Imagine yourself within a company that the leader (your boss) is classified as someone who favors a specific group of people. This group is not based on gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc., it is simply based on your performance. How would you act in this situation and what would it say about your character in a company? Would you be someone who is actively trying to produce a higher performance or someone who slacks off? Well, within the company that I used to work for as a waitress, there was a manager who had an in-group and an out-group. What is this you ask? Well, this is a part of the Leadership- member exchange theory or better known as LMX theory (Northouse, 2016). LMX theory is based upon a specific process that is shown through leader and follower interactions (Psych 485, L.8). My companies General Manager, had these groups shown through everything she did. I believe that it both help and hurt the company. You could reach the in-group by three specific phases that are presented by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991). These phases are; the stranger phase, the acquaintance stage, and the mature- partnership stage (Northouse, 2016).
The first phase, known as the stranger phase is “the fresh air” stage of the relationship. The leader and follower do not know much about each other when they first start working. The only thing that they know is the roles that they’re going to play. When I first stepped into this serving job, I met my general manager and she was a very charismatic individual. I started off just by doing my job and slowly increasing performance because she would encourage me. I would never do anything that was entrusting to her or the company. This would attribute to her positive attitude towards me and we would eventually turn into the acquaintance stage.
The next stage, the acquaintance stage is when the individual will receive career- enhancing benefits (Northouse, 2016). In other words, they will in the said in- group and be able to grow positively in the company. As for me, when I made it to this stage, my boss gave me special opportunities to advance. For example, she first had me promoted to bartender where I would be making much more money and have more experience. This would entail closing the restaurant by myself if I would need to, having the responsibility of alcohol and obviously having much more duties. I believe that this positively helped out relationship because I would close with her almost every night. She would eventually have me do manager duties as well to make sure I could advance even more.
This is where the last stage of mature- partnership comes into play for me. This is when the leader and follower look out for one another (Northouse, 2016). This can also entail that they each understand each other and work well together. I was eventually given the opportunity after about 2 years, to become an assistant manager. Within this period of time, I learned how to close a restaurant, be a cook and a bartender. I was taught all of these things and enhanced just because of my performance of being a hard- worker at this job. This enhanced my career by learning all of these new responsibilities because I can classify myself as a leader now.
I believe that performance is the most important factor of a trait within an employee. It means that they are consciousness to the fact that it is important to obtain and withhold this persona. It will help the company and employees can get into this “in-group.” Within this group, they will be able to enhance their career, learn more about themselves and learn a lot more. I think that LMX theory does a great job of explaining this and should be looked at more seriously.
Works Cited:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2016). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Power and Influence. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su16/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/03_page.html
The leader follower relationship that was being exhibited within the hospitality setting is that of a dyadic relationship. In your particular experience you could have been seen as part of the out group in the beginning and eventually transitioned into the in group as (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) personality and other personal characteristics are related to this process (Northouse, p. 138).
During your time in what you described to be the stranger phase, you met your general manager initially and slowly began to learn the ins and outs of your new position. The quality of exchanges were mostly based on your core job roles and did not extend any further. (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) The motives of the follower during the stranger phase are directed toward self-interest rather than toward the good of the group (Northouse, p. 142). This was exhibited by your actions of refraining from doing anything that was out of your normal job scope of server.
Your view of your leader was that of a charismatic individual that would encourage you. Entering the acquaintance stage was a natural progression due to the interactions you and your leader had during what I would see as possibly the end of the stranger phase. In a study of the early stages of leader– member relationship development, (Nahrgang, Morgeson, and Ilies, 2009) found that leaders look for followers who exhibit enthusiasm, participation, gregariousness, and extraversion. In contrast, followers look for leaders who are pleasant, trusting, cooperative, and agreeable (Northouse, p. 142). You were given special opportunities to advance due to your leader seeing that you were not slacking off and generally showing enthusiasm and interest in your serving role. Additionally, it was the view you had of your leader that facilitated the exchange as you saw her as someone that was encouraging and began trusting her. This is where I would classify you as officially in the in group. Relationships within the in-group are marked by mutual trust, respect, liking, and reciprocal influence (Northouse, p. 140).
After spending a bit more time within the acquaintance stage where you began to take on duties that were contributing to your growth within the organization. These negotiations involve exchanges in which followers do certain activities that go beyond their formal job descriptions, and the leader, in turn, does more for these followers (Northouse, p. 138). You were assigned the alcohol duties and eventually closing the store which is a manager’s responsibility, The relationship was a natural progression that began entering a mature partnership. Leaders and members have tested their relationship and found that they can depend on each other. In mature partnerships, there is a high degree of reciprocity between leaders and followers (Northouse, p. 143).
You were eventually promoted to Assistant manager as (Harris et al., 2009) the benefits for employees who develop high-quality leader– member relationships include preferential treatment, increased job-related communication, ample access to supervisors, and increased performance-related feedback (Northouse, p. 144). You were also functioning as a bartender, cook, and closing the store. You were a integral member of the in group and had a strong mature partnership with your leader exhibited as you had moved beyond your own self-interests to accomplish the greater good of the team and organization
(Northouse, p. 143).
Your experience in the hospitality setting is a great example where (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) high-quality leader– member exchanges produced less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater organizational commitment, more desirable work assignments, better job attitudes, more attention and support from the leader, greater participation, and faster career progress (Northouse, p. 140).
References:
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46– 78.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader– member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6( 2), 219– 247.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader– member exchange. Article of Applied Psychology, 78,662– 674.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, R. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256– 266.
Northouse, Peter G. (2016) Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.