The leader-member exchange theory takes a different approach than most of the theories we have been researching to date. This theory conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on interactions between leaders and followers (Northouse, p. 161) The relationship between the leader and the followers is equally as important as any other aspect of the leader’s role. Creating an environment where followers are stakeholders allows for the leader-member exchange to grow.
In every organization, the subordinates are part of the in-group or out-group, based on how well they work with the leader (Northouse, p.163). There are many variables that play into which group each follower becomes part of and the role of the follower is often based on which group they become part of. Subordinates in the in-group receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leader than those in the out-group (Northouse, p.163). The in group is a cluster of followers that the leader relies on to carry out their vision and support with decision making.
When analyzing the different roles the in-group and out-group have, I began to think about my wife’s job as a school teacher. In her high school building, there is a clear definition of leadership (administration) and followers (teachers and staff). The line is very clear and this includes the fact that there is a separation by union. The teachers are part of a teachers association whereas the administrators are part of their own union. There is no confusion who runs the building and who is responsible to carry out the mission of educating the students.
Like in all organizations, however, there are in-group and out-group clusters of teachers. The in-group has the opportunity to part take in committees that help the administration make major decisions and gain information prior to the rest of the staff. The in-group has monthly meetings with the supervisors to provide feedback about scheduling, testing, etc., whereas the out-group does not. How does one become part of the in-group? It’s not always an easy task. The staff member has to gain the trust of the administration and their input must be valuable to the leadership. Proving this may take time, but according to my wife, there are people that infiltrate their in-group.
As mentioned in the text, there are phases in leadership making. The goal is to go from phase one being a stranger to phase three being in partnership (Northouse p. 166). Once the follower has become a partner, there is a mutual trust and respect in the relationship. The most effective leaders are able to create partnerships with their followers so that positive outcomes are produced. As in the high school example above, even organizations with a clear definition of leaders and followers have the ability to create leader-member exchange in efforts to promote success.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice (6th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
sif5164 says
I think in a lot of organizations, the in-group goes by some other names: the ‘good old boys club’, the brown-nosers, the go-getters, or the busybodies. These types of people are seen in a huge variety of organizations throughout the world, and in large organizations even more so. Note that Northouse (2013) describes the out-group as based on “the formal employment contract (defined roles)”, while the in-group as based on “expanded and negotiated role responsibilities (extra-roles)” (p. 163). In this definition, it is essential to do extra work, to sacrifice one’s own free time toward something that is not strictly one’s job, in order to gain membership in the in-group. This might not be the only way, in my opinion, but it seems like one of the most usual ways of gaining admittance. Some people might find a natural and easy friendship with a leader who shares their hobbies or mindset, and that would be another possible way to get into the in-group. Still, it seems likely that people who volunteer above and beyond their contracted obligations will become part of the in-group, and it would probably be a much quicker process than that of someone who is simply a long-term performer in their only their contracted obligations.
Most of the time, members of the out-group probably look upon the in-group as a bunch of overachievers, people who are constantly volunteering for extra things just to kiss up to the boss. In a lot of cases, it can be distasteful to watch someone obviously playing the yes-man, and fawning over everything the boss says. Still, in many cases, this can make that person into a favorite of leadership. From a pragmatic standpoint, this can easily be a very good option for career advancement, however many people might feel that it kills a little bit of a person’s soul, acting this way.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.