The organization where I am employed has a very unique set up of departments. It can best be described by the early studies of the Leader-Exchange theory. It was broken up into two groups the in-group and the out group (PSU WC, L.8, pg.3). We have some employees that are contracted through a union, which is our out-group. Other employees are hired full-time and paid salaries; these employees form the in-group.
The many unions that are contracted are like the out-groups in the Leader-Member Exchange theory. The unions are contracted for specific jobs, like plumbing, electric, and painting. The out-groups are defined as “employees who only do exactly what their job description says they need to do” (PSU WC, L.8, pg.3). Our union contracts are set up exactly that way. The plumbers are only able to do plumbing work, just like the electricians doing electrical work. They work 7:00am until 3:30pm. Exceptions are made for overtime only if it is paid. These out-group unions are based explicitly in their contract with our organization and make no exceptions that are outside the contract.
In-groups are more like my department. We have expanded and negotiated role responsibilities. These responsibilities “go beyond the formal job description” (PSU WC, L.8, pg.3). While our job descriptions outline our major tasks, we are called upon to make sure the day-to-day operation of the football fields is successful, regardless of whether or not it is in the description. My department may paint, work on irrigation, and move football goal posts all in one day, resulting in an extra hour of work without extra pay. We are all salary, and often we work overtime without any extra compensation. In our minds, this is just how the job gets done. Our job description is just an outline, rather than a bottom line.
My organization has many interactions between the in- and out-groups. While we can work together in unison to get the job done, there are many differences that make the interactions frustrating at times. While it is comforting to have security in knowing who to call and when to call them, the strict contractual agreements make unions seem like lesser team players.
Reference
- The Pennsylvania State University. (2014). Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory. 485: Leadership in a Work Setting. At: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/03_topic/03_page.html
Early in the development of the Leader-member exchange theory the approach focused on what was called the “vertical dyad” (Northouse, 2013). This theory was based solely on the vertical relationship between leader and follower and through this relationship two general types of groups were formed. As I read this post, it was very clear that the temporary contract union workers were part of the out-group as explained by Northouse (2013). These workers came in and performed what was asked of them and nothing more. It was clear that there were two defined groups at the organization- those that went beyond the normal job description and those that stuck to their contract.
The main question that comes to mind is in regard to the leadership at your organization. Early studies with this theory focused on the idea that there were two significant groups that formed in a workplace. However, later studies revealed that, “the quality of leader-member exchanges was related to positive outcomes for leaders, followers, groups and the organization in general” (Northouse, 2013, p.164). The point here is that everyone seems to benefit from positive relationships. I wonder if the leader of your organization ever reached out to any of the contract workers to become part of the “in-group”. If not, perhaps he or she took time to build strong relationships with these temporary workers. Many temporary workers have greater concerns than permanent workers mainly surrounding the idea that job security isn’t ever a guarantee. I’m hopeful that your leader reached out this “out-group” and at least gave them the opportunity to form better relationships. As we saw above, better relationships between leaders and followers according the leader-member exchange theory only help to increase creativity, production and a better organization. These strong relationships define the axiom of a “win-win” situation.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.