During a major re-vamp of the Air Force’s annual performance reports, they created a situation where the Leader-member exchange theory could be seamlessly implemented. These new performance reports focused specifically on leader-member exchanges, which perfectly exemplified the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers. These performance reports created a natural vertical dyad between the leaders and followers of the in-groups and leaders and followers of the out groups (Northouse, p. 138, 2016). Northouse (2016) goes on to explain that members of the in-group go above and beyond at work and take the extra step for the leaders while the out-group goes to work, does their job, and goes home (p.139). These performance reports that were created were based on a rating system, and those who go above and beyond at work are naturally rated higher and those who go to work to just work and go home end up getting average ratings.
This rating system with the performance report also forces leaders to have quality exchanges with both the in-groups and the out-groups. Leaders are required to conduct initial feedbacks as well as mid-term feedbacks to ensure members know where they are performing and how to improve. This is a way to ensure that leaders are also interacting with the out-groups to make them feel included and not just focusing on the in-groups. According to Northouse (2016) high-quality leader-member exchanges foster less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater organizational commitment, more desirable work assignments, better job attitudes, and overall greater performance progression (p. 140). This is the goal of the newer performance reviews to develop leader-member interactions and allow a better game plan for career development for all members of the organization.
Additionally, the leader-members exchange theory focuses around leadership making, which can be tied in with the performance reports developmental goals. Leadership making is the prescriptive approach of the theory, aimed around developing every member within the organization in an aim at avoiding inequities and negative implications within the organization (Northouse, p. 142, 2016). As with every organization, the Air Force definitely has individuals that want nothing more than to go to work, do the bare minimum, and go home. However, leadership making and the performance reports forces those members to receive mentorship and development, at some level, and that only aids towards making the organization better overall. Some members go through their entire careers still not wanting to “do more” with their career, however this style of leadership making does catch on too many members who would have once fallen into the out-group, without making them feel completely given up on.
While some individuals will never want to do more than the minimum that is required of them, there will always exist an in-group that is willing to go above and beyond their daily tasks within the work center. Leaders develop a strong relationship with these in-group members and are able to capitalize on their efforts to accomplish much more than they would be able to do if they did not have the in-group members in their organization (Northouse, p. 144, 2016). Northouse (2016) explains that these members naturally receive more responsibilities and opportunities for their extra effort and devotion (p. 144). With these performance reports, Airmen in the in-group that are willing to put in extra effort are awarded by higher performance ratings, which ultimately to more career opportunities and an increased rate of promotion. Leaders that are able to utilize members of both the out-group and the in-group to advance their organizational goals are the most effective in creating a positive work environment where both groups feel included.
One of the major criticisms of the leader-member exchange theory is also the prime complaint of the new performance report system. Regardless of the amount of individual effort that members put forth throughout the year, placing them in in-groups or out-groups, members always see favoritism towards the members who are willing to put forth more effort and receive higher ratings. The LMX theory naturally creates in-groups and out-groups by the higher performers receiving special attention, therefore the appearance of discrimination is created against members of the out-group (Northouse, p. 146, 2016). However, a strength of this theory, which is also found in the performance feedbacks, is that leader-member communication should be equal among both groups. The feedbacks provided through the new performance reports give out-group members the opportunity to move into the in-group by upping their performance levels at any time.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 7th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.