Who is In and Who is Out?

This week’s lesson on the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) was interesting because it focused on the relationship between the leader and follower.  The quality of exchange between the leader and a follower can influence which group the follower belongs to, the in-group or the out-group.   Everyone, at some point in life, has experienced being part of an in-group or an out-group, whether at work, school, or within the family dynamics.  Depending on the situation, many people would rather not be labeled as a member of the out-group.  Why?  Usually, a member of an out-group gets treated poorly in comparison to peers who are members of the in-group, especially when the in-group includes the leader.  Northouse (2013) explained that “low-quality leader-member relationships” can be disadvantageous to followers of the out-group because of the lack support, extra benefits, and trust from leader (p. 168).  In contrast, members belonging to an in-group receive more attention and benefits from the leader, establishing high-quality leader-member relationships (Northouse, 2013).

In my opinion, in-group and out-group dynamics in any situation can be harmful any environment where people need to work together.  The criticisms of the LMX theory, mentions the “undesirable effects on the group as a whole” when there in-groups and out-groups are present (Northouse, 2013, p. 171).  For a unit, such as an organization, team, family, community, and so forth to succeed and progress, effective communication and high-quality leader-member relationships need to be established with all members (Northouse, 2013).  I have witnessed situations in each environment, such as family, work, and school where poor-quality leader-follower relationships, with in-groups and out-groups present, negatively affected a unit’s progress, outcome, and overall goal.

I do have a discrepancy with understanding the concept of in-group and out-group as defined by Northouse (2013).  From what I understand the LMX theory views in-group members as those compatible and liked by the leader because they do more for the leader?   An out-group member, from what I understand, is viewed as a member who does what is expected of them and does not get involved with social relationships with others in the unit?    In a professional setting I find this behavior to be unethical because the perceived or real favoritism towards in-group members could create a hostile work environment, especially for out-group members.  Does the, I will scratch your back if you scratch mine, analogy apply here?  Another question, what happens if an “out-group” member is exceeding expectations and does try to socially connect with the leader and the in-group, but never is accepted by the in-group?

When my son started Kindergarten, I worked at a local restaurant in town while he attended school.  I was one of the lead daytime waitresses who opened in the mornings most days of the week.  I was around 23 years old then.  I had previous restaurant experience from when I worked as a waitress for an Asian restaurant when I was 14 years old and from when I worked as a hostess when I was 15 years old.  After the age of 16 years old, I acquired office jobs and attended college for a few couple of semesters before working at this particular waitressing job. The job was a temporary way to make money, while focusing on my education and raising my son.

In contrast, the other daytime opener was a middle age woman who has been working as a waitress her entire life, so she was a veteran in the business and quite aggressive in her strategies to succeed.  Regardless of her aggressive strategies including stealing tips and customers from other waitresses, or not doing her assigned team roles, she was still in the in-group with the store manager.  Many waitresses and hostesses did not like her character, but she played a good role for the store manager.

The store manager favored this particular waitress over other waitresses and employees who exceeded their responsibilities and expectations.  As time passed things became progressively worse when members of the so-called “out-group” had enough injustices because many of the employees confronted the waitress personally.  This increased the tension and decreased team effectiveness.  No matter how much this particular waitress showed qualities of being an out-group member, as far not meeting job expectations hired for and her character, the manager and her related on personality qualities and age.

In the end both the store manager and waitress were fired, but not until a couple years later and after many others quit.  Many employees quit because of poor quality leader-follower relationship with our leader/manager.   Waitresses could not trust the manager because he would not acknowledge her wrong behaviors and did nothing create a better work environment for everyone.   Favoritism and establishing an in-group destroyed something really good, an effective team, but as followers many of us could not withstand the unfair and discriminatory treatment from our leader.

My thoughts overall, is the LMX theory was right to modify and express the benefits of unit effectiveness when leaders consider all members to belong to the in-group, when possible (Northouse, 2013).  I understand that in reality there will always be in-groups and out-groups, but I do not support it as part of leadership process and I personally do not see any benefits in allowing it to continue.  Furthermore, I do understand that some members may not want to be part of the in-group, but I do feel it should always be an option available to all members at all times.

Reference

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks,       California: SAGE Publications, Inc.