Do sports have in and out-groups?
Many leadership styles or theory’s focus primarily on the leader, follower, and or the context of the situation. Yet, not many leadership theories are contingent on the dyadic relationship between the leader and follower. Thus, in this Blog post, I will be discussing the leader-member exchange theory (LMX Theory) from a member’s perspective. More specifically, I will be using my past experience in high school baseball to discuss how leaders can positively and negatively impact the behaviors in athletes.
First off, what is the LMX Theory? According to Leadership-centeral.com, they explain the LMX theory’s origins emerged from transformational theory in the 1970’s by authors Fred Dansereau, George Graen, and William J. Haga. The theory’s main premise is for leaders to focus on building high-quality leader-follower relationships to increase work performance and efficiency (Leadership-Central, 2016). Northouse (2016) continues deliberating how the theory works in two ways, descriptively and prescriptively (Northouse, 2016).
Descriptively, the theory stresses the importance of leaders being able to recognize that followers exist within two categories, in-groups, and out-groups. In-group members are recognized by their leader for going above and beyond their normal work agreement. In doing so, in-group members are closer to their managers, typically earning themselves preferential treatment over out-group members. In contrast, out-group members will only do the minimum required of them. Hence, one will only act in a manner to which he or she will not be reprimanded or fired. So, after one has established the existence of in and out-groups. The leader must then prescribe to him or herself how to create high-quality relationships with followers. The goal is to reduce turnover, increase employee performance and satisfaction by keep in-group members in and bring out-group members to become in-group members (Northouse, 2016).
So how does a leader build a high-quality relationship with their followers? Northouse (2016) describes this prescriptive process in three phases, the stranger phase, the acquaintance phase, and the mature partnership phase. The stranger phase is the baseline of leader-follower engagement. A leader and follower will only interact with one another based on the situational need, such as a leader giving an assignment to the follower or the follower turning in that assignment without any other context in-between. In the acquaintance phase, trust and respect are starting to be developed as interactions between the leader and follower are improving. This can be typically found as a leader is placing greater responsibilities upon his or her follower. And lastly, as stated by Northouse, the mature partnership phase “is marked by high-quality leader-member exchanges… relationships experience a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation toward each other. They have tested their relationship and found that they can depend on each other… Thus, there is a high degree of reciprocity between the leaders and followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 143).
Furthermore, how do sports and behavior fit into this picture? Just as leaders in businesses are building high-quality relationships to improve worker performance. Coaches are also working to build high-quality relationships to increase player performance. Thus, in and out groups exist among athletes as well. Going back to my junior and varsity baseball years in high school. I had a different coach each year and a different relationship with each coach which had different behavioral results for me as an athlete.
Starting with my junior year, I was enthusiastic to be picked among others to join our varsity baseball team. Thus, I had a strong work ethic to practice and work hard to be a starter. I started as an in-group member of the varsity team, I knew most of the players well and had played with my coach before in the summer. So, I would state our relationship phase started at the second level acquaintance phase. We had good communication and I made strides to impress him during practice and games. However, after about one-third of our season was over, I realized my coach played favorites. Thus, regardless of how hard I worked and performed during our practice and games, I did not have a chance to become a starter. For example, one of our starters was injured yet, he was still playing in front of other capable players. Learning this significantly damage my drive and work ethic. I slowly lost my progression towards gaining a high-quality relationship with my coach, falling back into the stranger phase, and became an out-group member on the team. My coach did not try to recover our relationship which made me feel worse, I was an average to good player so I did not feel as if I was lacking in skill (from an objective standpoint). One could argue that a team sport is a team sport and no in or out-groups exist. However, a coach is still one’s leader, and a leader can neglect or have a bias towards a follower. Thus, the treatment from coach caused my behaviors change in a negative manner (Northouse, 2016).
Moreover, Northouse (2016) deliberates on how one of the key weaknesses to the LMX Theory is the lack of fairness in its process. So, even though I perceived my old coach as leading unfairly. My senior year in baseball was getting a fresh start with a new coach. Luckily, my new coach based his decisions for starters on performance, not favoritism. However, I came out my senior year a little arrogant, thinking that I would start just because I was a senior. So, after I did not start my first two league games, I was questioning his fairness as a coach. However, I asked to speak with him one on one, he told me my skill is where but my attitude was not. So, under his guidance and hard work, we built a high-quality relationship and I started in the fourth league game until the end of the season. He led our team in a very transformational way. His actions as our leader change my behavior and others work ethic in a positive direction. Thus, as stated by Northouse, “effective leadership is contingent on effective leader’s member exchanges” (Northouse, 2016, p. 146).
References
Leadership-Central. (2016, n.d. n.d.). Leader-Member Exchange Theory – LMX. Retrieved from Leaderhsip-Centeral.com: http://www.leadership-central.com/leader-member-exchange.html#axzz58q12XfNl
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice (7th Edition). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kritika Storer says
Northouse (2016) warns that the in-group in LMX could appear discriminatory and exclusive. More importantly, Northouse stresses that while LMX-theory didn’t intentionally design to develop privileged groups, it is often perceived that way; and your experience seemed to confirm it. The downside of establishing the in-group is that it seems unfair and discriminatory to the out-group and deplete followers’ organizational citizenship behavior, just as you experienced it (Northouse, 2016). However, Northouse argues that if the leader didn’t intentionally create the in-group and allows anyone to become the in-group’s members, then he/she didn’t necessary create inequalities. It seems that you feel that your high school coaches intentionally created the inequalities, though. As we all know by now that the center of LMX theory is the dyadic relationship that is solidified by trust, respect, communication, and commitment (Northouse, 2016). So, when one is a member of the in-group, then one expects that these components will be met. When it’s not met, though, followers start to rethink the relationship, move from a mature partnership phase to acquaintance, and eventually to the stranger phase, if leader and followers are not communicating well with on another (Northouse, 2016). It seemed that was how you felt when your coach didn’t try to recover the relationship. Your senior year with a new coach seemed to work out much better for you with a coach who understood the heart of LMX theory. Northouse points out that high-quality LMX produced more positive performance and your experience proved that. Through open communication, honesty, trust, and commitment, you and your coach were able to work on getting you to where you wanted to be.
Reference:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Seventh Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Alison M says
Leadership-Member Exchange Theory and the comparison of “in-groups” and out-groups” has always given me high school flashbacks of popularity contests. I think I spent most of my time in high school in an out-group; however, I have generally been an in-group member in the work environment.
My nature is to strive to go above and beyond to reach goals and I have always had an easy time navigating through the stranger phase to the mature partnership phase with each of my employers (Northhouse, 2016, p. 142). Like your willingness to go above and beyond to show your dedication to your coach, I am always willing to take on more responsibility than required per my job description which allows me to be a part of the in-group.
From this position with the relationship to my employer, it is easy to pick out the out-group members. They are willing to do their job as required but when it comes to taking on additional responsibilities, there is an immediate wall that is put up. It is very confusing to me as someone that wants the additional responsibility and influence that comes with being part of the in-group. In general, in-group members get so much more back from their leaders that can lead to an even higher status. This might include better treatment, additional access to leaders (Northhouse, 2016, p. 144). Why wouldn’t someone want that? However, your experience with your coach is a great example. If an employee feels they do not have a chance at being a part of the in-group, resentment can form. This leads to less desire to go beyond required duties to make an impact on leadership’s feelings about the employee. I would make the assumption a good leader or coach would take time to recognize the impact of what an in-group member provides versus an out-group member and take steps to try to bring out-group members to the other side. It sounds like your coach didn’t take these steps and lost a valuable member of the team. Just as any employer would lose as out-group members come in and just do enough to collect their paycheck. The Leader-Member Exchange Theory effects job satisfaction, turnover, and employee performance (Northhouse, 2016, p. 141). Just as in Graen and Uhl-Bien’s model, leadership should make the effort to create the in-group relationship with all followers (Northouse, 2016, p. 145).
The reality is leaders will gravitate to certain employees and not to others. It could be due to communication styles, personality differences, or just lack of connection.
At a minimum, all leaders should understand this theory and the impact that their actions toward out-group members will affect the business. They need to make sure if they have decided against attempting to bring an employee in to the in-group, it is for a valid reason and not due to certain biases.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications