The Leader-Member Exchange Theory looks at leadership through a unique perspective not yet discussed. It analyses leadership not through the specific actions or characteristics of the leader of a group but through the interactions of the leader and the group’s members. LMX research has found that there are two types of relationships that can occur in this dynamic. One where the subordinate has a close relationship with the leader with more flexibility and more responsibilities that place the subordinate in the “in-group” and another where the subordinate has a more structured and formal relationship with the leader and does not have an expanded role in the organization or receive preferential treatment. The out-group relationship represents a more distant and “by the books” relationship whereas the in-group relationship is a more friendly and laid back bond (Northouse, 2013, p.161-163).
For several years at my place of employment there was an in-group and out-group dynamic at work in our department. It wasn’t so much that our manager did this on purpose but that is occurred naturally over time through the actions of both the manager and team members. There were certain individuals who were always willing to step up and volunteer for new responsibilities and challenges. Those individuals were always wanted to learn new equipment and stay on top of the latest industry advances. There were others though that had a very close minded approach at work and never wanted to expand their knowledge or volunteer for new challenges. At a technology company this is not looked on favorably.
After the recession hit in 2008 and our business began to fall off there was a need for a reduction of work force. Naturally those that were associated with the in-group and had taken on more responsibilities over the years became more valuable to the organization and eventually those in the out-group were let go or saw the writing on the wall and moved on to other companies on their own.
In the middle of all this change at work our manager was moved to another department within the organization and a new manager was hired. Since the new boss joined the team when almost all of the out-group members had already moved on he was fortunate to find a group that was well trained, motivated, willing to rise to new challenges and over-all a lean and productive team. For that reason the relationship between the group and the new manager quickly took on a Leadership Making dynamic. Northouse (2013) states that through leadership making the leader tries to develop a “high-quality” relationship with all members in an effort to avoid the draw backs of out-group relationships and their impacts. Since our new manager was dropped into a organization that was essentially just an in-group that made his task very easy. It also help that he was a laid back and easy to get along with person.
Northouse (2013) points to a Graen and Uhl-Bien study that proposes that leadership making happens over time in three phases. Those stages are the stranger phase, the acquaintance phase and the mature partnership phase (p. 166). Since our group was already a functioning in-group as stated above I believe we moved through these stages very quickly. Within a year our new manager had what I would consider a mature partnership relationship with almost the entire group. Many of the characteristics of the mature partnership presented themselves very rapidly. This phase, according to Northouse (2013), has a “high degree of mutual trust, respect and obligation toward each other” along with members that “depend on each other for favors and special assistance” (p. 167). Members of our team have a close relationship with our manager and we are always willing to jump in and help with anything he needs done. Just recently two of us flew to San Francisco de-installed several pieces of equipment and drove the equipment to San Antonio and re-installed it to meet the deadlines of an important project. Something like this, in my experience, is not common practice at most technology companies but is relatively commonplace in our group. The practice also works in the other direction. Anytime anyone in our group needs flexibility at work our manager bends over backwards to accommodate them. Time off for family, school or being sick is always granted.
Leader-Member Exchange and leadership making has definitely brought some perspective in to the leadership structure at my job.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
I found your blog very interesting I had a similar experience in the work place and I also wrote about it. I too was part of the in-group for the same reasons you were, like putting forth extra effort in my work. I took the issue my co-worker was having upon myself to try and fix. This was a huge learning experience for me; to my shock in the end I don’t think this person wanted any change.
This person seemed content to stay in the out group; it was almost an easy excuse to just do the bare minimum at work. I felt like for him it was easier to blame other people for his situation than try to do anything about it and make a change. This put a lot of strain on our working relationship, I tried not to get angry but sometimes it got the best of me. I realized I felt this way because I take a lot of pride in my work and doing a good job, and feel like it is a reflection on me. In thinking about the difference’s different people have about work, I think some of this goes back to what we learned early on in our reading of Northouse (2013), I think our values were instilled in us by the people we learned from growing up.
I know my parents had a lot to do with instilling a work ethic in me and have helped me be part of what is considered the “In-group” in the Leader-Exchange Theory. In working hard and developing a rapport with your co-workers and managers you earn a mutual respect for one another. This does transcend beyond the work place environment as you pointed out, that when someone needs support with family impacted or illness time-off someone else is willing to pitch in and help out.
I took the issue with my co-worker personally sometimes blaming myself for the situation and trying to step back from bringing ideas to the table. I thought maybe by stepping back it would allow my co-worker to step out of the box and show his talents but nothing came of it. I realized I couldn’t change someone else, and I needed to continue to put my best effort out there. I did not want to sabotage my career for someone who didn’t want to help their own.
Reference
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.