A discussion that would be interesting to explore in regards to Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), would be what happens when a person goes from the in-group to the out-group and vice versa? As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I was in a job that I was happy with and would have continued for many years. However, after a year long struggle with a change in management, I left.
After this chapter, it seems likely that I was considered part of the in-group with the first manager – doing additional work beyond my job description, being visible and agreeable, and in turn, given more responsibility and rewards which increased my job satisfaction. (Northouse, 2013) With the second manager, I transitioned (willing or unwilling) to more of an out-group member. My lack of motivation led to a desire to simply show up, do my job, and go home. (Northouse, 2013) Did the change from in-group to out-group subconsciously effect my job satisfaction? While some continued within their original groups, it was clear that I was not the only one whose status changed. Did they experience a change in motivation as well? In that respect, it almost becomes a question of “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Did my lack of motivation due to a dislike of the new manager contribute to being perceived as part of the out-group? Or did moving to the out-group cause less motivation?
I think an unmentioned flaw of this theory may be that there is vagueness to it. Yes, interaction between the leader and followers is a two way street. I couldn’t agree more and find this to be a relatable real world theory. However, it also seems that there are many avenues this theory could travel. Motivation in relation to one’s place in the in/out groups would be one. Events that cause a change; or cause the leader or follower to want to change their place might be another. Peers’ effects on being part of the in-group or the out-group, in the sense of traditional peer pressure (not just for kids anymore!) could also have an influence.
I don’t have the answers for many of the questions I’ve asked. But it is certainly something I continue to think about and have become more aware of in my daily interactions.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
RANDY MICHAEL YACOBOZZI says
Being in a position that is considered a career is one thing and having a job is entirely another thing. Taking on extra responsibilities is part of getting ahead in any position, but an employee that sees no upside to that will certainly fail to see the benefit of the extra exerted effort.
I am currently in a position as a contracted worker and as my original goal was to be hired on as a permanent colleague, my motivations have changed. I see the benefit of doing a job well done and want to give 110% in all my endeavors, but the truth is I am currently part of the out group(Pennsylvania State University, 2012). I don’t get overtime pay, I continue to get more work piled onto my plate, with little opportunity for advancement, and my motivation meter is declining slowly. I find it difficult to want to continue in my current role without some sort of path to promotion. I have looked for other jobs and interviewed, but not having a degree definitely sets me apart as a viable candidate. I am hoping in December after I graduate that employers will treat me differently, but there is no guarantee.
I think your remarks are absolutely correct about the situation changing an employees mindset involving motivation. For instance if my manager were to be terminated tomorrow, and all the extra tasks that I have taken on, all the early mornings I have come in, all the late nights creating reports i spent fell by the waste side. Then I could see my self wanting to quit right away. Working someplace is such an investment that you want to be able to give it your all, collect a living wage, and be considered for promotions. Sometimes situational roadblocks and variables can really take the wind out of a persons sails. When I was in high school I didn’t know what I was going to be doing, but I knew if I gave something my undivided attention and dedication that I would be great at it. Well, I give it my all, I try to nurture the right relationships, but until somebody quits or gets fired I’m gonna be stuck. Aint life grand.
NATHANIEL CUDLIPP says
Your use of the chicken and egg analogy articulates one of my reservations about Leader-Member Exchange Theory. Both Northouse (2013), and the lecture commentary characterize group membership as a choice made by the employee yet fail to identify or consider the environment and circumstances which motivate such a decision (Pennsylvania State University, 2012). Changes in management may be one factor, as may be task assignment, evolving responsibilities, and interpersonal relationships. Your experience clearly reflects how group membership doesn’t just evolve linearly along the three step continuum identified by Northouse (2013), from “stranger” to “partnership,” but instead may ebb and flow based on many factors. As you cite, motivation plays a key role in a desire to be involved, however the motivations of the manager must not be overlooked. Bias and favoritism exist, and it seems that a drawback to LMX is a somewhat simplistic, or idyllic, assumption that managers will act fairly.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University, (2012). Psychology 485, Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved on 10/20/12 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html
HEATHER VEDELL says
The one major downfall to LMX Theory is that there is differentiation between employees. Your question, “Did my lack of motivation due to a dislike of the new manager contribute to being perceived as part of the out-group? Or did moving to the out-group cause less motivation? “ is very interesting. It may have been beneficial to look at a LMX 7 Questionnaire comparing your two managers The level of LMX quality would probably be predictably higher with the first manager, and lower with the second (Northouse, 2013, pp. 180-190). I would be interested to know if your new manager treated you fairy with respect to salary and benefits, or if there was a perceived deficit there as well.
Management changes can lead to differences in employee job satisfaction, as managers have different traits and management styles. If the new manager perceived you as the previous manager’s right hand person, he or she may have wanted to distance him or herself from you as a conscious or subconscious decision. There is vagueness to the theory, as you have mentioned, which I think comes from the lack of self-assessment i.e. what did I do to contribute to the situation as an employee.
Reference:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.