She was always the first to raise her hand when the teacher asked a question, and always the first to turn in her test. She reminded the teacher to collect or assign homework, and always asked for extra credit assignments. We all knew one of these people in school: she was the teacher’s pet.
We’re all familiar with the idea of the teacher’s pet, and as adults, we can look back and say that in some cases, the annoyance we felt toward the teacher’s pet came from jealousy more than an actual dislike for our classmate. The teacher’s pet, in my experience, seemed to enjoy school and had a different relationship with the teacher than the rest of the class. The teacher seemed to favor that student, giving better grades, or paying more attention than to anyone else. The interaction between the teacher and teacher’s pet was simply different, which frequently resulted in teasing or other negative behaviors from classmates.
Now that we’re adults, we still see the teacher’s pet phenomenon occuring at work between a co-worker and supervisor. We might still call it a teacher’s pet relationship, but a much more grown-up perspective is to consider the relationship through the eyes of the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory.
Leader-member exchange theory takes an approach toward leadership that focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2012). In early studies of LMX theory, or vertical dyad linkage theory as it was known at the time, researchers characterized two general types of interactions between leaders and followers: in-group relationships were based on “negotiated role responsibilities,” and out-group relationships were based on defined roles (Northouse, 2012). The method of determining whether a person is part of the in-group or out-group comes from examining how well the leader and follower work together; in-group individuals demonstrate an interest and willingness toward taking on tasks or responsibilities beyond those normally required of them, while out-group individuals tend to be satisfied with performing to the minimum requirements of their positions (Northouse, 2012).
Going back to our school example, the teacher’s pet phenomenon demonstrates the idea of the in-group as defined by LMX theory. The teacher’s pet is willing to put forth the best possible effort in the classroom, and to take on additional work to prove interest in and commitment to the class and the teacher, and is therefore more likely to receive more attention and effort from the teacher (Northouse, 2012). The rest of the class demonstrates the idea of the out-group, coming to class because they are required to, and doing only the bare minimum of what is expected of them to pass the class (Northouse, 2012).
The teacher’s pet phenomenon also demonstrates some of the problems that arise when the in-group and out-group are so easily differentiated; the biggest problem is that the out-group, in this case the class, perceives the teacher as showing favoritism. This could result in a decrease in respect for the teacher, or reduced motivation in the students. Also, the other students will likely feel resentment toward the teacher’s pet. These same issues are present in the work place; a supervisor who plays favorites jeopardizes the ability of the work unit to work as a cohesive, productive unit (Northouse, 2012).
A solution to this issue is to take the approach prescribed by the leadership-making model, which suggests that leaders should find ways to build strong, healthy relationships with all of their followers as equitably as possible, so that the whole group becomes an in-group (Northouse, 2012). The mark of a great teacher is one who is able to move the entire class forward together – it is far easier for a teacher to lavish praise on a couple of students who have fallen into his or her favor, but far more effective to make efforts toward creating positive relationships with each student.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.