When the Fit Just Isn’t Working: A Manager’s Guide to Repairing Team Relationships

Most managers are told to “be fair” and “treat everyone the same.” Yet, if you asked your team privately, they probably would not describe their experience that way. Some people get your time, your trust and your best coaching. Others mostly get instructions, corrections and status checks.

That difference has a name in the leadership research world: Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). LMX is simply the quality of the relationship between a manager and each person on their team.

High‑quality LMX is a strategic asset. It is linked to better performance, stronger commitment, more honest conversations and healthier teams. Low‑quality LMX, especially when it feels unfair, quietly fuels disengagement, conflict and turnover.

The truth is that managers often don’t have identical relationships with everyone. It is inevitable. But here’s what most don’t realize: how managers handle those differences can either build a high-performing team or quietly tear it apart.

The goal of this guide is to help managers:

• Understand what LMX is and why it matters.
• Recognize how in‑groups and out‑groups form.
• Spot early warning signs that relationship patterns are hurting your team.
• Repair low‑quality relationships without pretending everyone has to be equally close.
• Manage the pattern of relationships so that trust, opportunity and respect are not reserved for a select few.

Leadership isn’t about having identical relationships with everyone. It’s about making sure that your unequal relationships don’t quietly undermine the team you are trying to lead.

Understanding Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

For over 40 years, leadership researchers have studied something you already know from experience: you have a different quality of relationship with each person who reports to you. That body of work is called Leader-Member Exchange theory, or LMX.

The basic idea is simple:

• Leader = the manager.
• Member = the individual team member.
• Exchange = the ongoing give‑and‑take between them.

LMX theory argues that leadership does not live in a generic “style” you apply to everyone; it lives in the everyday interactions, promises and responses between you and each person. Some relationships evolve into genuine partnerships built on trust and mutual support. Others remain arm’s length and transactional: “You do your job; I’ll sign your timesheet.”

Managers are human. You naturally click with some people more than others. Some employees earn trust more quickly. Some share your communication style; others don’t. LMX research does not assume you should feel the same way about everyone. Instead, it asks:

• How big are the gaps between your best and worst relationships?
• How visible and explainable are those gaps to the team?
• What do you do when a relationship is clearly not working?

The answers to those questions are what make or break a team.

High‑Quality vs. Low‑Quality LMX

Think of relationship quality as a spectrum, not a label.

High‑quality LMX looks like:

• Mutual trust and respect.
• Open, two‑way communication.
• Support that goes beyond the bare minimum.
• A sense of “we’re solving problems together,” not “you work for me and that’s it.”

The manager shares context, asks for input, and gives the benefit of the doubt. The employee feels like a valued partner whose perspective matters.

Low‑quality LMX looks very different:

• Low trust and guarded communication.
• Mostly one‑way instructions (“Here’s what you need to do”).
• Little coaching or development, just monitoring and correction.
• A sense of “we’re keeping this strictly professional because we have to.”

Interactions are careful, scripted and often brief. Feedback can feel one‑sided and harsh. Over time, people in low‑quality relationships stop volunteering ideas because it doesn’t feel safe or worthwhile.

Research suggests that relationships often move through stages, from “stranger” to “acquaintance” to “mature partnership,” based on the small, repeated choices both people make over time. That is good news: relationship quality is not frozen. But it won’t improve by accident.

How In‑Groups and Out‑Groups Form

Even well‑intentioned managers tend to form an unofficial “inner circle” and an “outer circle” over time. You have probably seen this on teams you’ve worked on: the people who seem to know what’s really going on versus the people who hear about decisions after the fact.

In‑group members typically:

• Are trusted with sensitive information and early input.
• Receive more challenging and visible assignments.
• Get more grace when they make mistakes.
• Find it easier to get time with you and influence your decisions.

Their voices tend to carry more weight in meetings. Colleagues notice this, even if you never say, “These are my favorites.”

Out‑group members typically:

• Do more routine, low‑visibility work.
• Have less say in how work is done.
• Experience more critical monitoring and less coaching.
• Hear about decisions and changes after they are already finalized.

They may feel like outsiders in their own team. Feedback can feel unpredictable: sometimes intense scrutiny, sometimes silence.

These patterns usually begin with small things: a strong first project, a shared sense of humor, an early mistake, an awkward conversation, a personality clash. Over time, your allocation of attention, information and opportunities reinforces your initial impression. It becomes a self‑fulfilling story about who is “reliable,” “difficult,” “high potential” or “not ready.”

From a team perspective, what matters is not that differences exist (they always will) but how large and unexplained those differences feel. When the gap between in‑group and out‑group is big and the rules are unclear, people begin to see favoritism, which has been linked to more conflict and counterproductive behavior.

Why Teams Are So Sensitive to These Differences

As humans we naturally compare. We notice who gets help, who gets grace, who gets a second chance, who gets invited into conversations, and who doesn’t.

LMX studies show that employees don’t just evaluate their own relationship with their manager; they evaluate it relative to everyone else’s. You might think, “I’m fair; I treat everyone with respect.” But if one person gets context, coaching and interesting projects while others mainly get tasks and deadlines, that gap becomes the team’s story.

Research reviews find that when these relationship differences feel clear and fair, for example, when stronger ties are tied to visible performance, reliability or role requirements, people can accept them. But when the differences feel mysterious, personal or political, three things usually happen:

• Trust in the manager drops.
• Motivation erodes (“Why bother if it won’t change anything?”).
• People disengage emotionally, even if they keep hitting the bare minimum.

It is not the presence of stronger and weaker relationships that does the damage. It is the lack of clarity and consistency around them.

The Upside of High‑Quality LMX (And Its Dark Side)

When managers invest in building better relationships across the board, the upside is substantial. Decades of research converge on a similar pattern:

• People in higher‑quality LMX relationships report higher job satisfaction, stronger commitment and higher performance ratings.
• They are more likely to speak up with ideas, raise problems early and help colleagues, behaviors that quietly prevent crises and improve results.
• Teams with generally higher LMX (and less extreme gaps between members) report stronger cohesion, a healthier climate and more constructive problem‑solving.

However, there is a less discussed “dark side.” Extremely high LMX with a small inner circle can create its own problems:

• Those employees may feel overloaded or under pressure to always agree.
• Their peers may resent them or see them as “teacher’s pets.”
• High‑LMX employees can feel caught between loyalty to the manager and loyalty to the team.

The lesson is not “Don’t have strong relationships.” It is don’t let a few strong relationships distort your judgment or damage the social fabric of the team.

What Managers Can Actually Do

Step 1: Audit Your LMX Patterns

You can’t repair what you haven’t actually seen. Before trying to “fix” anything, take an honest look at your current relationship map.

Warning signs in your own behavior:

• You rely on the same two or three people for every important decision or stretch assignment.
• You routinely share background, strategy, or context with some employees but give others only the final instructions.
• You are patient and forgiving with some people’s mistakes but quick to criticize or assume the worst with others.
• You realize there are people you simply expect less from, and you rarely revisit that judgment.

Warning signs in team behavior:

• Some employees shut down around you, avoid eye contact, or keep interaction to the minimum.
• People in the apparent out‑group show less initiative, fewer suggestions, and more passive compliance.
• You hear talk about “favorites,” “inner circles,” or “who really has your ear,” especially after promotions or high‑profile assignments.
• Cliques, jealousy or subtle forms of sabotage appear, such as withholding information or dragging feet on cross‑group projects.

If any of this feels uncomfortably familiar, you are not alone, and you are not doomed. It simply means you have data. Use it.

Practical self‑audit questions:

• Map your relationships: For each direct report, quickly rate the relationship on trust, communication quality and mutual support (low/medium/high).
• Track access and opportunities: Who gets mentoring, visibility, flexibility and early information? Who almost never gets these?
• Review recent decisions: Over the last 6-12 months, who got the best projects or chances to shine? What reasons would you give if you had to explain those choices out loud?
• Challenge your story: Where are your opinions based on very old information, early impressions, or one bad incident that has never been fully revisited?

Managers often underestimate how visible these patterns are. Your team sees them even when you do not.

Step 2: Build High‑Quality LMX Through Everyday Behaviors

Relationships change through patterns. Small, repeated behaviors are what move someone along the spectrum: from guarded, low‑trust exchanges toward a more solid partnership.

Communication habits

• Hold regular one‑on‑ones with every direct report, not only top performers. Make them about listening and problem‑solving, not just status.
• Practice active listening: ask open questions, paraphrase what you heard, and check whether you understood correctly before jumping to solutions.
• Share the “why” behind decisions so people understand context, even if they would have chosen differently.

Fairness and support

• Offer development opportunities as broadly and transparently as you can. If only the same names keep appearing, pause and ask why.
• Apply performance standards consistently. When you make an exception, explain what makes the situation different.
• Give timely, specific feedback, both positive and corrective, to everyone. Silence is not neutral; it is often interpreted as “you don’t matter.”

Trust‑building actions

• Keep your promises, especially on small things that are easy to drop. Reliability is the backbone of trust.
• Admit mistakes and share what you will do differently next time. That vulnerability lowers defenses and increases psychological safety, which in turn enhances employee engagement.
• Ask for input before locking in decisions, and then visibly act on good ideas from a range of people, not just your inner circle.

When people understand how and why decisions are made, they may still disagree, but they are far more likely to perceive the decision as fair, which has implications on perceptions of organizational justice.

Step 3: Repair Low‑Quality Relationships

Some relationships will still feel “off,” even in healthy teams. Those are your LMX repair opportunities.

Reset the relationship

• Acknowledge the problem (at least to yourself). Name it: “This relationship isn’t working as well as it could, and my behavior is part of that.”
• Restart the conversation. Schedule a one‑on‑one focused not on tasks but on their experience, goals, and what’s been getting in the way. Listen for specific incidents that may have damaged trust.
• Reset expectations. Be clear about what good performance looks like, the support you will provide, and how you propose to handle feedback and conflict going forward.

Provide real chances to rebuild trust

• Give meaningful but manageable assignments where success is visible and criteria are clear.
• Offer coaching or resources rather than tighter control. Check in to remove obstacles, not to hover.
• Notice and name progress. Acknowledge improvements privately, and when appropriate, publicly, so the story of who they are on the team can begin to shift.

Step 4: Use Micro‑Alliances to Create Small Wins

One practical tool for LMX repair is the micro‑alliance: a small, time‑bound collaboration designed to create a shared win.

Examples:

• Asking a strained team member to co‑lead a contained project with you.
• Giving them ownership of a specific piece of work that is visible but scoped.
• Asking them to represent the team in a cross‑functional meeting and backing them up.

Micro‑alliances work because they give both parties a focused chance to behave differently and succeed together. Research on LMX development suggests that these shared successes help reset expectations and redefine roles over time.

Step 5: Manage LMX at the Team Level

Even if you improve individual relationships, the pattern is what the team feels. LMX is both a one‑to‑one and a team‑level phenomenon.

When a few people clearly enjoy very high LMX and others are left far behind, teams are more likely to:

• See favoritism.
• Withdraw cooperation.
• Engage in small but costly counterproductive behaviors.

Practical steps to balance the system:

• Be explicit about decision criteria for key assignments, promotions and recognition. Make the “rules of the game” visible.
• Rotate certain opportunities, such as presenting to senior leaders, facilitating meetings or piloting new tools, so more people can grow and be seen.
• Recognize collaborative achievements, not just individual star performances.
• Make it clear that respectful disagreement is allowed, including from those with whom you have strong relationships. Protect high‑LMX employees from being seen as “favorites” who must always defend you.

Team‑level LMX research shows that unmanaged gaps in relationship quality disrupt coordination and damage climate, especially in interdependent teams.

Conclusion

Leader-Member Exchange research gives language to something teams already feel: relationships are never equal, but they are always consequential. Every decision about who a manager listens to, who they challenge, who they protect, and who they have an interpersonal relationship with sends signals about value and belonging. Those signals shape whether people lean in, hold back, or slowly disengage.

The work of leadership, then, is not to erase differences in relationships or force artificial closeness. It is to make those differences understandable and prevent them from calcifying into rigid in-groups and out-groups.

When managers do this well, teams spend less time managing perceptions and more time doing meaningful work. Trust is easier to maintain, collaboration feels safer, and effort feels worthwhile rather than performative. In that sense, good leadership is not about perfect relationships, but about creating conditions where the team can function, adapt and perform without quietly breaking apart.