Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) can be likened to cliques in high school, where there is the “in” crowd and the “out” crowd. According to Northouse (2013), LMX involves employees becoming part of an “in” group, or an “out” group depending upon their relationship with the leader, their personality, and their willingness to take on an expanded role to benefit the group (pp. 167-168). After college, I took a customer service position with an insurance company in Dallas and moved from Pennsylvania to Texas. This experience reminded me of leader-member exchange theory, and how the leader-follower relationship can evolve, especially when there is a management change.
The two groups that LMX theory recognizes are based upon the relationship and interaction between the leaders and the subordinates. The in group is characterized by a high quality of LMX, whereas the out group is characterized by low LMX and mediocre results The benefits of the in group include subordinates initiating an expanded role beyond the basic job, reciprocal attention from the leader, and a higher of promotions linked to better performance reviews. The out group experiences formal communication, but little, if any reciprocity or initiative and is primarily self-serving (Gupta, 2009).
When I interviewed for my new job, the supervisor explained that the company was in a management transition and they were trying to elevate the level of professionalism and knowledge available in the customer service area. She had been at the company for one month, and I was going to be her first new hire. All of the existing people on her team were high school graduates that had been working for the company a minimum of ten years and she wanted to start transitioning to college graduates. When I started, I did not have any insurance experience and was eager to learn. Because I was also young and single, I was able to stay late and take on additional projects outside the normal course and scope of my customer service duties. Within three months, I received my first property and casualty certification and I volunteered to put together a formal training manual. Through the entire process, I questioned the workflow of two other departments to gain a better understanding and was assigned to a special project to help re-vamp the underwriting process because of some suggestions and observations that I made. This activity was consistent with high quality of LMX theory because it advanced my personal goals, as well as the goals of my supervisor and the organization as a whole (Northouse, 2013, p. 169).
Without knowing it, my enthusiasm and efforts put me at an advantage in the leader-member exchange, but at a disadvantage with my co-workers. I very quickly became a member of the “in” group with our boss, while my coworkers became the “out” group, and I was also not on their list of favorites either because I was told that I was making them look bad. While they all performed their job duties, there was absolutely no attempt to improve the team or our organization. I agree with Northouse’s (2013) description that out group members act differently in that they only do their set jobs descriptions, or the bare minimum, without ever looking how to expand their role. When the clock struck 4:30, headsets were disconnected and most of the original team was out the door. While these employees may not seem to be ideal, I believe that the original management culture fostered the behavior, and there was little motivation to be proactive, as promotions were not something given to the original group. The job itself was secure and provided a good salary and benefits; so changing the culture was very difficult without hiring new people.
As our supervisor hired more new people, the original staff was transferred to other areas within the company. The new staff were all hired by my supervisor and trained by me, so it became easier to transition the expectations of the group. Overall, this led to fewer departmental complaints from consumers and our CEO actually received some letters commending us for our help and professionalism.
Looking back at this relationship, I wanted to gain a better understanding of how LMX theory actually applied to this situation and quantify it. I rated my supervisor utilizing the LMX 7 Questionnaire and my results were high, 27, indicating a higher quality leader-member exchange (Northouse, 2013, pp. 180-181). This confirmed my initial notion that I was indeed was a part of the in crowd with my boss. My behaviors and the positive nature of our relationship reinforced the notion that a high quality LMX had positive outcomes.
After a year, I ended up leaving the company because I realized that while I like working in insurance, I did not like working in customer service. I was able to gain a ton of knowledge through my initiative that prepared me for a successful career in the industry. Overall, I believe that the high quality of LMX helped me to become a better employee and a better manager.
References
Gupta, A. (2009, June 6). Leader Member Exchange Retrieved from http://practical-management.com/Leadership-Development/Leader-Member-Exchange.html
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Heather- I appreciated your blog on your experience with LMX and how the theory applied in your situation. After reading about your experience, and the coworkers you had at the time, I was wondering what your thoughts are on the fairness of the LMX leadership system? In your personal example, you express that your coworkers were generally not college level educated and that you were – which was something that your supervisor valued. Do you believe that it was fair of your supervisor to place you in the in-group based on your higher education level? Did the company encourage the existing employees to advance their education or provide an opportunity to earn a degree or certificate? As well, you noted that you were single and so could work late more often than your counterparts. Do you believe this to be fair? Should people with the personal attachments of a family or significant other be thought of as lacking career drive or work ethic if they desire to spend time with their family? What if they do not have the capability to work late, as is in the case of a single parent?
The reason I posit these questions is because I believe that the LMX leadership theory is somewhat flawed in its inherent personal bias. And in fact Northouse agrees, citing creation of inequalities and fairness issues as some of the strongest criticisms of the LMX theory (pg. 171). Personally I have witnessed leaders and supervisors providing opportunities or promoting people based on personal biases and sometimes there was no way for the worker to overcome the biases. For example, I worked for a man once who was very misogynistic. There was no way could I overcome his dislike of women in order to become one of his in-group. This placed me in a disadvantage for promotion because if I worked late his assumption was that I was behind on my work, and if I left on time, it was that I was lazy. I have witnessed this happening to others throughout my career, and have been lucky to only be judged like this once (as noted in my example), but I also do not have any children and have no conflict in working late.
I can see that you put a lot of effort into your career with this employer and you were selected for advancement based on that. But what are your thoughts on LMX and personal bias in general? Do you think that this occurs often?
Cassandra
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 6th Ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.
I had the same experience because I did my job as you did that I was labeled within the in-group, “ones that work well with the leaders and for my personality and other characteristics clicked with my boss.” (pg. 163) Not for my actual hard work and dedication that I put into the job. I think that the labels of in-group and out-group are sometime confused with popularity contests and those who do not perform well at their job and are not willing to own that are quick to say that because we do well we are in the in-group or are a brown noser. I think this is a downfall of the LMX theory but this theory exists outside of work and we are all part of this theory in some form.
Northouse, P. G. (2013), Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
The LMX theory very much reminds me of cliques in high school. It is unfortunate that there are such cliques in the workplace as adults, however, it is reality. I think you are a prime example of what a high quality LMX can do for an individual. I also took the LMX 7 Questionnaire and related it to my relationship with a supervisor at my last job. I scored very high (I think it was in the 30’s, but I didn’t write it down) and I suspected that I would because I was very close with this particular supervisor. However, I was not always in the “in group” at this particular job. I had transitioned from the out group over a period of time. I have been in both pairs of shoes so-to-speak. I’ve been in your position and I’ve been in the position of your previous co-workers.
The weird thing is, I did not follow the characteristics of an out group member as described by Northouse. The text tells us that in group members are those that go above and beyond and the out group as doing just what is necessary to get done and leaving (Northouse, 2013). I had a very negative outlook on anyone who was in the in-group when I was in the out-group and I think part of this was because I was the one that was always staying late or coming in when I didn’t have to (not getting paid) and I was getting nothing in return. It was the social aspect of the job and the relationships that I was not forming and participating in that caused me to be a member of the out group.
My lack of relationships prevented me from further advancing until I changed my mindset and took initiative to get to know some more of my coworkers. However, though I am taking responsibility, I think that it is the leader’s job to get to know the employees as well. I think it would be great if all employers and supervisors could be trained to do this, but I question the dependability of the LMX theory just because of human flaw. Even if leaders are trained to develop these relationships with their subordinates, it doesn’t necessarily mean that their character flaws and personal prejudices would not filter into the work place.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.