Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Eliminating Out-Groups

by

LMX Photo

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) emphasizes the importance of the reciprocal relationship between leaders and each of their followers.  Early studies of LMX found that there are two kinds of relationships in work groups: in-groups and out-groups.  Employees who get along with the leader and yearn for more responsibilities at work are categorized as in-group.  In-group employees benefit from more information, commitment, involvement, and communication.  They receive rewards in return for their extra work and more support from the leader. Employees who only satisfy the responsibilities outlined in their employment contracts are put into an out-group.  These employees do not get any special treatment; instead, they are trusted less and communicate less with the leader (Northouse, 2013).  More recent studies stress that leaders should strive to have in-group relationships with all of their employees, eliminating out-groups, to create more organizational success.  This process is called leadership making (Northouse, 2013). However, it may not be possible or desirable to completely eliminate out-groups from the workplace.

There are two reasons why the elimination of out-groups is not possible or desirable.  Firstly, some employees may not want to be in an in-group (PSU WC, 2014, L. 8).  During the second phase of leadership making, called the acquaintance phase, either the leader or employee initiates a desire to increase the quality of their exchange. Employees can initiate this, looking for leaders who are able to give them more responsibility.  Leaders look for individuals who are out-going and enthusiastic, then offer them opportunities to expand their roles in the organization (Northouse, 2013).  At this point, if employees have not initiated the process, and deny the leader’s invitation to the in-group, then there is nothing further that can be done.  Employees who do not want to be in the in-group have to remain in the out-group, and there are always individuals that only want to do what is required of them, nothing more.  Employees cannot be forced to expand their roles.  They are getting paid to satisfy the requirements of their employment contract and are not obligated to do more if they do not want the benefits of being in the in-group.

Secondly, the elimination of out-groups would make in-groups the new norm (PSU WC, 2014, L. 8).  If it was possible to get every employee in the in-group, then the preferential treatment that in-groups used to get would become how all leaders treat all employees.  This would eliminate groups all together, redefine employment contracts, and increase the amount of information shared at an organizational level.  Organizations and groups need different levels of employees in order to dictate how relationships are carried out.

According to Northouse (2013), a major criticism of LMX is that it does not take fairness into consideration.  The benefit of realizing that leadership making is not entirely possible or desirable is that the fairness issue of LMX would be erased.  The leader can try to have a reciprocal relationship with all employees, trying to treat them all fairly, but if they reject, it cannot be said that the leader is being unfair, or preferential.  The employee who rejects in the invitation to the in-group has no interest in being treated like the employees in the in-group, thus cannot complain about being treated differently.  Fairness is not an issue if some employees do not want the benefits of being in the in-group.

When I was a general manager of a pizza place, I tried to have a high-quality exchange with all my employees.  However, given that it was a demanding job paying minimum-wage, many of my employees were not interested in going above their job description, let alone even satisfying that description.  These employees did not need extra information, communication, or support from the managers of the company because they simply wanted to come to work, do the minimum that they had to do, and leave.  The contrast between these employees and the employees in the in-group led to even higher-quality exchanges with the more motivated, enthusiastic and participative employees.  Seeing the preferentially treatment, rewards, and support they received in contrast to what others did not receive motivated them even more.  Without having both groups, no one would feel like they were getting treated better in direct relation to how hard they are working.  At the restaurant, the existence of both out-groups and in-groups built confidence, security, and satisfaction for those who went above-and-beyond what was outlined in their employment contracts.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html

Situations Arise

by

In every workplace, home environment, classroom, church congregation, etc. there are people of every skill set and temperament. Leaders in these situations often adapt when one-on-one with the people of various situations. Situational leadership is an approach that, unlike many other theories or approaches, takes a prescriptive angle to leadership. In other words, the approach can be viewed as guidelines to the leadership that should be taken. Although in these settings leaders will more times than not be faced with leading an entire group, the focus can often come down to the interactions between the leader and each follower individually. Situational leadership handles situations individually by accommodating individuals by combining their skill set (competence) and their commitment to the organization. By assessing each follower on an individual basis the leader can adjust and adapt their style of leadership appropriately. The development by Blanchard (1985) of the SLII Model will be used to demonstrate a manager I deal with frequently. The SLII Model uses 4 styles of leadership combined with the 4 levels of development. For privacy purposes we will call him “Chris”. Chris has 3 subordinates, each with a unique set of abilities, commitment to their company, and a relationship with Chris. Situational leadership is perfect to apply to his situation. It is versatile and can be adjusted rather quickly in order to be the most effective.
Blanchard (1985) and Blanchard et al. (1985) developed an illustration (see below) to visualize the concepts of the SLII Model for easy understanding when using situational leadership (Northouse, 2013). This approach encompasses 4 styles: S1 Directing; high directive and low supportive, S2 Coaching; high directive and high supportive, S3 Supporting; high supportive and low directive, S4 Delegating; low supportive and low directive (Northouse, 2013). The 4 development levels range from D1 (low, developing) to D4 (high, developed) (Northouse, 2013). The 4 leadership styles and development levels are used in the various stages on Chris’s team. Mark has only recently joined the team but has previous experience in their field of operation. Steve has been with Chris’s team for just under a year and this is his first time in the industry. Bob has been with this company for over 30 years, was in management for 20 years, and is now simply finishing out his remaining few years before eligible for retirement. Each category can be applied in majority to each of them yet it will show that it also changes as the situations change.
Beginning with Mark, Chris is most often placed in the S1 category. Even though mark has previous experience in this field, he is required to learn the policies and practices of Chris’s company. Chris has taken a directive approach, focusing on goal achievement in the beginning weeks of employment. Chris gives instruction through a calendar of events and training modules to be completed by certain dates. The supportive behavior is low at this point in their relationship although it has recently been evolving. The line into S2 has been crossed more frequently now that will has some time in with the company. Mark and Chris are developing their interactions and Mark is beginning to be more self-sufficient. In way of development, Mark is steadily reaching D2 but still mainly in D1 which is consistent with leadership style.
Steve has been with Chris’s team for one year. Although Steve now has one year of experience and is familiar with the company yet he still requires the S2 coaching style with high supportive leadership and high directive leadership. Steve displays low confidence and requires specific goals. Chris is required to give directive support toward weekly, monthly, and quarterly goals. Chris offers his own “curbside coaching” in which after they are finished at an appointment they discuss practices that were employed. Chris always elicits input from Steve in order to boost his confidence and build their relationship. Steve is in the D2 phase of development. Chris’s goal is to put him in the D3 phase in the near future. The Supporting Style in S3 is the next level for Steve’s career and relationship with Chris.
Bob is a veteran in their field. He has been employed at many levels in the company but is now simply working as an agent for Chris in order to meet his financial needs and eventually retire. What is interesting in this relationship is that the leadership role is shared. At the majority of the time an S4 style is employed where Bob knows what is expected of him and they share a daily check in so they are on the same page yet Bob is in charge of his schedule and Chris rarely intervenes. On various occasions an S3 style is used. Although Bob has been with the company for so long, it has been a substantial amount of time since he has been out on his own, not in management. Chris is fairly new to management and has new ideas that Bob is happy to use. Bob will explain what issues he is encountering and Chris offers a fresh perspective in way of advice, generally something Bob has not yet used. Bob also offers Chris various advice on management in the company. Their relationship displays support back and forth interaction yet very little to no directive style. Bob is developed with only small needs to vary his level of development therefore his is classified as D4.
We can all say with confidence that situations change, people change, and relationships change. Roadblocks arise, new information is released, and product adjustments are made. The elements in the SLII Model illustrate an effective image in order to visualize the leadership styles combining with subordinate development levels. Chris and his team offer an exclusive look into the everyday changing environment as it applies to the SLII Model of situational leadership.

References
Northouse, Peter G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sixth Edition. Sage Publications.

Blanchard et al. (1985) Situational Leadership II

Blanchard et al. (1985) Situational Leadership II

LMX at Work: Deciphering the “High School Drama”

by

By: Susan Hicks

Recently I had the opportunity to disrupt my ‘status-quo’ at work. I got an amazing opportunity to ‘test drive’ a new position at work for 6 months to see if I liked the job and if I wanted to interview for the position. This opportunity was advantageous for me to see if I could handle the job with the enormous responsibilities of work and home. This ‘test drive’ was additionally beneficial for my employer to see if I could handle the job requirements that they would be expecting of me. Therefore, for 6 months I got to move to a different department and run my own team of individuals as their appointed manager. This experience is not about my leadership relationships with my followers, rather a shattering of the ‘status-quo’ in the relationship as me the follower to my leader – my new supervisor – in a foreign environment entirely unfamiliar to me which was the “High School Drama” that plays out behind the scenes amongst the management of my work.

Initially, I felt that I was being brought into the “in-crowd”, being accepted and taken under the wings of my new fellow co-workers. Everyone was vying for my attention, asking me about myself, my hobbies, my likes and dislikes and consequently being offered advice and guidance on job functions. The more I talked to co-workers, the more I found who I liked and those whom I really shouldn’t be talking to – the so-called ‘shunned ones’ who were not part of the “in-crowd”. At one point, I was actually given a dirty look from another co-worker for having lunch with someone they disproved of. This was playing out of a “high school drama” whereas there were cliques that if you wanted to advance and promote, you would incorporate into your network, and those who you talked to, yet remain cautious of long personal encounters for fear of retribution from your “group”. This biggest promoter of this popularity contest was our supervisor who acknowledged to me that if I had any questions or needed any help, to ask only from a small elite number of individuals – the approved ones.  Really, am I in high-school again?

As a member of the “in-group”, I found the task of fitting into their preconceived ideologies (how they treated each other and how they treated the followers in our teams) harder than just being myself and expressing my own opinions and viewing my own followers as my team instead of treating my followers the way they believed followers should be treated – like mules (now this really sounds like High-school now doesn’t it). I wanted to understand why those in the “out-group” weren’t making the promotions, weren’t leading the teams, weren’t getting the easy jobs within our group, and why they got lead around also like ‘a rented mules’.

To look at this situation from the leadership perspective of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), we can gain insight in this “drama” and others like it, as to why this occurs and the strengths and weaknesses of this exchange in the efficiency of workplace task completion.

LMX theory in early research posited that there were “vertical linkages” between leaders and followers that resulted in either “in-group” (negotiated roles) or “out-group” (formal employment) relationships (PSU, 2014). These linkages occurred as relationships that resulted in those in the in-group that were found to receive more advice, concern, guidance, and in turn became more dependable, involved, and communicated with the leader (Northouse, 2013).

LMX-VDL

This is similar to my initial experiences in my “test drive” position as others (including the supervisor) brought me into their clique and took me under their wing. However, as perceptions of ideologies, work habits, and dissatisfaction for the treatment of others became misaligned with the others, the linkage became weak as I was compelled into the “out-group” that found less compatibility with the leader (and associates) and therefore turned my focus more on work related tasks (Northouse, 2013).

Later studies on this theory identify 3 phases that this relational exchange undergoes.

lmx-hypothesis

As I found myself progressing through Phase 1 (strangers getting to know one another), through Phase 2 (acquaintances providing “career-orientated social exchanges”), I found that the mature partnership of Phase 3 did not develop primarily due to differing ideologies and my temporary status in the position (Northouse, 2013). We did not have enough time to neither air our differences nor to fully understand each other’s moral and ethical backgrounds that brought us to the beliefs and values each of us hold to produce a relationship with the intensity that fosters in-group respect and admiration. Additionally, I never had the time to acquire the respect from my leader or co-workers to validate and understand that my ethical work perceptions were not going to be influenced from others to change how I treated people just because my title or in-group affiliation should accept this new perspective as my new status-quo. I fully understand that this tit-for-tat relational interplay allowed them to assess to which degree that I would perform task functions that would not see me as the freelancer, the loose cannon, or the troublemaker that could essentially bring turmoil to the department’s efficiency. They wanted to mold me to the structure of the group and trust that I would not in my temporary status bring shame to the department. These relationships of understanding that occur between the leader and the follower take time to develop in secure trusting mutual bonds of respect and trusting reciprocity that neither of us fully had time to cultivate. Instead of viewing this position as a “high school drama”, I have now come to appreciate and understand that respect is earned over time and cannot just merely be obtained in a six-month positional “test drive”.

I have since left this position to return back to my old job. There were no available interviews at the time of my return so I am left to the arduous task of using what I learned to decide in the future if I wish to re-enter this environment and to re-establish the leader-member exchange relationships in order to advance further in my career. I do not regret my journey. We must accept that in-groups and out-groups exist and in order to identify the in-group, there must be someone in the out-group to compare against. Furthermore, there are individuals who contribute more professionally and socially to the workplace experience (in-group ideology) and those who just come to work (out-group). This theory is descriptive in its ability to identify the presence of these groups and focuses primarily on leadership in this relationship. Interactions that are nurtured, cultivated, molded, and valued stem from a communicative process over time and research has provided us with a great deal of substantiating evidence to the effectiveness of followers in work related performance and satisfaction when this relational exchange is high. Conversely, on the surface we see that these relationships appear to be unfair in the promotion of those who we seemingly like or dislike according to the matching of work related ideologies on human treatment of superiors or followers alike. Therefore, this research doesn’t appear to explain why some are promoted more easily in the in-group. We can only surmise that this may involve access to knowledge, performance recognition, or the idea that leaders promote others inequitably based on the concept of advancing those most like themselves.

No one can answer if it is in one’s best interest to play in the “high-school drama” popularity contest and to go with the in-group. Only the individual can assess if they are willing to pay the price of relinquishing their moral and ethical work obligations to play in a shallow tit-for-tat relational exchange that on the surface appears to be childish in nature. However, the building of relationships over time that creates and builds with intensity, intrapersonal reciprocity of respect and trust that does not surrender basic tenants of ones principals, allows the cultivation of accepted understanding and leader-member exchange appreciation that can effectively allow everyone to advance within careers yet still remained focused on quality relationships and work related efficiency.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University. (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved March 4, 2014 from

Leader-Member Relations

by

When Jim became manager of the tire shop, the team was hostile and angry, constantly bickering and complaining at one another, and worst of all, they tended to take it out on customers. Work wasn’t getting done, customers were frustrated, the yelp score was low, and the shop was losing business as a result. On his first day, Jim immediately called a meeting where he stated that whoever didn’t properly do their work would be reprimanded, receive a dock in pay for lack of work, or fired. He handed out new quota requirements for all of them completing oil changes and tire rotations in faster times than ever before, and said he expected them to meet the new quotas within a week. Over the course of the next week, one worker came in late several times, and appeared to be the least motivated of the group, pulling others into his slacking time with him. After warnings, Jim told him to go home for the day, causing him to lose a day’s wages. The other workers quickly began to get into shape, and amazingly, within the week, the quotas were met. While there were a lot of grumblings behind his back at first, things eventually began to calm down. More customers started coming in and they started maintaining more repeat customers as the completion time improved. While Jim didn’t appear to prioritize the feelings of the team, his no-nonsense task focused approach actually turned things around.

 

Part of the contingency model of leadership is the leader-member relationship and more specifically, what kind of atmosphere has been created by the relationship dynamic (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974). How confident and loyal followers feel toward the leaders has as much of an impact as how the leader is able to perform as his or her own skills and abilities.

Imagine you are a leader in a situation where the atmosphere could easily be described as ‘bad’ at best, if not hostile. Trust has broken down, a project has failed, team members are all pointing fingers in every direction and people are angry. Now you come in as the leader. How would you handle this? It turns out that certain preferred leadership styles actually perform well in this type of situation. (Fiedler, 1967) Those with a low LPC (least preferred coworker) score clearly show a tendency to do well in both extremely positive situations where things are already going great, or extremely negative situations where there are some serious problems that need to be solved. So what does this mean?

Having a low LPC score tends to show that you are task oriented: you focus on getting the job done, and getting the task at hand completed, regardless of the cost to the relationships involved within the team setting.

 

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149- 190). New York: Academic Press.

Northouse, Peter G. (2012-02-02). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Kindle Locations 2746-2747). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

Northouse, Peter G. (2012-02-02). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Kindle Locations 2509-2510). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

by

The Fiedler Contingency Theory is an effective tool for assessing whether or not a leader is in charge of the right person or group of people.  It suggests that there are situational variables (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power).  When considering these three variables, it becomes easier to match a leader with the right kind of members in order to lead effectively (Northouse, 2013, p. 123)
I think this style of leadership theory is a great one because it allows leaders to do their jobs in a more efficient way.  It also affords members the luxury of being lead by the kind of leader they would prefer to work under.  It makes sense to me that productivity and morale in the work place would be greater and there would be a higher rate of overall job satisfaction if we all worked for leaders we got along with, felt supported by and were motivated by.
When considering the three variables mentioned above, I think it’s important to pair leaders and members who respond to each others styles of interaction.  For instance, pairing a leader who leads in a dictatorial way and is more task oriented than relationship oriented, with a relationship oriented member is going to result in an unhappy member and the leader may even feel a sense of frustration as well because they probably won’t be very effective in getting the member to do what they want to do. Feeling ineffective can lead to frustration and can reflect negatively, adding to an already bad situation.
As for the task-structure component of the leadership variable, this has to do with the “degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out” (Northouse, p. 124).  I would think a dictatorial leader would have no problem with this, however if the follower needs more of a relationship-oriented approach and there is no exchange or give and take when talking about what needs to be done, the member may feel too controlled and dislike the leader.  Again, a bad outcome and this sets up a negatively charged environment for both the leader and the member.
Finally, the power position variable of the contingency theory has to do with “the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish followers” (Northouse, p. 125).  One would hope that just because a leader has this type of authority, they would not abuse it, but I’m sure we’ve all been managed by someone in our lifetime that has.  However, in the right circumstance if led by a leader who you do relate well to, a leader with a high level of power position can be a good thing come time for advancement or pay raise!  The power position has more to do with the level of authority a leader has, than with the way in which they use their authority.
In conclusion, I think the Fiedler’s contingency theory, makes a lot of sense and I lean towards that being a really logical way to assess the relationship between a leader and their followers.  Why wouldn’t the two rather be placed in a situation that would only benefit both of them?


References:

Northouse, P.G.  (2013).  Leadership:  Theory and Practice (6th edition).  Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.

https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2013/06/19/774/

Skip to toolbar