, W. (2017). Influence of transformation leadership style on employee engagement among generation Y. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 11(1), 161-165.
Mathur, G., & Salunke, M. (2013). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A study of manufacturing sector. APOTHEOSIS: Tirpude's National Journal of Business Research, 4(1), 129-143.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McCann, J., & Holt, R. (2013). Perceived leadership integrity in the manufacturing industry. (No. 115). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1444-x
McCann, J. & Sparks, B. (2019). The effects of leadership styles on innovative work behavior and the role of locus of control in the manufacturing environment. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v19i1.1092
McClenahen, J. S. (2002). Trying time true, leaders: As management practices come under question and icons fall, some CEOs stand out for the remarkable ways they're confronting critical business challenges. (executive). Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. and their subsidiaries.
McCrindle, M. (2014). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations (Kindle ed.). McCrindle Research Pty Ltd.
Metwally, D., Ruiz-Palomino, P., Metwally, M., & Gartzia, L. (2019). How ethical leadership shapes employees' readiness to change: The mediating role of an organizational culture of effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02493
Nabahani, P. R., & Riyanto, S. (2020). Job satisfaction and work motivation in enhancing generation z's organizational commitment. Journal of Social Science, 1(5), 234-240.
Omilion-Hodges, L. M., & Ptacek, J. K. (2021). Leader-member exchange and organizational communication: Facilitating a healthy work environment. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68756-4
Panico, R. (2003). Ten things business leaders should know: Leaders with firm beliefs and strong ethical and moral convictions can have a positive impact on any organization. (Manufacturing excellence). Allured Publishing Corp.
Pardhi, A. P. (2018). A study on employees job satisfaction and its impact on organisational performance. International Conference on Ongoing Research in Management & IT, 43-52. https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=10692001-3a58-4b11-bfd7-56892761be92%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=128552976&db=edb
Riggs, B. S., & Porter, C. O. L. H. (2017). Are there advantages to seeing leadership the same? A test of the mediating effects of LMX on the relationship between ILT congruence and employees' development. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.009
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393868
Santoso, N. B. A., & Riyanto, S. (2020). The effect of work motivation, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction on the contract employees performance of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia branch office of Jakarta Daan Mogot. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 5(1), 561-568. https://www.ijisrt.com/assets/upload/files/IJISRT20JAN533.pdf
Schawbel, D. (2014). Generation Z. Understanding the next generation of worker. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ct2prodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/portalfiles/9d9037e1-4726-430f-baa1-b14948fbf0f3.pdf
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)80009-5
Singh, A. P., & Dangmei, J. (2016). Understanding the Generation Z: The future workforce. South-Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3), 1-5.
Suryani, I. (2018). Factors affecting organizational commitment. Jurnal Manajemen Inovasi, 9(1)
Taylor, F. W. (2011). The principles of scientific management (Kindle ed.). Digireads.com Publishing.
Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.005
Wardhani, B. K., Qurniawati, R. S., & Putra, Y. S. (2020). Psychological capital dan organizational citizenship behavior. Jurnal Magisma, 8(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.35829/magisma.v8i1.127
Wren, D. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (2009). The evolution of management thought (6th ed.). Wiley.
Zuffo, G. R. (2011). Taylor is dead, hurray taylor! the "human factor" in scientific management: Between ethics, scientific psychology and common sense. Journal of Business & Management, 17(1), 23-41. https://login.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=79274945&site=eds-live
