The Leader-Member Exchange Theory is an interesting theory that studies the relationship and interactions between leaders and their followers. Understanding what qualities, it takes for a leader to be successful is important, however it is also important to understand how followers can affect leaders. Throughout history the Leader-Member Exchange Theory has been studied and early studies focused on two groups of vertical linkages, in-groups and out-groups. While later studies focus more on the organizational effectiveness that can result from these vertical relationships.

In-group relationships form when employees go beyond their job description and tend to take on extra responsibilities and deeds. This creates a stronger relationship between the leader and follower and therefore qualifies them as an in-group in the organization. Employees can become part of the in-group by working well with their leaders as well, while alternatively those that do not work well with the leaders can immediately pushed into the out-group. As the later studies represent the outcomes from these vertical relationships, the in-groups usually become more invested in the job as they take on more responsibilities and are in turn rewarded by their leaders for their commitment. This relationship leads to better outcomes for the follower, leader, and organization as a whole. On the flip side, the out-groups are often isolated from these groups, whether it be due to the other employees isolating them or simply because they are not interested in going beyond job responsibilities or creating relationships with their leaders. This theory depends on the follower’s relationships and interactions with their leaders to predict the success of both.

Shows like The Office help depict how Leader-Member Exchange theories such as in-groups and out-groups can affect work relationships, attitudes, and productivity. One example of this is the character Dwight Schrute, who is the picture child of in-groups. He goes above and beyond to connect with his leader, Michael Scott, almost to a fault. He will go out of his way to do something for Michael or the organization and identifies deeply with the job. Since he identifies as an in-group in the office he is very committed to the organization, Dunder Mifflin, and reaped benefits due to this throughout the show. Alternatively, the character Stanley Hudson is a great example of an out-group. As much as he gets along with all the other employees and the manager, Michael, it is clear throughout the show that he is only interested in what is expected of him from the job. He does not try to connect with his leader and create a strong relationship and does not go beyond his job description. These relationships show clear connection to the organizational effectiveness as Dwight would never leave his job at Dunder Mifflin and Stanley would have sought out other job offers while working there. Many of the other characters in the show can be seen as example for in-groups and out-groups yet these two characters do a good job of showing the stark differences in these relationships and the potential outcomes from them. While leader-member exchange theory presents and interesting way to view organizational effectiveness based on interactions and relationships between followers and leaders, it may lack more detail about the specific interactions that create these in-groups and out-groups.

Reference:

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 8: Leadership-Member Exchange Theory