How do leaders get subordinates to accomplish organizational goals? Depending on who needs to know, this could end up being a million dollar question if answered successfully. Some of the ways I have seen leaders influencing followers involved threats, intimidation, punishment, coercion, positive incentives and even rewards but not usually the latter two. Regardless of the incentive, the bottom line still has to involve the task being completed. I also think that we could agree that there are obviously better ways than others to accomplish this. Personally, for me, any approach that allows for mutual respect and kindness between the leader and the follower is exemplar. Here, I would like to focus on the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. According to Northouse (2013), the theory works in two ways: it describes leadership, and it prescribes leadership. It is the leadership making principle of this prescriptive aspect that I feel applies here. More so, it is understanding the importance of the leadership making according to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991) that I feel can help achieve organizational goals in the most harmonious way.
As for other theories, some examine the leader, the follower and/or the situation. As examples, the trait approach examines the personality and character traits possessed by the leader, servant leadership focuses on putting the followers needs first, and situational leadership analyses the (yes, you probably guessed it) nature of the situation. As for the LMX theory, the underlying concept is for the leader to achieve a high quality exchange with all subordinates (Northouse, 2013). Descriptively, the leader member relationship exists as in-groups and out-groups. Goals can be accomplished by both, but in-group members may go the extra mile whereas out-group members don’t. If it further helps to increase understanding, in-group members are described as being more dependable, highly involved and receive more concern from the leaders and out-group members will seldom receive additional responsibilities because they tend to operate strictly within prescribed organizational roles (Northouse, 2013). The key, I believe, is to put as much emphasis on quality relationships with all subordinates so that favoritism or biases do not creep in. This way, leaders strive to develop all subordinates as in-group members. In line with this belief, I would like to further explain leadership making as a prescriptive aspect of the LMX theory.
Leadership making is a prescriptive approach to leadership emphasizing that a leader should develop high-quality exchanges with all of the leader’s subordinates rather than just a few (Northouse, 2013). This is where we find the Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991) model which suggests that leadership making develops progressively overt time in three phases being the stranger phase, the acquaintance phase, and the mature partnership phase. Throughout each phase the leader member relationship develops until a true goal oriented, high quality partnership marked by in-group attributes is obtained. In the stranger phase low quality exchanges occur, similar to those of out-group members primarily based on prescribed roles (Northouse, 2013). In the acquaintance phase new personal and professional interaction is tested with a greater focus on group goals. In the mature partnership the relationship is more reciprocal in nature when it comes to the needs of the leader and member based on the greater good of all involved to include the organization.
Positive relationships between the leader and the follower are critical. In the end, if a leader and follower do not have a mutual relationship of trust, respect, and obligation they may still accomplish goals out of necessity but they certainly will not be loyal at heart to each other, their counterparts, or the organization. And while this out-group interaction may still get the job done, it does not make for a healthy or ideal work environment. In my opinion, I think it is not enough to understand the descriptive aspects of the LMX theory but that it is much more important to understanding the leadership making aspects and to strive for in-group dyads among all subordinates in order to accomplish a harmonious relationship and productive work environment which is needed just about everywhere in the business world.
References:
Graen, G. G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The Transformation of Professionals into Self-Managing and Partially Self-Designing Contributors: Toward a Theory of Leadership-Making. Journal of Management Systems, 3:3, pp. 25-39.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Threats, coercion, and intimidation are careful lines to walks when it comes to influence. In my experience, that type of influence can easily lead to insubordination. In my experience, when a leader tries to influence with fear, the tasks completed are not always done to the best of one’s ability. It is done to the point where the fear subsides. As pointed out, there are other ways to accomplish the mission. Respect, kindness, honesty, and integrity should define the relationship between a leader and follower. This allows each follower a chance to be in the in-group and reap the benefits of the exchange, whether it’s extra responsibilities or even rewards. From my experiences, these respectful relationships yielded the most positive results. Jobs were accomplished, positive mentor-ship was achieved, and both the leader and follower came out the better. I learned it was much better to try and develop a relationship as a leader where everyone was considered part of the in-group.
The relationship between a leader and a follower must be a respectful and honest one. When these relationships are messed up, we get the out-groups. Out-groups are not simply those that decide they only want to do the minimum amount of work, they are also those that have come to feel betrayed or underappreciated. Sometimes there are multiple leaders, and followers are only out-group status to some of those leaders. In the organization that I am in now, there are a few leaders (about 4) that take care of the younger members while attending meetings. These leaders have all different leadership styles and approaches to situations. Unfortunately, most of these are contradictory. I have members that will come to me for every little thing, but will sit there and constantly complain about another leader and the way that they handle situations. Then there creates in-groups and out-groups that are hard to keep track of.