After suffering through the 4 years of high school cliques and the 4 plus years of college judgement, you can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing that you are entering the workforce of fairness and equality. No longer will you bury your tear-stained face into your pillow at night, wondering…why don’t they like me? Finally you will be judged based on your performance and abilities and rewarded equally amongst all peers. Hold your head up high as you walk into your office, smiling at everyone who wants to be your colleague and friend. But within perhaps two short weeks (plus or minus), you will then realize that despite all the “after school specials” and social media groups pledging equality, that the “in group” still exists.
That’s right, we cannot fight or ignore social evolution. We are creatures of habit and inherently predisposed to separate into allegiances. Research explains that our survivability instinct is ingrained in our psyche that forces people to merge with similar people. The drive is based off of our desire to protect resources and thrive in the wild (or the workplace). I-O psychologist define the need to be within an organization through Social Dominance Theory, or the belief that we all belong to groups and that the people within the group protect and provide for the members. (Pratto, Sidanious, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) But fortunately you have evolution to blame for not being cool in social settings now. And fortunately there are theories in place that attempt to recognize these issues and train leaders to engage all subordinates rather than just the in-group.
The theory of Leader Member Exchange (LMX) explains that interaction between the leaders and the members is crucial to organizational success. (Northouse, 2013) Researchers recognize that groups will form in all environments and through LMX hope to explain the dynamics in order to gain success. The LMX divides the interactions into two categories, the in-group and out-group. (Northouse, 2013) In-group relationships are interactions that go beyond standard operating communications and attention. While out-groups are more formal and job related. (Northouse, 2015) High levels of interaction between the leadership and followers has proven to be highly beneficial to the workplace environment leading to increase production, motivation, performance, along with increase organizational commitment. (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) Organizational commitment will not only improve performance and increase production but will boost morale, increase retention/reducing turnover, increase overall job satisfaction, and lower absenteeism. (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) This commitment leads to employees putting forth more effort and assuming more responsibility. (Northouse, 2013) Which is completely logical, if you enjoy your job and the people you work with you are most likely going to work hard in order to remain employed. Job satisfaction not only correlates to performance but also longevity. The work ethics have changed in the past 50 years, more and more people are choosing happiness over money. (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton, 2001) Employees that are not satisfied with their job are leaving and taking their experience and your trade secrets with them. Turnover can cost companies thousands of dollars or more, not to mention the financial gain the competition receives. (Pinder, 2008)
Individuals that are in the out-group or perceive that they are in the out-group, will be less dedicated to the organization and may have lower performance reviews or motivation. Typically the out-group employees will meet the standard but show little initiative to do more. Although the lesson says that they are treated fair in comparison to the in-group, however that is an issue I disagree with. When everyone is treated the same, then that would be fair. However, treated in a standard or neutral manner doesn’t always mean fair. The in-group at times are given more opportunity to excel and bask in the glow of encouragement and support, while the out-group is doing the job with little recognition. This can lead to resentment or even perceived as a threat to their position. Even the act of being part of a group can be perceived as a threat, real or not, the individual will react negatively forming a barrier between themselves and the leader. This can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy effect where the reactions of the out-group person forces no threat into an actual threat. (Pratto, Sidanious, & Levin, 2006)
In an incident at my work the issues with in-groups took an already hostile environment into an extreme situation. One supervisor constructed his in-group with like-minded individuals, basically people that agreed with his actions and rarely spoke out against his leadership. The out-group, although more experienced and better performers, was made up of instructors that were upfront about their disappointment with the management. One instructor in particular recognized that he was indeed part of the out-group after months of being passed over for training and advancement opportunities. The perceived level of threat created animosity between him and the supervisor and eventually him and the in-group members. This began with a lack of trust perpetuated by poor communication. The out-group instructor decided that the issues were extreme enough to contact HR personnel and report the unfair treatment. When the supervisor learned of the reporting the perceived threat was then increased to a real threat. The instructor was a great employee and wanted to contribute more but was met with negativity and bias evaluations. This caused a decrease in motivation and job satisfaction, which lead to absenteeism and tardiness. The in-group supervisor took this opportunity to counsel the instructor for his lack of motivation. This continued until the instructor quit, taking within him several other instructors with a combine total of 35 years of experience.
This situation is not uncommon within the workplace but shouldn’t be. The realty of the situation is that group division will always occur along with the perception of threats. By applying the LMX leaders should be able to identify these issues before it is a bigger conflict. Leaders should not just focus on engaging the out-group but find ways to include them within the in-group or activities that are associated with the out-group. The problem arises when the supervisor doesn’t realize that there is a division.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.
Mobley, W.H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pratto, F., Sidanious, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320.
Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior. New York: Psychology Press.