The leader-member exchange theory focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers and is based primarily on the relationship that develops (PSU WC, 2016). Unfortunately, some leaders have biases and other reasons that they do not treat everyone equally. This unequal treatment will push people into the out-group, which is a less effective, less devoted group. These individuals will just come to work, do their job, and then go home. They will not go above and beyond for their leader or do any favors, just as the leader will not go above and beyond for them or do any favors (Northouse, 2016).
Growing up I have experienced what it is like to be part of an in-group and an out-group as far back as elementary school. Being a member of the in-group was a very fulfilling position to be in, as opposed to the out-group where I was unhappy and just went through the motions. I am going to share a story about what it was like working for a company where I was a member of the in-group one year and a member of the out group the next year.
I managed a store for a company in retail sales, where mangers who were selling and high-performing received special treatment. My leader at the time and I had a very positive relationship with high-quality leader-member exchanges. He would empower me to make decisions because he knew that I knew what I was doing, given my high-performing track record. In turn, I would come in early and stay late. I would go above and beyond for my leader and my company because I know that they believed in me to do the right thing. There were many times where my leader took me to lunch or bought lunch for my team. These lunches were an added favor or value that was given to me since I was part of the in-group. Besides me, the was a group of other managers who received the same treatment (the in-group) and a group that did not (the out-group).
However, some time passed and this leader moved on to another position in the company and I got a new leader. In the meantime, there were some mergers and acquisitions that happened that directly affected the performance of my particular store. This new leader came in and did not look at past history or want to get to know me as a person. This leader made the decision to separate their in-groups and out-groups based upon who was performing and who was not performing. All this did was discourage me. I no longer came in early and stayed late. I was unhappy at work and just came to work to do the bare minimum in my job description. This new leader barely interacted with the managers who were not high performing at the time. According to Northouse (2016) the LMX Theory gives the appearance of discrimination and discrimination is what I felt. I would have much rather if this leader treated everyone fairly and not have treated the two groups differently based on their performance. According to Northouse (2016) p. 142 “leaders should have high-quality exchanges with all of their followers rather than just a few”.
In conclusion, I think that a lesson can be learned from my experience both from a leader and a follower point of view. First, as a leader we should take the advice given to us in Northouse (2016) regarding the equal treatment of all of followers as well as encouraging out-group members to become part of the in-group. As a follower, there is also some advice that we can take from Northouse (2016). This advice is that if we are interested in becoming part of the in-group, we should negotiate with the leader what we can do for the group (Northouse, 2016). We could negotiate with them to do tasks that are outside of our normal job descriptions and in turn, the leader will do more for us. In my case, If I would have negotiated with the leader to do certain tasks that were above and beyond my normal job description, my leader may have brought me into the in-group even though my sales performance was down. As a follower, I could have influenced my leader to change his behavior by interacting with him and building my relationship with him. This is what makes the leader-member exchange theory valuable. Jut as leaders can affect followers, followers can also affect leaders (Northouse, 2016).
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Penn State World Campus (2016). PSYCH 485: Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange. Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa16/21681–13148/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html
pxn5027 says
Robert,
That’s definitely a unique situation that you had to deal with. I think given this class and your experience, will help you as a leader by knowing what not to do as a leader. You yourself saw what it was like to be an in-group member and receive the benefits and encouragement that came from all of the members as a whole (Northouse, 2016). You were also able to view how negative things could be as an out-group member.
Its too bad to had to experience the new leader that did not care about knowing his people first, he passed judgment based on performance only and I don’t believe that was the right thing to do. Have you tried to communicate with this new leader, or is he/she the type of person who only puts forth the time to the in-group? I would hope that you still give things your best, but I also recognize that you may not feel like putting forth effort that will not be recognized unless the numbers that your leader are looking for go up as well.
I myself have had a boss where people could be in the in-group one week and the out-group the next based on how performance was. Essentially with this if you messed up you were on the out-group list. This was a different type of environment though than what you are dealing with. I hope that you are able to find a way to stay motivated in what you do.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Graciella Maria De Souza says
Hi Robert,
Interesting how your leader used the LMX to actually do the opposite. Instead of prescribing himself the leadership making approach, he actually divided his followers into the in and out groups (PSU, WC, Psych 485, lesson 8, 2016). It is amazing some of the work experiences we go through; luckily we learn from those as others just make themselves an out-group member. Do you believe that the second leader (boss) you had at the store was possibly using the force of power without actually analyzing his outcomes? It sounded like that is what happened in your case. I am sorry that the bad leadership actually affected you. It also happens to me, as I am an out-group at my actual job. My boss uses high-quality exchange for her own professional and personal achievements, and it makes me keep the distance and act as an out-group because there is no mutual trust nor respect between us (Northouse, 2016, p. 143). I would love to became a in-group member as I am highly capable of executing the job with a lot more passion. However, I choose not to make any commitment for loyalty because i do not perceive that the exchange is genuine in this case. If some day the commitment turns to be a goal, we may need to go through the 3 step process of developing our relationship before I can be part of the in-group (Northouse, 2016).
It is very unfortunate that you felt and I still feel trapped into situations like those, where leader and follower do not fully comply with each other. In our both cases if the leader worked to mature our relationships, we probably would grant there the mutual negotiation and make things work as it is supposed to work (Northouse, 2016, p. 143). Overall, we both know that the interaction would be dyadic, however, it seems that this is not always the case.
At least now we have the knowledge about it and hopefully when our leadership chances come across, we do realize that the in-group and out-group have different perspectives; they also may need to be treated with impartiality, thus, making the out-group feel like an in-group member. If we do that, we probably will have a high-quality exchange resulting in positive outcomes for us and others, besides the organization (Northouse, 2016).
Sincerely,
Graciella Souza