I feel that you can’t help but be drawn to those who are a mirror of you or who have the same goals in mind. For example, if you are a driven, goal-oriented leader then the subordinates who show the same characteristics are going to draw attention to themselves and make their presence known. It doesn’t mean that those who come into work and just do what is formally required of them is doing anything wrong. They are just doing their jobs. But is it fair to offer them, along with those who have shown initiative and proven their commitment to the organization, a promotion that would be more demanding when they have not shown that they want more or even that they want a career instead of a job? In this blog, the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory will be discussed as it pertains to this situation.
At the center of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is communication. How leaders and subordinates communicate is the key to accomplishing organizational goals and even group or individual goals. It is found that “high-quality leader-member exchanges produce less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater organizational commitment, better job attitudes…” and the list goes on. (Pg. 164) The quality of exchange should not depend on whether or not the subordinate is ambitious, driven, and seeking more responsibility (in-group) or if the subordinate just wants to accomplish his/her job duties. Either way the exchange should be high-quality not high-quantity. For example, when I worked for the IRS, those who showed high-quality work and initiative were more encouraged to apply for and notified of job openings that would compliment them by their team leaders even though all were initially notified of recent job openings within the organization. Here, it seems that communication between leader and subordinates is fair and balanced. Everyone is notified not only one group of people.
So, is it fair for leaders to show more attention to some people than others? Throughout my career, I have witnessed different behaviors and attitudes of leaders and subordinates when it comes to showing initiative and not. Some leaders don’t like it when subordinates are so ambitious because it disrupts the flow of the group and has the potential to create problems of jealousy and favoritism so they are discouraged and not given the attention desired. Whereas, some leaders love the initiative because this results in more productivity and makes the leader look good to his/her superiors in the organization. So in order to answer this question I feel that it depends on the career objectives of each individual and the organization’s objectives. For example, if a subordinate doesn’t want any more responsibility, he/she would not do or ask for extra work so if others who are ambitious gets more work and attention it should not bother them or seem unfair. But if notifications such as job announcements are not made public it would seem unfair and shown as favoritism which could cause bad behaviors and attitudes to surface. The main goal regardless of who is doing what and who is not is the goal and objectives of the organization. How the organization operates and accomplishes each goal and objective lies in the quality of the leader and subordinate relationship.
In summary, what dictates whether or not individual, group, and organizational goals are accomplished greatly depends on high quality leader-subordinate relationships. The LMX theory promotes “partnerships” between the leader and subordinates as well as between others within the organization. Such partnerships have different degrees of exchange from great ambition leading to more work and promotion and constant work behavior leading to regular benefits as per “formal contract”. (Pg. 168) Regardless of subordinate efforts, leader behavior should be consistent and fair which results in high-quality exchanges between all subordinates and those within the organization.
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership – Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.