Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Leader-Member Exchange Theory In-Group and Out-Group

by

I would like to discuss an important topic that I have learned this week in psychology 485: Leadership in Work. As you can imagine, and I am sure you have seen there are several types of employees at your work place or organization, and some of those employees are going the extra mile to keep their employer happy. There are also those employees who clock in and clock out and do exactly what it is required of them, nothing more, and nothing less. This brings up the in-groups and out-groups of Leader-Member Exchange Theory.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory focuses on the inter communication between the leader and the follower. Up to this point I’d thought that the influence in workplace would be from the leader on the follower, however, the LMX theory interaction suggests that followers can also have some effect on the leader as well (PSU, 2018). There were two types of LMX that exist and the first one being the in-group which as I had mentioned earlier extra role responsibilities or doing extra stuff for the employer that is not in the job description. The second type of LMX would be the out-group which again as I have mentioned earlier were based on the formal employment contract.

As I have seen these, many times before and still do, I feel like those who believe that they are part of in-group are doing great at work and performing even extra duties. Unfortunately, many times it’s just the exact opposite. I have seen employees who choose to bring in coffee for their boss or run errands that is not part of their job description get treated unfairly better to those employees who do exactly what is required of them but do not choose to have personal relationship with their employer. In my opinion this is a main problem with having an in-group at a workplace. Of course, the bosses would love if everyone went that extra mile to keep them happy, even though that mile has nothing to do with the job or task at hand.

The research into LMX theory has also found that how exchange between leaders and followers can be used to make future leaders. Leadership making is a broad view to leadership pinpoint that leaders should develop high-quality exchanges with all their employees, rather than just a few. Leadership making can benefit the organization and even the career of the leaders as well (Northouse, 2013).

In my opinion LMX can be very beneficial to the organization and even the leaders. The in-group can produce some positive outcome for those who are part of it, however it can be unfair for those who choose to be part of the out-group for whatever the reason. Some individuals belong to diverse groups, it just happens that they don’t need to fulfill being part of a group at work for example. According to the lesson some of the weaknesses of the LMX theory is that there is no perfect measure of leader-member exchange. It also runs counter to the basic human values and fairness, especially true if the out-group does not get treated fairly and finally the ideas of LMX theory is not completely developed. IT does not describe how respect and trust is built into the relationships (PSU, 2018).

References:

Northouse, P.G., (2016). Psychology 485: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Los Angeles: Sage Publications

 

Penn State University, (2018). Psychology 485: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX).

Are You In or Are You Out?: LMX Theory

by

Whether at school or at work you have probably noticed that there are certain cliques or groups or even individuals that are part of the “in” group.  If you aren’t part of this group, often times you might initially notice them because they receive more attention from superiors or teachers or that they seem to have a closer relationship than others. In looking at it from a leadership point of view, this could be studied through the Leader-Member Exchange theory, or LMX for short. This theory looks at the dyadic relationship that occurs between leaders and followers, and the differences between the relationships of some followers and others with their leaders (Northouse, 2016).

Originally called the vertical dyad linkage theory when researchers first began to study it, this theory focused on the vertical links between leaders and followers that make up in-groups and out-groups (Northouse, 2016). In-groups are made up of followers whose activities go beyond a formal job description and followers become part of an in-group based upon how well a leader and followers interact and work together. Followers will expand their roles beyond what is required of them by being dependable, more involved, more communicative, and doing extra things for their leaders, and in return, these followers will get more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders (Northouse, 2016). On the other hand, those who are part of the out-groups are those whose role is based on a formal employment contract and are often less compatible with their leaders. These people seem to receive less preferential treatment as they have less interactions with their leader, less responsibilities, and less grooming for promotion.

While the differences between being part of the in-group or out-group may seem unfair, and at times it may be, these groups will continue to exist. For one, not all followers want to be part of an in-group. Some people just want to go to work and do their jobs and go home and aren’t interested in being part of an in-group (PSU WC, 2016). These people may not strongly identify with the in-group (Hogg & Terry, 2001, as cited by PSU WC, 2016), or might not even view being part of the in-group as a good thing (PSU WC, 2016).

In considering my own employment past, I once held a part time job for a woman that owned her own company in which I had no desire to be part of the in-group. Since the company was small there were only five employees. While the other four that worked for her all desired to be part of the in-group and be friendly with her because they received special treatment, I just wanted to do my job, collect my paycheck, and go home. This largely stemmed from the fact that this job was a part-time position in which I worked only a few hours a week and there was no room for advancement or promotion due to the size of the company.  On the flip side of this, every other job I have ever held has always been one in which I have attempted to form a positive relationship with my superiors and have gone the extra mile with the work that I have done and the roles that I have taken on in order to increase my candidacy for promotion or bonuses. Because this was something that I always found to be largely effective, it is a strategy that I have used repeatedly with much success.

However, as the LMX theory has evolved, so has the viewpoint on in-groups and out-groups, and more recent studies focus on organizational effectiveness (Northouse, 2016). The outcomes of these studies is that leaders and followers who have more high quality exchanges are going to result in followers who perform better, receive more promotions, be more committed to the organization, have a better attitude, and less turnover (PSU WC, 2016). In order to increase organizational effectiveness, leaders should try to develop high-quality exchanges with all employees through leadership making, thus eliminating the out-group (Northouse, 2016).

The question then becomes, how does one go about leadership making? According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991, as cited by Northouse, 2016), there are three phases to this. In the first phase, which is the stranger phase, the interactions between a leader and follower are mostly formal and contractual with low-quality exchanges in which the follower is motivated by self-interest to follow the rules set by the leader for the purpose of economic gains. In the second phase, the acquaintance phase, either the leader or the follower puts forth an offer that will help to improve the exchanges between the two that involves more resources and more information sharing between the two. At this point it becomes an assessment period to see if the follower is interested in taking on more responsibilities and expanding their role in exchange for new and greater challenges from the leader. During this phase the exchanges become of a better quality as trust and respect is gained while the follower’s focus is shifted towards the group’s goals and purposes. In the third phase, which is the mature partnership phase, there is a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation between a leader and a follower in which the relationship becomes reciprocal as each is influenced and affected by the other. As a result of a phase three relationship, leaders and followers can rely on each other in ways that are mutually productive which benefits not only the leader and follower, but the organization as well. The result of a progression through the phases as high-quality exchanges is increased communication, preferential treatment, and more performance related feedback, while low-quality exchanges yield limited trust, support, and few additional benefits (Harris et al., 2009 as cited by Northouse, 2016).

In thinking back to a time when I was a leader of several employees in a retail setting, I went through these phases with my own followers. As someone new was introduced to my department, we would go through an initial period where we would get to know each other and the new employee would get an understanding of what was expected of them as part of their role. The longer a person stayed in my department, we would become not only more friendly as we learned about each other, but also this person would receive more support and encouragement from me to help them advance their careers and roles in order for them to be more likely to become promoted if that was what they wanted. When my followers would reach the third phase I had competent employees who were able to come to me if they needed help and that I could rely on to complete their jobs while I wasn’t there, which was my ultimate goal. I had an efficiently run department with satisfied employees who not only made my life easier, but were happy with their jobs. Even though I am no longer with the company, I am still friendly with everyone that used to work for me and all but one has chosen to move up the organizational ladder with the same company. Having high quality interactions and forming bonds through open communication with the people who worked for me not only made my job easier, but theirs as well.

 

References

Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributions: Toward a theory of leadership making. Journal of Management Systems, 3 (3), 33-48.

Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R.,  & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader-member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 371-382.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice, (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2016). Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). PSYCH 485: Leadership in Work Settings. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/04_page.html.

 

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

Skip to toolbar