International Journal of Business Management & Research (IJBMR) ISSN 2249-6920 Vol. 3, Issue 3, Aug 2013, 33-44 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd. LEADING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA: EXPLORING LEADER- MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) AND FOLLOWERSHIP PARTICIPATION LAGUO LIVINGSTONE GILBERT, BRYCHAN THOMAS & LYN DAUNTON Business School, University of South Wales, United Kingdom ABSTRACT This study proposes a Leader-member exchange(LMX)/followership participation framework for enhancing performance in Nigerian organisations. Nigerian organisations have been characterized by a lack of an organisational framework for performance improvement,lack of commitment on the part of organisational leaders and followers, lack of adherence to anorganisational framework, weak enforcement and monitoring systems, and lack of a cordial relationshipare major causes of such inadequacies.This study explores the aspect of LMX and followers participation as a measure for a performance increase. Some 184 questionnaires were received from respondents across organisations in Nigeria. Factor analysis and correlation were adopted to determine strong attributes for LMX and followership participation, and hence led to a frameworkcapable of increasing the relationship between leaders and followers when engaged on business in organisational performance. KEYWORDS: Leader-Member Exchange, Followership Participation, Organisational Performance INTRODUCTION Leader-Member Exchange Theory According to Green (2008) Leader-member exchange (LMX) originated from the works of Dansereau et al. (1975) and Graen and Cashman (1975) who developed the theory more than two decades ago, focusing on the twofold relationship between leaders and subordinates. Such relationships considered the individual relationship between leader and follower instead of viewing the leadership process as one that is common in nature, applying one leadership style across the board to all followers. Dienesch and Liden (1986) defined LMX as the quality of the exchange relationship between the organisational supervisor and individual subordinates, where leaders perceive the different quality of work relationships with different subordinates (Scandura and Graen, 1984). Bhal and Ansari (2007) viewed that while the role of LMX in employee outcomes is well established, the mechanism through which LMX predicts work outcomes is little researched, and hence state the need for more contributions in the literature and stress that previous studies on LMX have not recorded an in-depth review in the literature especially relating the LMX framework with the framework of followership. Maksom and Winter (2009) viewed that LMX theorystrengthens leaders who develop exchange relationships with their followers based on the quality of relationships formed with each follower.But the question is what requirement may be needed to strengthensuch a relationship when it is geared towards increasing performance?(Maksom and Winter, 2009). Also, Green et al. (1996) add that leader/followers‟ exchange should be considered necessary since only a few high quality LMX relationships can exist in work groups due to time, resources and other constraints. Bhal and Ansari (2007) explain that in an exchange framework, the leader assesses the competencies and motivation of each follower and offers different material and non-material inducements depending on the ability and motivation to collaborate on unstructured tasks and consequently to define or redefine roles. Scholars categorize these in