Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Diversity in Leadership and The Equal Rights Movement

by

Diversity very obviously plays a role in leadership positions around the world, for many reasons. This lesson first focuses on gender in leadership and how women face many more barriers to leadership than men. Studies have shown that leaders that are women usually use participative or democratic styles and are viewed as less effective when they use these feminine styles. While men leaders usually use autocratic, or directive styles and women are still viewed as less effective if they use these styles as well. Even though female and male leaders do not show a difference in effectiveness, there is an overwhelming pattern where women are viewed negatively in leadership roles, specifically male dominated ones. There are a few explanations for this such as the pipeline theory or the lack of strong mentor relationships and self-confidence. There are many barriers that women face organizationally, such as higher standards of performance, inhospitable corporate culture, preference for gender similarity in promotion decisions, and lack of developmental opportunities. Interpersonal and personal barriers exist too that impact women leaders, one being the work-home conflict in which women are expected to stay home with their children to which they have negative implications from career gaps.

 

This week’s lesson about diversity in leadership, specifically regarding women, reminded me a lot of the Equal Rights Movement and the opportunities that women had to fight for for so long. A lot of the study results listed above come from the perpetuated views throughout history that women did not belong in workplace, but rather they were expected to take on the family caretaker role over their male spouses. Women like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan worked tirelessly for years to get rid of this stigma as they wanted women to be able to have the same opportunities as men in the workplace. These leaders did so much to help society in America push towards change in values and beliefs so that women could start to have a voice in higher positions than they were able to before. The social dominance theory helps explain the values at the time and how women were put much lower on the social hierarchy than men. Women’s social dominance orientation was most likely much lower before the Equal Rights Amendment was passed as laws excluded them from opportunities for them to become leaders and pushed them to believe that they did not have a place higher up in the social hierarchy. While these women were fighting for the ERA, there was a lot of in group favoritism and out group derogation that affected their ability to pass the amendment, yet these women showed just how capable and effective they are and can be in leadership positions. While it is obvious that it is hard for society to change values and beliefs, the Equal Rights Movement is a good example of how persistence can help encourage change.

Hamel, R. (n.d.). Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity, 2021.

Character’s in The Office Analyzed Through Leader Member Exchange Theory

by

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

Closing the “In” and “Out” Gap

by

According to this week’s lesson, the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) is a theory used to describe the interactions between leaders and followers as well as the relationships that often form as a result (Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Lesson 8). The LMX Theory explains these leader-member interactions through two existing relationships: in-groups and out-groups (Introduction to Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Lesson 8). In-groups are those groups that consist of employees who go beyond the requirements listed in their employment contract (Introduction to Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Lesson 8). These individuals’ jobs are based on both negotiated and “extra-role” responsibilities, which might also be referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Introduction to Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Lesson 8). In comparison, out-groups describe those employees who do not venture outside of the tasks and responsibilities that are expected of them (Introduction to Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Lesson 8). Each member in an organization is typically categorized into one of these two groups. 

 

It is inevitable that many businesses and large-scale corporations fall into the trap of using in-groups and out-groups to categorize their organization’s members, however, new research has shown that these groups lead to favoritism and group bias, according to Michael Seitchik, Director of Research and Assessment for Bates Communications Inc. (Seitchik, 2019). The presence of these groups typically help motivate those who are in the in-group, but those in the out-group show consistently declining levels of productivity and motivation, and they often believe that compensation or further rewards are given in favor of those in the in-group (Seitchik, 2019). Constructive criticism is often not an option because many of the same individuals feel as if they are not being listened to, especially because they are a part of the ‘wrong’ group. This phenomena not only decreases company profit in the long-run but also hurts business reputation (Seitchik, 2019). Additionally, those members of the out-group who stand up for themselves and their fellow group members often come across to the other group as sensitive or overdramatic, and the in-group members almost always miss the fact that there is a problem with the dynamic at hand (Seitchik, 2019). 

 

Fortunately, there are some things that companies and large-scale organizations alike can do to narrow the gap between in-groups and out-groups. According to Seitchik (2019), one of the most effective ways to begin is to have the leader (i.e., manager, chief executive officer, etc.) construct a confidential list of individuals in the in-group and the out-group, taking note of each member’s personality traits and characteristics, both favorable and unfavorable (Seitchik, 2019). Leaders should also give their followers a chance to open up about any concerns they may have or make suggestions (Seitchik, 2019). Another way to give individuals a chance to feel like more of an equal is to take the time to periodically allow followers to get to know each other (Seitchik, 2019). Some ideas may include the following: 

 

  • Invite individuals to come forward with something positive that they accomplished during the work day. 
  • Take the time to acknowledge a job well done, despite whether or not an individual was required to complete the task or not. 
  • Have individuals share a hobby that is completely unrelated to their work.
  • Offer to mentor individuals by helping them create goal plans or improve a new skill. 

 

Because the presence of in-groups and out-groups can be very detrimental to maintaining a positive work environment, the effects of closing (or at least narrowing) this continually spreading gap could be very beneficial. In the absence of these divided groups, work teams would be able to openly discuss concerns and new ideas, make decisions collectively, and recognize the strengths of each individual to accomplish a common goal. 

 

RESOURCES: 

 

Hamel, R. (n.d.). Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), 2021

Seitchik, Michael. (2019, October 3). Overcoming In and Out Groups in Teams. Bales.

https://www.bates-communications.com/bates-blog/overcoming-in-and-out-groups-in-teams

Are you in or are you out?

by

I have never been a fan of window-shopping. I often find it equates to torture. Not that I’m all that materialistic – I just don’t find standing in front of an item, a house, a piece of furniture or clothing that I would enjoy owning and then pining over the item not very enjoyable. Perhaps it’s just a reminder of my current economic situation (not the best), or another reminder of the haves and have nots. I have frequently counted myself among the have nots – in life, in work, even sometimes in my own family.   I did think that when I went out into the “real world” after high school, the delineation between the in groups and out groups would disappear. Au contraire! As it turns out, the lines are still drawn in the sand and the stakes are much higher.  The leader-member exchange theory of leadership describes the situation quite clearly. Instead of looking at leadership as a one-directional concept (from leader to subordinate), the leader-member exchange theory looks at the relationship aspect of leadership and how it impacts all parties in an organization.

Early studies of leader-member exchange found a Vertical Dyad Linkage (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).  Imagine that you are holding one end of a paper chain – much like those used on elementary school Christmas trees as decorations.retro-paper-garland If you hold it vertically so that one end is at eye-level and the other end is on the floor, you will see the links clearly. Those are much like the “in group” links leaders create with their subordinates.  The leaders have a strong connection with each of the subordinates. They trust them more, give the subordinates more duties and rely on them for honesty and direct input to the benefit of the organization.  Conversely, the subordinates in the “in group” are more likely to go the extra mile, participate in projects outside of their general job duties and tend to be more personally connected to their leaders (Northouse, 2013).

On the other hand, those subordinates in the “out group” are still viewed in a vertical chain with the leader at the top, but the links are nowhere near as strong. They are like the parts of the aforementioned paper chain where the paste has dried and ceases to stick. One end is still connected but the other is swinging in the breeze. “Out group” members are interested in coming to work, doing their required duties and going home. This does not mean that they are unimportant, it just means that their approach is different. Perhaps they work at this job as a means to an end. They might be going to school for a different career and they are working to collect a paycheck while they wait for the schooling to be completed. They do serve a purpose in the organization. Without an “out group”, the members of the “in group” would lose their very identity (The Pennsylvania State University, 2015).

Even though the research on leader-member exchange theory began in the early 1970’s, “in groups” and “out groups” are still evident.  I was exposed to a clear example of this in a previous job. There were several opportunities for employees to represent the company at national conferences.  Those that were chosen to attend were often those that had the closest ties to the leaders in the organization.  They were clearly members of an “in group” and this fact was not lost on the members of the “out group”.  Additionally, the management team would conduct meetings each month to go over goals and expectations for each group.  Oftentimes, the meeting would digress into snide comments about members of the “out group” – not unlike a lunch table in a middle school cafeteria.  If a member of the “in group” called to question the nature of these “discussions”, they would suddenly find themselves uninvited to future meetings and reassigned to different positions within the company.

The leader member exchange theory is one worth studying further. In the case of my previous job, the upper management would do well to look at the relationships they develop with the “in group” as well as the “out group”.   Realizing that every relationship a leader develops has an impact is critical to mean non-essential.  By showing the members of the “out group” some of the same courtesies and respect as the do the “in group”, leaders may tap into previously unmined talents, which could lead to breakthroughs for their organization. I have been in both the “out group” and “in group” at different times in my employment history. I can tell you honestly that neither one was better than the other. I can also tell you that there’s nothing worse than being in the “out group” and wanting desperately to be in the “in group” – much like window shopping and feeling frustrated that what is behind the glass is somehow unattainable. Leaders and managers would be wise to understand who on their team is window shopping and to identify those that are willing to walk by and those that would do anything to buy what they are offering.

 

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 219-247.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice (Sixth ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

The Pennsylvania State University. (2015). Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved from PSYCH485: Leadership in Work Settings: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su15/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/03_page.html

The In Group Gone Wrong: Workplace Bullying

by

The leader-membership exchange theory provides a brilliant depiction of how the dynamics of the leader-follower relationship within a team setting really works. There are those people who go above and beyond for their job, working hard to get along socially as well as practically with their bosses, and then there are those who just want to get in and get out, without a huge amount of deeper commitment toward their leader and team. In some situations though, the division of in group and out group can escalate to where members of the out group become singled out and even mistreated, to the point of bullying.

Hananel (2013) goes into more depth about what this kind of situation can eventually look like in the workplace, and how it can have a larger than life impact, even from a legalistic standpoint: “On-the-job bullying can take many forms, from a supervisor’s verbal abuse and threats to cruel comments or relentless teasing by a co-worker. And it could become the next major battleground in employment law as a growing number of states consider legislation that would let workers sue for harassment that causes physical or emotional harm.”

So while those in the in-group can reap many benefits like chance for promotion, and a happy trusting work environment, it is important that those who are in the out group for whatever reason, are still treated with respect and kindness by both their manager and their peers.

Source: Hananel, S. (2013, March 1). Growing push to halt workplace bullying. Retrieved from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/growing-push-halt-workplace-bullying

Skip to toolbar