Reverse the Lens: The LMX Question Every Leader Should Have Asked Years Ago

Dr. Tracey C. Jones|T3 Solutions

Every working adult has lived this: there are people on a team who get the boss, and those who don’t. There’s an inner circle, and there’s everyone else. And we’ve all been on both sides.

That’s Leader-Member Exchange theory in one paragraph — and it’s my favorite leadership theory of all time. Researchers George Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien spent decades demonstrating what every working adult already knows in their bones: leaders don’t have one leadership style — they have one for the in-group and another for everyone else. And the people on your team can tell you, within about 10 seconds, which group they’re in.

I love LMX because it doesn’t pretend leadership is one-size-fits-all. It admits the truth: relationships are different, and different relationships produce different results. Higher trust, more autonomy, better assignments, sharper performance — the in-group gets all of it. The out-group gets the policy reminders and the smile that doesn’t quite reach the eyes.

So when I built Day 2 of the Follower Advantage series for a room of credit union managers this spring, I knew LMX had to be in there. But I wasn’t going to teach it the way it’s been taught for thirty years. I was going to reverse the lens.

First, About That Bad Rap

LMX gets criticized — sometimes loudly — for sounding cliquish. Inner circles. Favorites. The exclusive few who get the good stuff while everyone else gets the leftovers. In a culture that prizes inclusion, the language of in-group and out-group makes people uncomfortable. I understand why.

But here’s what the critics miss: every team on earth has in-groups and out-groups. The question isn’t whether they exist — they do, in your church, your family, your board, your workplace. The question is how people get in, and whether the door stays open.

Trust is earned. That’s true for every relationship that has ever mattered. A follower doesn’t walk in the door on day one as a Partner — they walk in as a Stranger. They become an Acquaintance by showing up, doing the work, demonstrating competence, and offering loyalty before they’ve been given a reason to. They become a Partner by proving, over time, that they can be trusted with more.

That’s the follower’s job. Get in the circle. Earn the trust. Bring the goods. Don’t sit in the corner waiting to be invited — step up and make yourself someone the leader wants in the room.

And here’s the leader’s job: bring them into the fold — if they’re ready, willing, and able. Notice the follower who’s doing the work. Open the door. Make the invitation. But understand this: you can hold the door open all day long, and if the follower isn’t ready, willing, and able to walk through it, they’re not coming in. That’s not on you. That’s on them.

The leader’s responsibility is the invitation. The follower’s responsibility is everything else — the readiness, the willingness, the ability, the showing up. Don’t drag people into the in-group who haven’t earned the seat. That’s how favoritism actually happens. Real LMX rewards earned trust; it doesn’t hand out membership.

LMX isn’t a defense of cliques. It’s a description of how trust actually works — with a charge to both sides to do their part. The follower earns. The leader includes those who’ve earned it. When both happen, the in-group grows. When neither happens, the team rots.

My father, Charlie “Tremendous” Jones, said it best:

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. But you can put salt in his oats and make it thirsty.”

That’s the leader’s real work. You can’t force a follower into the in-group — readiness, willingness, and ability are theirs alone. But you can salt the oats. You can cast vision. You can model the standard. You can make the in-group such a desirable place to be that anyone with the right stuff is moving toward it on their own steam. That’s not exclusion. That’s aspiration.

The Standard Test

The LMX-7 is the gold-standard instrument that has been measuring leader-follower relationships since 1995. Seven questions. Five-point scale. Two minutes to take. It asks the follower to assess things like:

Do you know where you stand with your leader?

Does your leader understand your job problems and needs?

Does your leader recognize your potential?

Would your leader use their authority to help you solve work problems?

Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has, would they “bail you out” at their own expense?

Do you have enough confidence in your leader that you would defend and justify their decision if they weren’t present to do so?

How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?

Score it up and you land somewhere between Stranger (transactional, low-trust, contractual) and Partner (high-trust, mutual influence, mature working relationship). With Acquaintance — the testing phase — in between.

It’s a beautiful instrument. For three decades it’s told us how followers see leaders. But here’s what nobody asked: what if we gave the same instrument to the leader?

The Reverse Lens

Here’s what I sent the credit union managers home with: take the LMX-7 yourself and focus on one specific person on your team. Same seven questions. Same five-point scale. You answer it from your seat — your perception of the relationship.

Then — and this is the move — give the same instrument to that follower. They take it about you. Same seven questions, original wording, no edits.

Now you have two scores. Same relationship. Two seats. Two truths.

The gap is where the work is.

If you scored the relationship at Partner and they scored it at Acquaintance, you have a problem you didn’t know you had. If you scored it at Acquaintance and they scored it at Partner, you have a follower who’s more invested in you than you are in them — and that’s a different problem. If you’re both at Stranger, at least you’re honest. If you’re both at Partner, congratulations — protect it.

In thirty years of LMX research, the instrument has almost always been administered from one side. Followers grading leaders. Leaders, meanwhile, walking around assuming the relationship is fine because nobody’s told them otherwise. The reverse lens makes silence impossible. You don’t get to grade yourself on intent anymore — you get graded on impact, and you have the score in your hand.

Three Things the Gap Tells You

When leaders actually do this exercise with their direct reports, three patterns surface almost every time.

First, you discover your in-group is smaller than you thought. Most of us assume that because we feel warm toward our team, our team feels warm back. But warmth isn’t transmitted by osmosis. It’s transmitted by time, attention, candor, and advocacy. If you can’t name the last time you went to bat for a particular person, that person is in your out-group — regardless of how much you like them. The follower’s score will tell you so.

Second, you discover that your out-group isn’t who you assumed it was. Sometimes it’s not the quiet one or the new hire — it’s the high performer you stopped checking in on because they “didn’t need it.” Veterans get orphaned all the time. They don’t complain. They just slowly disengage. And then one day, they hand you their notice, and you wonder what happened.

Third, you discover what kind of follower you’re creating. LMX isn’t just about how leaders treat followers. It’s about what followers become in response to how they’re treated. Treat someone like an out-group member long enough, and they will give you out-group performance. Treat them like a partner and watch what they become. The reverse lens shows you not just where the relationship is — but where it’s headed.

How to Use It

This is a tool, not a slide. Here’s the way I taught it to take back home:

Pick one person on your team. Start with someone whose relationship matters most — a high performer, a struggling direct report, an assistant manager you’re developing.

You take the LMX-7 about them. Quiet room, no distractions, honest answers.

Give them the same LMX-7. Tell them the truth: you’re trying to be a better leader for them, and you need their honest read. Make it safe for them to answer truthfully.

Compare the scores. Don’t debate them. Just sit with the gap.

Have the conversation. Not about the test — about the relationship the test revealed.

Then do it again with the next person. And the next.

Six months from now, you’ll have a map of every relationship on your team — not your guess at the map, but the actual one. And you’ll have done what almost no leader ever does: you’ll have asked, instead of assumed.

The Hard Question

Before you give the LMX-7 to your team, sit with this question for a minute. Pen down. Phone away.

If every person who reports to me took the LMX-7 about me today, how many would land in the Partner category?

Not Acquaintance; Not Stranger; Partner. The top tier.

If the number is uncomfortable, good. That means you took the test honestly. And honest is where the work starts.

The follower-leader relationship is the smallest unit of organizational culture. Get it right one person at a time, and you’ve built something that no engagement survey, no all-hands meeting, and no values poster can replicate. Get it wrong, and you’ll keep wondering why your “people are our most important asset” plaque isn’t actually producing the results it promised.

Reverse the lens. Hand them the test. And then go have the conversation you’ve been avoiding.

Knock ’em Alive!

Dr. Tracey C. Jones

President & CEO, T3 Solutions