Planning the Trip is an in-class, experiential activity where students act out commonly found roles on teams while trying to plan a vacation together. The goal of the exercise is for the students, via role-play, to explore leader–member relationships within teams using leader–member exchange (LMX) theory. By experiencing team roles and LMX principles firsthand, students enhance their understanding of effective teaming. LMX is frequently discussed as a leader-subordinate dyad. When working in a team context, the leader is often required to work with several team members at the same time. This activity uses the team setting to show how LMX relationships form throughout a complex problem-solving scenario, highlighting that LMX quality is shaped by process loss and process gains. This exercise can be used in undergraduate, graduate, professional education, or training courses, including courses on organizational behavior, leadership, and individual differences.
BallietD.WuJ.De DreuC. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556.
2.
BauerT. N.ErdoganB. (2015). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory: An introduction and overview. In BauerT. N.ErdoganB. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 3–9). Oxford University Press.
3.
BedardJ. C.BiggsS. F.MaroneyJ. J.JohnsonE. N. (1998). Sources of process gain and loss from group interaction in performance of analytical procedures. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 10, 207.
4.
BelbinR. M.BrownV. (2022). Team roles at work. Routledge.
5.
CorderyJ. L.MorrisonD.WrightB. M.WallT. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 240–258.
6.
DimotakisN.LambertL. S.FuS.BoulamatsiA.SmithT. A.RunnallsB.. . .MaurerT. (2023). Gains and losses: Week-to-week changes in leader–follower relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 248–275.
7.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.KafatiG. (2000). Group identity and intergroup relations The common in-group identity model. In Advances in group processes (Vol. 17, pp. 1–35). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
8.
DulebohnJ. H.BommerW. H.LidenR. C.BrouerR. L.FerrisG. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
9.
FrenchJ. R.RavenB. (1959). The bases of social power. Studies in Social Power, 150, 167.
10.
GraenG. B.ScanduraT. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.
11.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (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.
12.
GreerL. L. (2014). Power in teams: Effects of team power structures on team conflict and team outcomes. In AyokoO. B.AshkanasyN. M.JehnK. A. (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management research (pp. 93–108). Edward Elgar.
13.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E.IliesR.GerhardtM. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765.
KramerR. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas-the role of categorization processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191–228.
16.
KravitzD. A.MartinB. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 936–941.
17.
LatanéB.WilliamsK.HarkinsS. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822.
18.
ManzC. C.SimsH. P.Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams.Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–129.
19.
NahrgangJ. D.SeoJ. J. (2015). How and why high leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships develop: Examining the antecedents of LMX. In BauerT. N.ErdoganB. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 87–118).
20.
PearceC. L.CongerJ. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage.
21.
PearlsteinJ. (2021). Experiential exercise in team formation in the capstone: Providing students with the information to make good team choices. Journal of Management Education, 45(4), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920938071
22.
RomneyA. C.SoderbergA. T.OkhuysenG. A. (2022). Seeing through the FOG: A classroom exercise illustrating the challenges of sharing information as facts, opinions, and guesses in teams. Management Teaching Review, 7(4), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981211042831
23.
RossJ. (2022). Team unity: A leader’s guide to unlocking extraordinary potential. Routledge.
24.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C.AustinW. G.WorchelS. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56(65), 9780203505984-16.
25.
VancouverJ. B.SchmittN. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 333–352.
26.
WintersS. A.SpataroS. E.HughesS. (2022). Fishing for feedback: Discussing individual competencies and strengths in teams. Management Teaching Review, 7(4), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981211017476
