Leader-Member Exchange Theory is the interaction between leaders and followers effecting an organization (PSUWC,PSYCH 485,Les.8). The LMX theory constitutes follows into in groups and out groups. In theory, the people belonging to the in groups are considered dedicated employees who will go beyond their job duties; verses the out groups who does only what their job entails (PSUWC,PSYCH 485,Les.8). Northouse (2016) states “LMX theory validates our experience of how people within an organization relate to each other and the leader. Some contribute more and receive more; while others contribute less and get less” (p.145). Leaders and followers are supportive and communicate effectively that is what makes the LMX process effective. Contrary to this idea, can someone who is part of the out-group still be an effective part of the organization? If a person is doing their job and doing it well, is not that what they were hired to do as part of an organizational structure to make it effective? If an employee were not doing their job effectively then it would affect the organization. However, if an employee was part of the in-group, tenure employee and dedicated to the organization, had a great relationship with the leaders of the organization, but had poor leadership ability, could the in-group be ineffective for the organization? If a person who was in the in group took on too much outside of their position, that it is impacting their work performance, but yet gets raises based on the tenure relationship with the leader. Then one can agree that it negatively affects the structure of the organization as a whole. LMX theory addresses that the closeness of leaders and followers in the in group can have a positive impact on the effectiveness of the company, but in today’s corporate America can this even be conclusive.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University (2017) World Campus, PSYCH 485, Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867456/discussion_topics/11691792?module_item_id=22975736
Stephanie R Subedi says
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply. Yes your interpretation of my analysis is correct. However, I don’t think this falls outside of the leader-follower relationship. The LMX theory has limitations as do all theories. The underlying basis of the LMX theory is unfair. This theory discriminates between two groups, just as society discriminates between people who are different due to age, gender, ect. It assumes that the in-group followers have a better relationship with the leader than out-group followers due to the special attention a leader may give that in group follower (Northouse, 2016, p146). So the scrutiny here would be the basis of the perceived relationship between the in-group follower and leader and how personal it gets or professional the relationship is. The book assumes this relationship is professional, however reality is that in many cases this relationship is tinged by conflicted of interests. As explained from Northouse, 2016, p147, from a small age we are taught right and wrong, we are taught justice and fairness and equality. The LMX theory gives special attention to the in-group followers due to their ability to take on more tasks the leader has given them, so the leader has less work to do. When the in-group follower finishes the task it is perceived that they are willing to do more than their job description states, so they give them more attention. However under the leadership making model from Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991), where leaders should create special relationships with all followers (Northouse, 2016, p147). Just because one person has the ability or perceived ability to do more than another person, doesn’t make them a more effective person. Every position within an organization is critical to the effectiveness of the organization. If the person filling the position does what they are suppose to then in theory the organization should be effective. All opportunities should be open to every follower not just a prospective follower. In my theory, this is how corporate politics begin.
Michael Diclemente says
Hi Stephanie,
You raised an interesting perspective in your post. Specifically, my understanding of your post is that there is a risk that someone can be part of an in-group that isn’t really doing a good job in their position, is that accurate? Unfortunately, I’ve seen this and it can be difficult. Although I agree that it happens, it runs counter to the LMX theory itself, and I think the outside influence could be the relationship with the two parties outside of the leader-follower relationship. I think that this perhaps may fall outside of the scope of what LMX is intended to explain, although I do agree that what you are speaking about does occur. Since LMX specifically is meant to address the relationship of leaders and their followers and how information is conveyed between them, there is a basic intention here that the group effectiveness is increased due to this exchange (Northouse, 2016). There’s perception in here too; a leader may thing that one is doing a better job than another just because they are closer to one person due to being in the in-group. It runs counter to LMX though; presumably a non-performing individual shouldn’t be able to penetrate the in-group. The in-group should be committed and exceed job expectations in return for increased support and oppurtunities (Northouse, 2016). So while I do think that what you are describing does occur, I’m thinking that outside influence may be in play here that disrupts the norms explained by LMX.
Thank you,
Mike
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.