With the introduction of the leader-member exchange theory (LMX) we are learning about in-group and out-groups. In-groups are fairly easy to identify. They are the ones that have established relationships with leadership, and typically go above and beyond work wise (PSU WC, 2017). The out-group are the employees who do their job and little more (PSU WC, 2017). The quote that really made an impact on me is, “they don’t want to identify strongly with the workgroup” (PSU WC, 2017). While I can understand some people want to do their jobs and go home, what if there is more to it. What if they have a voice that is just not being heard?
Right after the turn of the century, my company adopted a modified version of continuous improvement process known as Kaizen. This has stretched into each and every office of our company, from the way we take care of customers, to the way we set up our desks. When there is a process or procedure that is not achieving its full benefit, Kaizen allows us to drill down to the basic foundation and make modifications. This is a team event, and the team will tackle the process, and find a way of doing the process that is more efficient and more successful. The Toyota Way (LIKER, 2004) shows us how Toyota utilized this philosophy to impact their business model.
Another aspect of the Kaizen is employee engagement. This is an activity that allows employees to have their say anonymously. They can say whatever they want without fear of retribution. The results are tallied and reviewed by leadership. Leadership will then pick a team member who will invite other employees to join a review team. This team will have a Kaizen event where they will take what the employees said, and try to come up with solutions. This could be anything from employee satisfaction to how sales are handled with customers.
Last year, I had to opportunity to pick the team member who would lead a Kaizen event with the results of our employee survey. I spent a great deal of time thinking about this, as I feel this is a tremendous undertaking, but a very rewarding one for the employees. I believe it is especially rewarding for employees with are dissatisfied with the company. For this event I did something rather unorthodox, I asked the most out-group employee to lead the team. I was hoping to get him more involved with the work group. I ended up getting more than I bargained for.
At first, he was extremely reluctant to accept the position. So, I spent some time going through all the requirements, and benefits of the event. I showed him some rewards of past events and changes that were made with our policies. Then I told him I chose him because he does a really terrific job with his work, and I felt like this was something he would be very successful with. “True empowerment requires that a leader relinquish come control, giving out-group members more control” (Northouse, 2012, p162). By relinquishing control, I empowered him to have an impact directly affected his working environment.
Watching him go thru this process with the other employees was like watching a butterfly emerge from its cocoon. He took the material I gave him, and took full ownership of the team. After they had successfully completed their event, I asked for his thoughts. Ultimately, it came down to his voice in the company. His whole work experience as an out-group member was a lack of a voice. He finally felt he had been given some control.
While I understand this will not always be the case for an out-group member, in the instance it was successful. I took his formal employment contract, and gave him the opportunity to expand his role with the company (PSU WC, 2017). By giving an out-group member a voice he learned he could have an impact on leadership (Northouse, 2012, p162).
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Listening to out-group members: Case study NUMMI Commandos. Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (2nd ed.). (pp. 162-164). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
LIKER, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2017). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved October 22, 2017 from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867456/modules/items/22975729
cms41 says
Hello Amy:
I enjoyed reading about the success of your out-group intervention. I must agree that I observe a great deal of out-group and in-group behavior in my own workplace. I also, often wonder what would happen if these people were invited to speak, asked for their input, or provided an opportunity to give an opinion. Not all people have extrovert personalities and some who are in lower paying positions or not endowed with a title or academic reference feel their input is not important. LMX research shows that empowerment through leader-member relationships are important to job satisfaction especially for those employees who feel less empowered (Northouse, 2016 p141). Many times, I see leaders who just do not reach out to the out-group to ask for their input. These leaders simply work within the confines of their in-group because that is convenient and does not require extra time or energy. Leaders might believe that if you are not speaking up then you have nothing to contribute. Out-group people often wait to be asked for their input. This is not in their best interest or the teams but it remains to be true. LMX theory indicates, that during the acquaintance phase it is important for leaders to improve social exchanges and seek follower interest and provide challenges (Northouse, 2016 p143).
I consider myself an in-group person in my office. I am an extrovert, willing to do extra tasks, interested in what other departments and teams are accomplishing. I do not have a degree and I am one of the lowest paid employees but I have been around awhile. I keep up to date on things, I listen, and I observe. I ask questions and give my opinion, ideas, and input no matter what others might think. I believe that these are contributions to being a part of the in-group. I know others in the same position as me, who know nothing about the company except what is directly related to their position. Out-group persons base their relationships on the formal employment contract and in return receive less information, responsibility, confidence, and concern (Northouse, 2016, p138). Because I communicate with the out-group members, I know they have contributions, would do more if asked, feel inconsequential and are an unused resource. In my opinion, lower level or younger, less-experienced employees often feel intimidated, disrespected, or just not knowledgeable enough to give any input. They keep quiet and only a good leader can draw them out and encourage them to join the in-group. Leaders should offer all members the opportunity to join the in-group and build quality relationships with all members (Northouse, 2016 p145).
Cynthia
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage