Throughout the lesson “Leader member Exchange Theory”, it became obvious to me that LMX was applicable and apparent in my professional life. As a manager by profession, I experience the interaction between subordinates and management. Since the beginning of this course, I have been taking the questionnaires at the end of each chapter and looking for ways in which I can correlate what I have learned and integrate those lessons learned into my leadership functions. Although I consider myself “pre-trained” meaning already having the skills and aptitudes of quality leadership (where as some do not and require additional training), I am always seeking new methods and knowledge surrounding the world of leadership. The traits that are a part of me prior to any formal leadership training (intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability) were instilled in me and groomed all throughout my upbringing (Northouse,p.25). My parents raised me to follow values that re-enforce those traits. Beyond my upbringing I had a knack for finding myself in leadership positions simply because I was ambitious (still is the case today) and a bit of “right place at the right time” where a leadership void exists and now apparent candidate or volunteer willing to step up to the plate. All of these factors have resulted in me being a leader at home, at work, and in hobbies (not that I am power hungry or desire to be in charge), I just somehow end up being “the go to guy”. It is because I find myself in these positions continuously that I want to be better at leadership. As mentioned I do think that part of what makes a good leader is a set of traits (or values and morals), but also skills. Skills are important because how can a leader, lead something that he or she knows nothing about (technical skill). An example, the captain of a professional sports team is not necessarily the best player on the team talent wise, however that leader is competent at the sport and highly skilled. The team captain is leading peers, and thusly must be respected for prowess on the field. The worst player on the team is never the team captain. Conversely, the all star of the team may not have the human skills or ability to work with people and communicate effectively with teammates to convey the message and vision of the organization. That players talent is valued, but they lack the high level of communication and ability to help their peers and being sensitive to the needs of teammates (Northouse,p.45).
A more in depth assessment of leadership and the situation involving leaders and followers is accomplished by observing the communication and leader member exchange. The environment that exists between a manager and subordinate, player and coach, or captain and teammate can be classified as in group and out group. The progression of a member’s involvement and interest in the involvement of the group’s activity and purpose impacts whether they end up in the “in group” or “out group”, which in my opinion is affected by the methods of leadership that the leader employs. If the leader can mentor the follower and integrate them into the tasks progressing from phase 1 (stranger) to phase 2 (acquaintance) in a delicate manner finding ways in which to relate to their needs the progression will be more comfortable in the exchange and the option to progress into the in group maintained. Higher quality, more valued group members are those members who are part of the in group. The member who contributes to the mission, communicates with the leader, provides innovative ideas, and contributes constantly to the mission is a member of the in group. In group members go above and beyond and do not constrain their efforts to the confines of the job description. In professional sports, the in group member will put in extra practice time, meet with the team captain and ask for advice on work outs, and provide inputs to rookies on what they can do to progress their skills for the team. Out group members are those members who show up to what is required, when “quitting time” ticks on the clock, they leave. The organization will get no extra from out group members, however can expect to get the minimum required input (Northouse,p.167). It is important for leaders to understand what to expect from out group members versus in group members. It is also important for leaders to not be biased because of members’ choices regarding which group, while keeping the organizational goals at the highest of priorities. I can say from personal experience it is challenging to maintain neutrality when it comes time to recommend a successor, promote contributors to leadership positions, or who to delegate important urgent tasks to in a time crunch or high priority task. It is very easy to abuse the dependable in group contributor, however this can lead to burn out and even feelings of resentment towards those who are in the out group by that contributor. I look forward to learning how to better handle those situations throughout the remainder of the semester.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice – Sixth Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.
EUGENA LEE AXTELL says
Michael,
Very interesting points! I believe your post highlights how leadership perspective of in and out group members (homogeneity) greatly influences how group members are treated and how inequalities are created. There is value in the application of LMX theory in having the leader reflect on their own biases and relationships and aspire to develop high-quality exchanges with all subordinates. Attempting to treat all employees as though they are part of the in-group removes inequalities and improves the goals of the organization as a whole. While the out-group members goals may not be as overt or progressive as the in-group members, they should still have the opportunities to meet their goals and contribute to the organization (Northouse, 2013).
Reference: Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. ISBN 9781452203409