As a leader, we constantly strive to define our role. Every day we look at ways to better our organizations, our teams and our workforce. It is not as simple as just telling followers what to do and expecting instant results. Depending on the situation, our work teams or individual followers sometimes contribute more and then sometimes they contribute less. We all have seen this if you have spent any time in the work force. Some excel and other just do what it takes or the bare minimum to get by. The groups that excel are typically the in-groups and the one who do not are commonly referred to as the out-group. What is critical to understand here is that by no fault of their own, the leader will typically have a better relationship with, or gravitate more energy towards the in-group than they do to the out-group. Some believe this could be somewhat unfair, but the truth of the matter is, that the Leader-Member Exchange theory clearly describes this state of affairs and a leader will always tend to revert to their star players or teams that have energy and produce. It is simple; those that contribute more receive more and those that do not, receive less.
The key here is the dynamic relationship between the leader and follower. This relationship is the centerpiece of the leadership process with effective leadership being contingent on effective leader-member exchanges. I can relate to this theory because I too tend to gravitate to the work groups that have energy and the ones who get more work done.
From my experiences, communication in the in-group is by far better than in the out-groups.
Everyone what’s to be in the in-group but everyone can’t be in this group. To have an in-group, you need the out-group. I won’t go into my competition theory between the groups but I will mention that competition can be waged between these two groups as they maneuver between the in and out groups. Typically an organization will not let a in-group stay together for long because it is better to pass the “wealth” or what is being done correct so that the other groups can grow.
I have found that communication is key when working with followers. Not just communication, but high-quality exchanges (Northouse, 2013), which are indicative to the LMX theory. I have found that this exchange in many cases is the result of an effective leader with years of understanding the communications process, and then fostering an environment of passing critical information while weeding out the unneeded material within his groups. Most believe that communication is somewhat of a process of providing information. I have found in my day-to-day interaction with my work force that communication as a competency must go beyond just the simple transmission of information. It must achieve new understanding while creating new of better awareness.
Over the years, I have observed out-groups but also what I refer to as out-group leaders. They will sit in their office with the door closed and rarely interact with their subordinates. For the most part these individuals never move up and only accomplish a minimal about of work. Their teams preform respectively. Communication between the out-group leader and out-group rarely happen. When it does, it is mostly ineffective. This out-group leader theory deserves additional study.
In most cases, the leader treats the out-group supervisor and out-group teams fairly and according to their contract, but they rarely gain special favors or special attention for their efforts. Take for instance a group of office secretaries where I work, that have been in the same positions for many years. They have not received a raise and they do the minimal about of work to get by. They are treated accordingly as an out-group of employee.
Reference
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.