There are certainly a lot of theoretical approaches to leadership in Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychology, many of which are dynamic, complex and not particularly easy to comprehend. Then there is the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (PSU WC, 2012; PSU WC, 2013; Northouse, 2013), which every school-aged child in the Western Hemisphere can ostensibly understand and easily related to. The reason I say that is because a large component of what the theory posits is the establishment and standing existence of in-groups and out-groups. Basic schoolyard stuff, right? To expound, a member (i.e. a subordinate in a group) is found to belong to the in-group when he/she is perceived as skilled, trustworthy, competent, and able to be motivated (PSU WC, 2012). In exchange for possessing these highly desirable traits in a subordinate, the leader rewards those members. Said benefits may come in a multitude of fashions and forms. For example, an in-group member may receive promotions, or regular emotional sensitivity, or attentive professional support (PSU WC, 2012; PSU WC, 2013; Northouse, 2013). An out-group member, on the other hand, is viewed as lacking the aforementioned favorable characteristics and, as such, may be treated fairly, but certainly does not receive the respect, attention or accolades of one within the in-group (PSU WC, 2013; Northouse, 2013).
Luckily, I have found myself as a member of professional in-groups far more often than not. My most recent experience as a member of an in-group was a few scant years ago while working in government contract security working outdoors on a federal installation. Essentially, there were three levels of the working guard force: lieutenants; sergeants; and security officers (SO) (listed here as senior to subordinate). I was an SO, the lowest level. But I worked very hard. I was very competent and I did what I suppose to do. Because of this, I got along very well with all of the sergeants with whom I worked. So I ingratiated myself there. As I gained tenure, the lieutenants took notice of my performance as well. This cemented my membership within the in-group.
If I had a problem or made a mistake, both the sergeants and the lieutenants would go out of their way to help me to resolve the situation. If I needed to make a change with my schedule, it would get fast-tracked through the normal red tape. Eventually, a coveted desk position came open at our headquarters building. It was coveted because it was indoors, and the designee wasn’t subject to working the elements like the rest of the workforce. The lieutenants selected me for the position: presumably this was an in-group member reward (PSU WC, 2012; PSU WC, 2013; Northouse, 2013). Not unpredictably, some out-group SOs with greater tenure than me fussed a bit. They were met with tepid verbal placation, i.e. they were not shown any particular sensitivity (PSU WC, 2012). Regardless, the shifts I worked with the lieutenants typically ran very smoothly, as the theory also predicts as a resultant strength (PSU WC, 2012).
One of the weaknesses of LMX theory, which I’ve recognized in theory, is that if someone in power (in my story, one of the lieutenants) likes someone due to personal reasons they may pull that person into the in-group even when that person don’t meet the accepted criteria, per se. That is to say, someone’s buddy may be treated with the partiality of an in-group member although they don’t have the positive attributes of an in-group member. The LMX theory doesn’t seem to account for such instances (PSU WC, 2012; PSU WC, 2013; Northouse, 2013). Concurrently, I’ve seen instances where an individual who performs to the standard of an in-group member is excluded due to his/her personality or other factor unaccounted for by LMX.
References
Pennsylvania State University (2013). Psych 485. Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/01_pa ge.html
Pennsylvania State University (2012). Psych 281. Introduction to Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Lesson 11: Leadership. Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych281/003/content/11_lesson/07_pa ge.html
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.