Looking at an idea such as the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of Psychology helps us to take a deeper look at the two different types of employees and why some work harder than others. It helps us look at the relationship and the interaction of the leader and the follower and how they tie together (PSU, 2012). Lastly, it breaks employees down into two main groups, the in-group and the out-group, and explains the differences between each.
LMX Theory starts by breaking down the in-group and the out-group. The in-group consists of those employees who work hard, see rewards, and go above and beyond what they are asked. “These are activities that go beyond the formal job description. They are sometimes called extra-role responsibilities, organizational citizenship behaviors, or contextual performance” (PSU, 2012). These employees are sometimes called “suck-ups”, but they seem to see past their actions into the rewards that they receive, both tangible and intangible. Working hard makes me feel needed by the company and makes me feel good about myself when I am recognized. I like to consider myself part of the in-group.
On the other side of things, however, is the out-group. Let’s call them the “nothing more, nothing less” group. They are there to do their job, exactly what is asked, and nothing more than that. They are only going to work the hours required, and don’t usually reap the benefits that the in-group does. These people often don’t work well with the leader and end up becoming part of the out-group (PSU, 2012).
Now, let’s look at a good example. Many of you have heard of NBC’s show, The Office. If not, I highly suggest you watch it, especially if you work in an office setting. (Side note: The episodes with Michael Scott are much better). Anyway, we’re going to look at certain people in “the office”. For those who haven’t seen it, I’ll give a description of their responsibilities and personalities. Let’s start with the boss, Michael (played by Steve Carrell). Michael is constantly making jokes, not doing work, and putting things off. He likes to distract his employees, create nonsense meetings, and enjoys being a general nuisance. His sidekick, Dwight (whether you consider him the Assistant Regional Manager or Assistant to the Regional Manager) is a hard worker, constantly meeting sales goals, never late, never puts up with nonsense (except when it comes from Michael), and tries to outshine everyone else. He’s always working hard for the promotion and let’s other people know that he means business. Although his character is a bit goofy, I’d like to say he’s part of the in-group. On the other side of the spectrum you have Stanley. He is ready to leave right at 5:00pm, doesn’t like to participate in any of the functions outside of work (although for the show’s purposes, he does), and he doesn’t associate much with others. He makes his sales and is great with the customers, but doesn’t go above and beyond what he absolutely has to do. In one of the episodes, they are talking about downsizing, and he is told he’ll be let go. He packs his box up and is ready to retire, go on vacation, and spend time with his wife. By the end of the episode, however, they are told that another branch will be closing, and that they’re all still going to be employed. Stanley didn’t seem too thrilled with the idea that he’d have to stay. He’s also not one of Michael’s “sidekicks”. Stanley would be considered part of the out-group.
There’s going to be good examples of people in the in-group and people in the out-group no matter where you work. Some people just personally don’t want to do anything extra, and they’re okay with not receiving the extra perks in return. It’s possible that a “certain part of the population just wants to come to work and do exactly what is required of them; no more, no less. They don’t want to identify strongly with the workgroup. Maybe they have another group that provides them with a strong social identity that fulfills them such as being part of a family or volunteer organization (Hogg & Terry, 2001). Or maybe being part of a group just isn’t their thing (Postmes & Jetten, 2006)” (PSU, 2012). I can understand this because of the way society is now. There are so many people that are just working to make a living and don’t want to spend any extra time in a place that they’re not 100% happy with. There are also things that people take a bigger role in outside of work, leaving less time for extra work. Either way, it’s important for leaders to give equal opportunity to both types of employees to show that they are appreciated, regardless of how much work they do.
References
Pennsylvania State University. (2012). Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html
CHRISTINE A LEIPHART says
Thank you Shannon for your advice. I am in complete agreeance with incorporating willing employees in creating policies and procedures which them based on their information. Of course withing our organizations code of conduct.
The state of Pennsylvania is the same as NY state, our organizationd HR department is extremely heavy on ensuring we as managers have exhausted pretty near every avenue to ensure ample opportunity was given to the employee.
SHANNON O MORRIS says
I can honestly say that I’ve never been in a management situation where I’ve had to let someone go. I can tell you that it sounds like you’re doing the right thing by bringing them back down to reality and having them focus their energy and attention on other issues at hand. I’m sorry to hear that your predecessor was an ineffective leader and focused on finding negative things about his employees. No one would want to work for someone like that; they’d be walking on eggshells and it would make them miserable. Regardless of how long they have been there though, they need to understand that old ways will no longer be tolerated and any resort to that will entail some type of disciplinary action. The HR department that I work in does assist managers with putting people on Performance Improvement Plans, or PIPs, but sometimes immediate action is necessary and a PIP will not be required. Luckily, in NY State, we don’t have to have a reason to let someone go (as long as it was not for discrimination, of course).
I understand what you’re saying about my option possibly not working, but here’s my advice. Find out how your employees operate. Begin to understand what drives them to success and what drives them to failure. What has kept them there for so long? Building on these ideas will help your relationship and their success. It will also make your job a lot easier when you have, let’s say, 10 employees who are all willing to play by rules that they helped create (and what I mean here is that they’ve given you information about them to help them succeed, and you’ve created policies or procedures that benefit them based on the information).
CHRISTINE A LEIPHART says
Hi Shannon. Thank you for sharing your example, insight and potential recommendations. In regards to your recommendations with my leadership style (although not perfect, however, it is ever growing and adapting as the situation and followers warrant them to change) is rather new for the staff and providers at this practice I currently manage. My predecessor was less than an ideal leader. He sought after “dirt” (his word choice for any negative behavior or mistakes) on his staff and created an environment where physicians and certain staff became aggressively involved in the collection “dirt”. Three and a half years later I come into the practice (which I have only been there now for 7 months), I am attempting to refocus them on looking at our systems or process we may or may not have in place before we direct issue or concern to individuals. I am also working on coaching them on being a team and the importance each of them have in the challenges and changes in the healthcare field. It is critical they all are active participants and not to look to the practice manager for the solution but to be involved so they have “buy in”.
As far as a crew change, unfortunately the majority of the staff are well established (long term) employees and our organization has specific guidelines and criteria to follow on releasing someone from employee. Have you ever had to let someone go for poor performance? Our HR department requires creating a performance plan for an employee who is not meeting expectations. You must work specifically with the employee to create the plan and establish actions which will be taken if they are not met in the allotted time period.
Sometimes it all sounds good in theory but to apply it in your given situation and to the followers you may have is not necessarily a given success.
SHANNON O MORRIS says
Hi Christine. What I meant by this, and I’ll give an example, is that employers need to make sure that they are showing appreciation to their employees and giving the opportunity to everyone to take on additional tasks. Maybe I just didn’t word it right. Here’s what I mean. Using my example above, Michael gives everyone the opportunity to take on additional sales calls. Whether they choose to take the leads or not is not up to him, it’s up to the employee. Dwight will take them, Stanley may not. However, it’s important for Michael to recognize each of these employees for their efforts. If Stanley doesn’t want to take on the extra work, it’s important that Michael ensure he’s given what is needed in order to do his job and keep the company going, but give Dwight the extra activities for the additional credit.
Some people just don’t want to take the extra work on, but if you have employees who are all in the out-group, it’s time to find a new crew OR change your leadership style because something isn’t working. Maybe increasing initiative to take on extra tasks will help, maybe not. It’s important to have a balance of both types of employees. If you only have those in the in-group, as I mentioned, everyone’s jumping for the extra work and credit amd it no longer has that worth. If you have everyone in the out-group, nothing extra is getting done around the office. All-in-all, it’s important to get to know your followers as a leader, and find out how they work best and why they are either part of the out-group or the in-group.
CHRISTINE A LEIPHART says
I agree in how you defined the “in-group” and “out-group”, however, given their work values are clearly unbalanced (“work to live” verses “live to work”). So I am curious, could you provide an example of a leader “give equal opportunity to both types of employees to show that they are appreciated, regardless of how much work they do.”?
The reason for my inquiry, is the volume of staff members I have currently inherited strongly exhibit “out-group” characteristic than “in-group”. This makes it very challenging as a leader to delegate critical healthcare initiatives to “out group” staff when a key attribute to have in healthcare is “caring”. Caring is not a skill you can teach, it comes from within you.
CHRISTINE A LEIPHART says
I agree in how you defined the “in-group” and “out-group”, however, given their work values are clearly unbalanced (“work to live” verses “live to work”). So I am curious, could you provide an example of a leader “give equal opportunity to both types of employees to show that they are appreciated, regardless of how much work they do.”?
The reason for my inquiry, is the volume of staff members I have currently inherited strongly exhibit “out-group” characteristic than “in-group”. This makes it very challenging as a leader to delegate critical healthcare initiatives to “out group” staff when a key attribute to have in healthcare is “caring”. Caring is not a skill you can teach someone, it comes from within you.