How do I know if my boss really likes me? And more importantly, how can I tell if my employees don’t hate me? The questions we have all considered in one situation or another, are finally being explored in this post. Leader-member exchange theory is an interesting theory we have recently reviewed in class and has really made me think twice about all of my experiences as both a leader and a follower. Some people think that showing up and doing exactly what is expected of you is all it takes to fall in good graces and excel in a position, but the truth may surprise you! The real goal we should all have is to be in the in-group!
So what exactly is Leader-Member Exchange? According to Leadership: Theory & Practice- 9th Edition, written by Peter G. Northouse, this is a “dyadic relationship”(Northouse, 2021, p. 300). This is because in this theory there is a focus on whether someone is part of the in-group or out-group. A person becomes a “part of the in-group or the out-group based on how well they work with the leader” and “expand their role responsibilities with the leader”( Northouse, 2021, p. 303-304). What this means is that this theory focuses on how the leader is interacting with their followers and results in the follower either being adopted into the in-group, or left in the out-group. It seems to be basic human nature to form cliques, but this theory really shows how it can be beneficial or damaging depending on where you fall as a follower. According to Northouse, it appears to be the case that “leaders are more effective with in-group work” situations (Northouse, 2021, p. 315). This makes sense, as a leader can feel more supported and relaxed when working with those who have fallen into their favor. The communication can be more personable and a relationship of trust and emotional exchanges allows the work environment to flourish without concern a task won’t be completed, and then some. Overall, it is evident that being a member of the in-group is key to success. Leaders will favor employees more and this could provide employees with better opportunities and special treatment, while also helping the leader to be happier and more productive as they can feel able to delegate more easily. Those in the out-group will likely be seen as replaceable and unimportant. An organization can thrive when employees are in the in-group, because their is a strong sense of community and trust.
This theory reminds me of my time working as a manager at Equinox. I oversaw a few of the various clothing stores with each of the luxury fitness clubs of the SoCal District for Equinox Sports Clubs. In my position I worked with about thirty associates under my supervision, and I also reported to an area Club Manager and a retail Regional Manager. I was experiencing what it was like to be bth a follower and a leader at the same time in this position as I reported to a higher up while also overseeing my teams. In the shops we had a set standard of task that everyone needed to complete as a bare minimum for each shift. This included steaming new arrivals, merchandising the store, maintaining back stock, and competing a certain volume of sales each shift. I had four employees of the thirty who actually went above and beyond. They showed up because it was their job, but they also took personal initiative to do extra work, come up with new ideas, and support me in any way they could with or without being asked for extra help. These employees impressed me because they would always get the minimum done as well as a lot of extra work. I knew I could rely on them, and as a result I would find myself prioritizing them with the majority of shifts at their respective locations. They definitely made the “in-group” and I felt completely at peace when I knew they were working which allowed me to focus more on my other managerial responsibilities. I had another handful of employees who may not have been the best workers but they always tried to do as much as they could, but then also made great efforts of getting to know me and developed strong personal relationships with me. I did my best to be professional, but I will even admit that I found myself giving them special treatment with time off requests and not always meeting the minimum required stats for each shift. Then of course there were those who showed up, stayed set, and did the bare minimum every shift and never really impressed me one way or another. These folks stayed in the out-group. It was also the out-group employees who would have the highest turnover. In my experience I can see how I was able to thrive when working with my in-group employees. but the days I had to interact with my out-group staff were my most challenging and exhausting. I invested my time and team development in those who fell into the in-group.
While it is key to make every employee feel welcomed and valued, it is not always possible to develop real meaningful connections with each employee. I feel that working with in-groups is great because everyone can win and be happy and flourish, but then we are left with out-group individuals who may have a lot of untapped potential. While natural in-groups may form, I now see how it is still important for the leader to intentionally develop out-group followers into in-group followers. You never know who can have the next best idea, or support you the most. Leaders would be better off if the majority were in-group. Not only would more delegation be possible, but a more enriched work environment would exist for everyone.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice.9th Ed Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
I really enjoyed reading your post about in-groups and out-groups, and how you talked about your experience working with these types of groups at Equinox. I think your perspective about trying to transition everyone into being part of the in-group is a really interesting idea, and I can see how from the manager perspective why it was better for your work environment and yourself to work with these in-group individuals. As stated in Northouse (2021) those in the in-group “receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders than do out-group followers” (p. 159). I can see how this was the case for you based on how you treated those in the in-group, even when you may not have realized it at first.
While I definitely see the value in in-group individuals, I think that there is also a huge value in those who are in the out-group. You mentioned how you think that individuals in the out-group may have untapped potential, however I think part of the appeal of being in the out-group is that these individuals can do the bare minimum and still contribute to the organization as a whole. As stated by Northouse (2021), “Poor performers are a third group that must be managed differently due to the need for performance monitoring and documentation. Out-group members perform to the specifications of their job description, but they don’t go above and beyond that to help the leader and the work group” (p. 159). Out-group individuals are still very important to a team because they help with the balance of those who are there just to do the job, and those who are constantly aspiring for more. It allows for those who want to be in the in-group to be able to work towards that, while still keeping an important baseline. I really enjoyed reading your post and your personal experience with Leader-Member Exchange Theory!
References
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781071834473