Everyone wants to have a happy work environment; one in which they can show up every day and get their jobs done, while also having a good time in the process. As leaders, we also want to believe that the environments we are creating for our followers are ones in which they feel the same way: that they too can show up each day, do their jobs and be happy while doing it. We’d like to assume that all relationships that are being formed, particularly between leaders and followers, are based upon mutual trust and respect. It would also be ideal that all leader-member exchanges taking place would be mutually productive and reciprocal. Unfortunately, these utopian descriptions are ones that seldom occurs in organizations, and what occurs most often is the formation of in-groups and out-groups.
Northouse (2016) describes the leader-member exchange theory as “a process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and followers” (p. 137). In particular, the leadership-member exchange theory focuses on the direct interaction between one leader and one follower. Individuals can become members of one of the in-group, or members of the out-group based upon “how well they work with the leader and how well the leader works with them” (Northouse, 2016, p. 137). The symbiotic and reciprocal nature of this relationship cannot be overlooked. In-group members are just as likely to give back as much as their taking in the form of work performance and relationship support. Out-group members are not reciprocal in the nature of their exchanges with the leader. Northouse (2016) states “whereas in-group members do extra things for the leader and the leader does the same for them, followers in the out-group are less compatible with the leader and usually just come to work, do their job, and go home” (p. 139).
If, however, a leader finds themselves surrounded by what they consider to be out-group members, they may need to consider one very important fact: half of the participants in the leader-member is the leader themselves. When considering the leader-member exchange, an effective leader should be asking themselves if they are creating an environment that more readily produces out-group members. In other words, a leader should ask themselves: “Am I part of the problem?” when considering who is in the out-groups. A leader should always be considering how they can help make members of the out-group become part of the in-group, and perhaps get a little bit closer to the aforementioned ideal workplace environment all of us should be striving for. Northouse (2016) notes “leadership making is a prescriptive approach to leadership emphasizing that leaders should develop high-quality exchanges with all of their followers rather than just a few” (p.141). Ultimately, leaders are responsible for helping make their environment as close to ideal as possible for all members of their team.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Kirk says
Thank you both for taking the time to read my post, and thank you for the constructive feedback!
Armin Vossooghi says
Hi Kirk
I liked how you straight get to the point of how important it is to have mutual respect and trust amongst employers and their followers. As you have mentioned it yourself, it is all about the positive environment that can be created for both the leader and the follower to work in. As the lesson mentions it too, being part of the in-group and or out-group does not stop in high school unfortunately, and it is childish in my opinion that these groups even exists in work places were adults are the ones in charge.
The Leader-Member Exchange theory focuses on inter communication amongst the leader and followers and as I was reading the lesson, it seems very clear that even though it has its weaknesses such as it runs counter to the basic human values and fairness, it also doesn’t mention how trust and respect is built within this theory (PSU, 2018).
I really liked the idea of how leaders should make a work environment to where if there is an out-group, the leader makes them part of the in-group. That sounds like something a leader should do and would think of doing to better the work environment for everyone.
References:
Penn State University, (2018). Psychology 485: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX).
Hannah J Mcmanis says
Hi Kirk,
I really liked how your put the focus on the leaders as well, and what you said is true, it is up to the leaders as well as the followers to collaborate to help avoid forming of in and out groups in the workplace. In being a retail store manager, I have seen both leaders and followers who have been the source of why such groups begin to form. I’ve seen managers who just for one reason or another do not like a particular associate so they do not do their best to help provide those people with opportunities to be as successful, or feel as part of the team. I’ve also seen followers who just want to collect a paycheck for as little work and effort as they can put into it without being fired. I know for me, personally, seeing both of these instances has made me a better leader because I’ve seen how not to act, and how to act in order to give everyone equal opportunities and avoid in and out groups. As I stated in my discussion post and my blog however, sometimes you can do everything you can as a leader to set people up for growth and success, and some people are just not interested for one reason or another. When people have these types of attitudes, and are not eligible for employment termination, you cannot avoid in and out groups forming, because those people’s attitudes and habits will affect the others and they will either join in, or step and do more to succeed, naturally forming those groups. In my opinion, LMX is a manageable, yet unavoidable aspect of being part of a group or organization whether you’re a leader or a follower.