Taking on the role of a leader can come with many benefits but also comes with other struggles and responsibilities. Before one can actually begin to lead, they must understand the environment in which they are working in. This includes the capacity in which the person will be leading, the people that they will be leading and the relationship the leader will have to establish with their followers. Sometimes, the demands that a job has will interfere with a leader’s personality traits or their typical skills they use in a leadership position. For instance, if a leader at one company exerts more control over their followers and needs to constantly instruct them, and then moves to another company where there is a more hands- off approach, the leader will need to adapt to his new environment. This can be difficult at times for leaders to change their typical methods of leadership that they have used in the past and have been effective. However, new methods of leadership that focus on forming strong relations and interactions between leader and followers can help bridge the gap between leader and followers’ differences.
The leadership- exchange method focuses on the vertical linkages that exist between a leader and followers. These linkages can be divided into the in- group and out- group and each of these groups determine the type of relationship that the leader will have with the followers. Often times, those in the in- group are closer with the leader and interact beyond the typical role responsibilities (Northouse, 2016). For example, if an employee works for a magazine company and they need to report to their boss about their status of their work, they may talk about the work but maybe also talk about their plans for the weekend or about sports. Followers who share similar personality traits or past experiences are more likely to form these extended relationships and become part of the in- group. The benefit of being in the in- group is that followers often have more influence, receive information and are more involved in the work. Leaders may also give more leniency to those in the in- group because they have a more personal connection. On the other hand, followers who belong to the out- group only do the minimal work needed to keep their job, do not make conversation often with their leader and are less compatible with their leader and peers. Overall, companies that adopt the leader- exchange method have less employee turnover, better employee attitudes and greater participation (Northouse, 2016).
While this approach can lead to improvements in the workplace environment, it is contingent upon the fact that there will always be an out- group. In order to see the benefits that in- groups have in improving the quality of work, there must be an out- group to compare to. Often times, people come to the table with many different experiences, backgrounds and ideologies which can make it extremely difficult for everyone to belong to the same in- group. This is a challenge that women and people of color face in the workforce. In an article from Forbes, Shawn Andrews (2019) addresses the concern that in- groups pose to minorities who automatically are placed in the out- group. In one interview that Andrews had with one of his female students in his MBA course, she said that she has worked at a company for the past two years but had not been able to advance or be promoted. She soon found out that several of her male colleagues would go out for drinks with their superiors and were given several promotions, raises and other advancements (Andrews, 2019). She was surprised by this because this had been going on for a long time and she was never invited once to attend. Initially she did not understand why she was not part of this group because she had always been polite and courteous towards everyone at the company. However, she realized that because she was a woman and did not share the same qualities as other men at her work, she was excluded and placed in the “out- group.” In this woman’s case, it was not that she was completely isolated from everyone in the company and was part of a female in- group, but because she did not belong to the dominant male in- group she did not have access to any promotions.
After hearing about his student’s situation, Andrews realized the impact that informal social networks have within the workforce. Often times, leaders use the leader- member exchange as a way to establish close relationships with workers who are trusted and are given special privileges and attention (Andrews, 2019). Leaders choose who is in their in- group based on similarities in personality traits, their friendship within the company, as well as those who are the most loyal and competent. Most of the time, those who belong to the in- group are also of the same gender as the leader. As a result, women are likely to belong to the out- group with no way to branch out and become apart of the in- group. Even though people in the in- group are noted to perform better on the job and be more involved in the company, there can be negative effects for those in the out- group. People may be less motivated to work hard and may quit their job because they know that they will never see any advancements in their current job.
This problem can be addressed and solved in a way that is mutually beneficial for all parties involved. One way is to first understand the true extent that informal networks have on performance in the workplace. Once this is established, it will be important for leaders and employees to all be made aware of biases that exist whether it is towards people of a different gender or race (Andrews, 2019). By bringing attention to this, leaders can begin to understand how the formation of in- groups affect the performance of those within the out- groups. Finally, workers and employers can learn more about the leader- member exchange and become more aware of their actions to prevent the formation of in- groups. Through this, all employees can feel like they belong to the same in- group and not isolated from their coworkers.
References
Andrews, S. (2019). Leadership, Gender and the Power of In- Group Bias. Retrieved from Forbes: www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/11/21/leadership-gender-and-the-power-of-in-group-bias/amp
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc
klh333 says
Hi Madison!
The concept of in- and out-groups is truly an intriguing one especially when attempting to decipher how they come to be in the first place. It is interesting to look at LMX as it defines leadership as a process summarized by the interaction between the leader and the follower (Northouse, 2016). This demonstrates that, to some degree, the leader and the follower both participate in the formulation of this relationship. It is not solely on the leader to determine who is placed in the in-group and who finds their way to the out-group. I do agree that there is no doubt that biases often come in to play in this determination, as noted by Northouse (2016). However, I think it is also interesting to keep in mind that these determinations are made in many situations, with consideration being given to exactly what length the follower is willing to go for the leader and the organization. Of course, there will, unfortunately, be abuses of this where the leader discriminates or bases decisions on personal gain. However, the willingness and desire of a given follower to go above and beyond what is typically required of them, is one of the hallmarks of LMX. While LMX has proven benefits to organizational productivity and leader effectiveness, as I was reading through your post and our lesson material, I couldn’t help but wonder if the formation of in- and out-groups has the potential to lead to an abusive environment. Because in-group members are often relied on to do more and specifically, for their leader, I wonder if that gives way to opening the door for various forms of harassment and supervisory abuse. This could also trickle into elements of equity theory in terms of creating an organizational environment where some followers feel as though they put in more effort and are rewarded less than their coworkers. Similarly, when employees feel as though they are not receiving fair or comparable treatment for their inputs, they often act in a way that will ease their perceived inequities. For example, individuals often reduce their own inputs to match what they think are comparable effort of their coworkers. This type of behavior has the ability to negatively permeate and alter the organizational structure and the structure of the in- and out-groups.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.