Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Cultural Differences between Europe and the United States

by

For this blog post I have decided to examine the cultural differences between people in Europe and in the United States. I grew up in Europe and moved to the United States when I was 17 years old. What I quickly realized, was that there are many cultural differences in all aspects of life. Now that I have lived in the United States for a while, I believe that it is safe to say that I have also seen the cultural differences in leadership and in peoples professional lives. For this blog I will use some of the seven dilemmas that people of all cultures face that were created by (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). Using these dilemmas, I will share what I personally have noticed that has been different here in the United States compared to Europe.  

The first big difference that I noticed while studying the lecture was the “Source of Identity” dilemma. (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012) describes this as the degree to which individuals should pursue their own interests and goals or make a contribution to a larger group. I think that the individual/collective dilemma is a major difference between people in the US and in Europe. In Europe I would say that the majority of the people fall under the individual category. Based on my personal experiences, people are more individualistic and emphasize on individual success more than collective. It may sometimes even seem to be a little bit selfish. However, if you are from Europe, being individualistic is considered more normal. In the United States however, I have noticed many people want to belong to something bigger than themselves. People are more open to contribute to a larger group. I look at Thon as a good example of this. In the United States people want to contribute to Thon and contribute to a larger thing. The Penn State community wants to support this great cause that is something bigger than themselves. The huge donations and large amount of work that is put into Thon is an indicator of the contributions to a larger group.  

The perspective of time is another dilemma that I have realized is viewed differently in the United States. In Europe, I have learned that when doing work, leaders pinpoint doing things in a proper matter rather than quickly. It is obvious to say that the quicker the better, but I know that leaders in Europe tend to emphasize on making sure their followers do things the right way instead of emphasizing the time restrictions. That being said, the sense of time is viewed more relaxed in Europe. In the United States I have noticed that people work with more urgency. An example of it is in sports where I have noticed that when working out and training, it is common to try and get through the training session quickly. I have also noticed how when doing group work, people tend to focus on getting things done quickly instead of putting effort into making sure that the work is as good as possible. That being said, Americans view time as more scarce. 

The last dilemma that I have noticed a big difference in between Europe and the United States is the “Response to Ambiguity” dilemma (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). This is the extent that uncertainty is tolerated (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). In Europe people tend to be very dynamic in their job situations. It is very common to go work in another European country for a project or a temporary assignment. Europe countries are very close to each other which helps that cause. However, I have always thought that people are more open to jobs that are dynamic and might require them to relocate. Europeans seem to be better at dealing with uncertainty with their jobs. In the United States it is more common to stay within the country. I also think that Americans tend to prefer staying in the same state for work where they have lived for a while. For example, many students at Penn State are from Pennsylvania, and look for jobs in Pennsylvania when they graduate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting stability, but it is a difference that I have noticed. Americans tend to value stability higher in their jobs than Europeans. 

There are many cultural differences between the United States and Europe. I consider myself extremely lucky to have been able to experience two completely different cultures. How people see themselves and their identity was a big difference that I initially noticed when moving here. Here people want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They want to contribute to society and to whatever groups they belong to. Europeans on the other hand, tend to be more individualistic. They value individual interests and goals more. The perspective of time was the second dilemma on the list that resonated with me. I have noticed that here, people value their time more. In many cases, people emphasize a lot on getting a goal done quickly. Time is perceived as more valuable than in Europe. In Europe it is more important to do things the right way and make sure that things are not done in a rush. Time is considered valuable as well, but not to the same extent as in the United States. The last and possibly the clearest dilemma on the list was the difference of how uncertainty is tolerated. Especially in the working world I have noticed how Americans value stability. Europeans are very dynamic in relocating and adjusting to different projects. I would consider myself more dynamic as well, I did after all move to the United States at a fairly young age to pursue my dream of going to college here. I do not think that any of the aspects of culture that I spoke about are right or wrong. I think that it is fascinating how different cultures are and how it affects our lives. I do resonate with the European culture more but have learned to understand how Americans think and perceive things, especially in their professional lives. 

References: 

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies. 

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

Celebrating Us: Leadership Myths and Psych485

by

As we near the end of our course, I wanted to find a way to celebrate all we’ve learned without regurgitating the copious amount of information we’ve digested over nearly five months. If I’m avoiding a complete survey of the semester and our lessons (and let’s be honest, I’m not known for my concision), what better way to engage with the topic of leadership than to tackle some popular leadership myths?

Each of these myths represents an idea or belief we’ve no doubt all encountered in progressing through our personal and professional lives; I know I certainly have. Let’s take a look and see how what we’ve learned supports or refutes these pervasive beliefs.

  1. Leaders must be extroverts. Lesson two introduced us to the trait theory of leadership; trait research represents one of the earliest organized attempts to study the phenomenon of leadership in the 20th century (Northouse, 2019). Even today, many are entranced with the idea that leaders are special—that they possess extraordinary qualities that others possess only in moderation or not at all—and with such assumptions comes the belief that leaders must fit a certain personality type as well (Northouse, 2019).

    Research suggests that there are certain traits that tend to be associated with accomplished leaders (Northouse, 2019). Extroversion in particular was called out by Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2017, as cited in Northouse, 2019) as an important attribute for success, yet individual traits are so narrowly focused on the leader and their qualities that the approach often fails to take into consideration the entire leadership process. Northouse (2019) defines leadership not as the province solely of the leader, but instead as a process “whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 4). In other words, leadership is a process that involves inputs related to the leader, followers, and the situation.

    Trappist monks are known for their few words, among other things. Image credit: Jan Petr Molitor

    While it is intuitively appealing to point toward a characteristic such as extroversion when one is conceptualizing what ‘great’ leadership looks like, to exclude a consideration of followers and a given situation is to strip away leadership’s potency as a process suitable for many different applications (Northouse, 2019). How might Trappist monks, for instance, fare with an abbot known for extroversion?

    For a more in-depth discussion on Trait theory, you can check out my earlier post on the topic here.

  2. One leadership style fits all, forever. In lesson five, we tackled style and situational approaches. These approaches emphasize the importance of understanding situational and follower constraints when exercising the process of leadership (Northouse, 2019). One of the best-known approaches within this genre of leadership was developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the 1960s and is known, naturally, as Situational Leadership (Northouse, 2019).

    Situational leadership is a great example of why this myth is a poor representation of the leadership process because it demonstrates both the importance of individualized consideration (in other words, meeting followers where they are) and an acknowledgment of the circumstances surrounding the leadership situation at a given moment in time (Northouse, 2019). The approach describes, in-depth, four distinct leadership styles that correlate with four levels of follower development; together, leaders can make decisions about how best to support a developing follower as they progress through stages of motivation and capability (Northouse, 2019).

    Perhaps if leadership truly was all about the leader this myth might hold water. Given the diverse array of follower needs and situational considerations, however, leaders must be prepared to adapt and change their approach to leading.

    For a closer look at situational leadership, check out this detailed blog entry that discusses the approach here.

  3. Only the boss can lead. Team leadership was a rather expansive topic we covered in lesson nine; in today’s global business environment there is higher demand than ever before for teams that can function autonomously and share leadership responsibilities (Northouse, 2019). Sometimes discussed as shared or distributed leadership, this type of leadership is supported by strong research that suggests such delegations of power not only empower team members to make decisions but lead to more nimble responses to challenges in the business environment (Northouse, 2019).

    Hey, followers aren’t sheep!

    An implicit assumption in this myth is that only an appointed leader is equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the needs of a given business or unit. This paints leadership as a process that is contingent upon, first, a designated leader and second, positional power (Northouse, 2019). By contrast, team leadership theorists recognize the importance of diagnosis and action-taking as fundamental pillars of leadership; this approach capitalizes on the information power that can be cultivated in strong teams for greater performance capabilities (Northouse, 2019). If the whole is to be greater than the sum of its parts, work units must be empowered to cooperate, leverage members’ strengths, and share knowledge to achieve their aims.

    For a practical discussion of team leadership, check out a blog entry dedicated to this topic here.

  4. Management equals leadership. This myth is a definite throwback to our very first lesson in the course, and a number of leadership scholars have come out in favor and against the use of ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ as synonyms (Northouse, 2019). Bennis and Nanus (2007, as cited in Northouse, 2019) frame the difference as a fundamental if mechanical one: whereas managers are concerned with routines, processes, and accomplishing tasks (i.e., the “doing”), leaders are concerned with influencing others, creating change, and establishing visions (i.e., the “dreaming”) (p. 13).

    While some argue that good leaders wear both management and leadership hats (and perhaps they should—if leaders only dream, what happens to the “do”?!), most research supports conceptualizing the two terms as entirely separate constructs (Northouse, 2019). Semantics aside, the bottom line is that transactional relationships, often the purview of management, runs the risk of alienating an organization’s biggest resource: its people. Both tasks and relationships are crucial to meeting and exceeding organizational goals.

    For an amusing example of management versus leadership from the perspective of followership, check out my earlier blog entry on these topics here.

  5. Leaders must eliminate mistakes. Lesson ten toured the research bases for the emergence of transformational leadership as a viable, ethically desirable style of leading that works through the influence of the leader and impacts followers through charisma and inspiration (Northouse, 2019). Most important for the consideration of this myth are the styles of leadership that run counter to transformative hallmarks, notably transactional leadership behaviors.

    Where transformational leadership behaviors support the creation of a shared vision and goals between leaders and followers through an emphasis on individualized consideration, transactive behaviors prioritize scalability and broad acceptance from followers on the basis of their self-interests (Northouse, 2019). One type of transactional leadership is management by exception, defined as leadership that “involves corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement” (Northouse, 2019, p. 172). In active management by exception, leaders are narrowly focused on punitive consequences; put another way, mistakes or violations are viewed as an opportunity to take corrective action in the moment (Northouse, 2019).

    Management by exception helps with quality control, but what about building quality relationships?

    The greatest problem with this myth is the potential for such management tactics to stymy the creativity that helps drive businesses forward (Northouse, 2019). If leaders are narrowly focused on eliminating errors, they are unlikely to inspire their followers to be part of the problem-solving and innovating functions of their unit. Further, research suggests that these types of transactional relationships prevent leaders from being able to form trusting, mutually beneficial exchanges with their followers (Northouse, 2019). Innovation is a risk-taking venture; leaders must balance efficiency with calculated risks in order to get the most out of followers’ potential.

    For an insightful exploration of transformational vs. transactional leadership, check out this blog entry here. To revisit another way of building strong exchange relationships, check out my earlier blog post related to leader-member exchange theory here.

Five leadership myths, several weeks of lessons, and myriad reasons why research emphasizes the importance of leadership theories over the individual experiences that leadership maxims offer us (PSU WC, 2021, L. 1). Based on your own experiences this semester, which myths do you think are most concretely busted? Which might have a few kernels of truth tucked in?

References

Jan Petr Molitor. (1756). Cisterian monks [painting]. Retrieved at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Petr_Molitor_-_Cistercian_monks,_murals_Cistercian_Abbey_Osek.jpg

Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Retrieved at: https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781506362298/

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to leadership. Retrieved at: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110257/modules/items/30960543

Servant Leadership Taught by an Information Security Manager

by

Out of all the theories that I have read about, servant leadership has greatly impacted me. I must confess, though, that I might have some bias towards this specific leadership approach over the others due to moments I can recall from my past where various leaders taught me about the importance of serving others. For example, church leaders taught me to uphold the principles of serving those in need. I remember as a kid being directed to a passage in the bible, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45, New International Version). Additionally, I was often reminded of a famous phrase that stated, “Jesus served with the heart of a king but ruled with the heart of a servant” (Johnson, 2013, p. 6). As a kid, hearing this phrase became a conundrum for me, as I had a hard time wrapping my head around how one individual could hold two roles simultaneously (Northouse, 2019). However, while I thought that this phrase was just about the assignment of holding two roles, I learned it was more about performing the actions associated with these roles (Northouse, 2019). Although the preceding sentences in this paragraph reveal how I came to learn about servant leadership through my religious upbringing, the most significant lessons passed down to me about how to effectively employ servant leadership occurred in a corporate environment and came from my very first information security manager.

Northouse (2019) noted that servant leadership is accomplished when a leader is receptive to their follower’s necessities and desires. A “servant leader” is not a self-serving individual but someone that is self-giving to others (Northouse, 2019). This type of leadership process works in favor of the follower, as the leader places the follower first and recognizes the value of the follower’s role in the leader-follower relationship established between them (Northouse, 2019). Even though there is a concentrated focus on the follower, a leader also benefits from servant leadership. Northouse (2019) developed a servant leadership model (incorporating data from several servant leadership researchers) that described servant leaders as demonstrating behaviors such as “conceptualizing,” “emotional healing,” “putting followers first,” “helping followers grow and succeed,” “behaving ethically,” “empowering,” and “creating value for the community” (p. 235). When exercised by leaders, these types of behaviors give rise to ethical conduct that leadership researchers have discovered leads to better responses from followers (Northouse, 2019). In addition to the supportive following resulting from the behaviors previously mentioned, leaders also have a guide for improving their leadership skills (Northouse, 2019). This means that a leader who seeks to fulfill a servant leadership role will continually evaluate their behaviors to meet the expectations of that role. As a result, this continuous self-assessment produces positive results not just for the follower but also for the leader (Northouse, 2019).

When I reflect on my first information security manager’s leadership, I can see how his attitude and behavior toward helping his followers were fundamental for much of the success our team achieved in the organization and our careers. Northouse (2019) highlighted Robert K. Greenleaf’s (founder of servant leadership studies) claim that communities will experience the effects of servant leadership. I remember my manager telling me that he was helping me develop and grow and that it was my responsibility to pay it forward to those that surrounded me, reverberating Greenleaf’s claim. He also mentioned that he was feeding into my life in the event that he ever found himself working for me. What sounded like a comical proclamation was really his servant leadership in action. He was bolstering my confidence, supporting my career aspirations, strengthening my work ethic, helping improve my skills, and overall shaping me up to be a better person (Northouse, 2019). My manager understood that it was not primarily about being at the top and above everyone else; it was about helping others become more successful and better than him. What resulted from this was a ripple effect. Our team also projected this ideology and made great efforts to help others (Northouse, 2019). We did not expect recognition or awards; my manager taught us that we help others because it is the right thing to do as a servant leader (Northouse, 2019).

My first information security manager was extremely intelligent and very knowledgeable in multiple areas of study, but most of all, incredibly humble. I believe this is why he was so effective at improving his servant leadership role in our organization because he was willing to continually work on his “seven servant leader behaviors” (Northouse, 2019, p. 235). Beginning with “conceptualizing,” my manager knew that if he was going to be successful at building strong relationships with other departments in the organization, he would need to align himself with the organization’s overall vision and other departments (Northouse, 2019). Therefore, he scheduled time to meet with other teams (contributing to our processes) to learn how they operated and how our team could help them accomplish their goals (Northouse, 2019). His “emotional healing” behavior supported this type of awareness. My manager was great at actively listening to others and empathizing with their situations, which allowed him to respond with the appropriate solutions for problems, especially those faced by his followers (Northouse, 2019). I cannot recall a time when my manager failed at “putting others first.” He looked out for his followers’ well-being, and above all, he strived to elevate his followers’ roles in the organization by often recognizing them in front of his own leadership (Northouse, 2019). His love for “helping followers grow and succeed” was why many followers held him in high regard and considered him a great mentor (Northouse, 2019). He taught us that you should never stop learning and showed us how, allocating 4 hours of his Saturday mornings to complete study, because as Will Durant once said: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” My manager sure lived up to that quote. “Behaving ethically” was no stranger to him, as he maintained transparency with his followers, showed no favoritism to any team members, and always had justifiable reasons for his decisions (Northouse, 2019). As a follower, I appreciated my manager’s “empowering” behavior. I was just beginning my career in information security, and my manager was willing to take on the risk of assigning major projects to me. This experience taught me about failure and how to overcome it, but most of all strengthened by confidence and work ethic (Northouse, 2019). I am proud to say that my manager is now heavily involved in “creating value for the community.” Currently, he is a vice president for a non-profit organization that helps military veterans and underprivileged youth obtain jobs in the technology field. A student from his non-profit organization was hired during my employment with former company, and she delivered some of the best work I had ever seen. Witnessing this event was another lesson learned from my manager about the importance of linking “the purposes and goals of an organization with the broader purposes of the community” (Northouse, 2019, p. 237).

My first information security manager instilled many principles in me, aligned to what has been described in the preceding paragraphs. I have seen how exhibiting servant leadership behaviors have generated some of the best work in an organization, boosted employee morale, and uplifted teams’ spirits (Northouse, 2019). I will forever be indebted to my first information security manager. Not only did he take a chance on bringing in a new candidate (me) without any experience in the information security field, but he taught me the value of being a servant leader. He showed me that by thinking about others and putting their priorities first, one could build solid and lasting relationships with individuals that will show up in a time of need for solutions (Northouse, 2019). He educated me on why empathizing with others could help identify the root cause of their issues and find solutions for alleviating their stress levels (Northouse, 2019). He reminded me that you never know where someone may end up in the future; therefore, you should always be willing to put them first and contribute to their personal growth and achievements (Northouse, 2019). He challenged me to remain just in all my actions, making sure to never compromise my integrity (Northouse, 2019). He encouraged me to have faith in others’ abilities and practice patience with their failures, as this leads to strengthening confidence in others (Northouse, 2019). Finally, he has continued to prove that what I have learned has no limitations and can cause a lasting impact in our communities (Northouse, 2019). I am sincerely thankful to this gentleman for helping me excel in my field, motivating me to put my best effort into everything I do, and inspiring me to pass on my lessons learned to others so they can achieve greater successes than me (Northouse, 2019). In the end, these strong leadership principles passed down by strong leaders will persist. As a leader, it is one’s duty, it is one’s responsibility, and it is just the right thing to do.

 

References:

Johnson, B. (2006). Dreaming with God: Secrets to Redesigning Your World Through God’s Creative Flow. Shippenburg, PA: Destiny Image.

New International Version Bible. (2011). The NIV Bible. https://www.thenivbible.com (Original work published 1978)

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Leadership Making Makes All the Difference

by

The concept of leadership making resonates with me because of the followership experiences throughout my career. I believe that leadership is made, and that an effective leader-follower relationship can exist between any two willing people. Effective does not necessarily mean special, memorable, or electrifying—there will always be a range of connection qualities between people, creating a spectrum of synergy ranging from basic, competent, and reliable, all the way to transformational. But effective does set the baseline expectations between the leader and the follower: that time and repeated opportunity to connect will lead to increasingly better performance in a leader-follower relationship.

 

The situations where my leader did not invest in the making of their leadership relationship with me and other followers often ended badly. I’m a Xennial, born in a year that straddles the Generation X and Millennial Generation, and our attitude toward work has redefined the concept of work-life balance—quite simply, the majority of my life is outside of work (Rass, 2020). As I have in the past, I am still willing to invest myself in deeper involvement with my job, especially where there are opportunities for unique experiences, expertise development, or preparation to do next-steps for career moves and advancement. However, the assumption that I will play some games with my time and commitments in order to entice a leader’s affection is just not for me. It is purely unrealistic to expect me to arrive to a situation and give all of my time personal resources in order to solicit the attention of a leader. That is, it’s unrealistic without an equal initial investment from the leader and the organization. And yet, despite the proclivities of my generation, the times in my career when a leader and an organization invested in me, and we’ve created a synergy into which I want to invest myself in turn have been the most memorable, developmental, and impactful of my career.

The phases in leadership making table in Northouse (2018; Table 7.1) presents a succinct summary of these synergistic experiences—and a lens by which to view the failed connections. When a leader has invested in the time and the “making” with me, we’ve come together and made great things happen. And those great things required time away from my spouse and children, lost sleep, tested patience, tedious research, energized debate, and many other discomforts along the way. When a leader has assumed that I will be investing myself into their pet projects at levels beyond my job duties without much investment in me in the beginning, the situation has usually devolved into frustration and me choosing to depart for another opportunity. There are always more opportunities, and there are plenty of leaders out there who are naturally drawn to making their leadership, instead of taking it.

 

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rass, A. (2020, February 6). Work-life balance: Views evolving with new generations. SFM Mutual Insurance. https://www.sfmic.com/work-life-balance-views-evolving-with-new-generations/

The Independent Contractor Role in LMX Theory

by

Until the last two years, I have held a traditional role as a direct employee to a company. After transitioning into an independent contractor role, I discovered that many benefits were being rewarded to employees that independent contractors were missing out on, most importantly the benefits from strong leadership. It seems that a huge gap exists in the interactions occurring between leaders and employees versus those between leaders and independent contractors. Much of these interactions, when further examined under the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, explain why such disconnected leader-follower relationships involving independent contractors continue to survive in corporate environments and are reinforced by the cultures developed from an antiquated view of leadership (e.g., trait approach) (Northouse, 2019). Fortunately, leaders can curb this type of dismissive mindset towards independent contractors. To achieve this, leaders must understand the types of groups (or dyads) residing in their work environments (Northouse, 2019), the effects that come from developing “high- and low-quality LMX relationships” (Northouse, 2019), and the LMX theory principles available to apply in the interactions occurring with independent contractors (Northouse, 2019).

Before describing and analyzing how leaders can strengthen a leadership process that involves independent contractors as followers, the LMX theory approach must first be explained. Northouse (2019) noted that the LMX theory focuses on the engagement process that a leader and follower establish. This means that the relationship that both the leader and follower decide to commit to will determine the strength of the leadership process (Northouse, 2019). Whereas other leadership theories focus on either the leader, follower, or situation in the leadership process, the LMX theory emphasizes the leader’s and follower’s chemistry (Northouse, 2019). With this fundamental knowledge, a leader can further examine the relationships they develop with followers, in this case, independent contractors.

LMX theory reveals that there are two different types of groups that form in an organizational environment: the “in-group” and the “out-group” (Northouse, 2019). The distinctions between these groups are not subtle (Northouse, 2019). The in-group will consist of followers considered to be the leader’s closest confidants (Northouse, 2019). This exclusive group will go above and beyond for the leader, winning their leader’s favor and approval (Northouse, 2019). In contrast, the out-group is considered to be a crew of outcasts when compared to the in-group. These individuals are meant to fulfill one purpose: to complete the task requirement they were appointed for (Northouse, 2019). Services performed by the out-group do not receive recognition or adulation but confirmation. Therefore, the out-group and leader merely participate in a transaction (Northouse, 2019). In other words, the follower provides a service, and the leader acknowledges that the work was completed and approves the compensation that is to be distributed to the follower.

This interaction between a leader and the out-group is a perfect example of how leaders interact with independent contractors. Independent contractors are contracted to provide a specific set of services and nothing else. Since independent contractors either work for themselves or a different company, corporate cultures have limited their scope and resources to only what is required to complete the task they are hired for (Northouse, 2019). Anything outside their work contract is irrelevant. That means any opportunity for professional growth is inaccessible to them, mentoring by a leader is non-existent, and communication is concentrated solely on the job requirements (Northouse, 2019). As a result, these constraints affect the quality of relationships developed between these leaders and independent contractors (Northouse, 2019).

According to the LMX theory, there are two types of quality LMX relationships: high-quality and low-quality (Northouse, 2019). The high-quality LMX relationship is most common in the exchanges between leaders and in-groups (Northouse, 2019). These LMX relationships lead to much more enriched work environments where followers thrive and effectively accomplish their goals (Northouse, 2019). Likewise, leaders demonstrate strong leadership due to their followers’ motivation and dedication to the harmonious relationship developed between them (Northouse, 2019). On the opposite end of the LMX relationship spectrum are low-quality LMX relationships. These types of relationships disclose the incompatibility between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2019). As researchers Harris, Wheeler, and Kacmar discovered, low-quality LMX relationships espouse mistrust, disengagement, and reticence (as cited in Northouse, 2019). Thus, out-groups will experience these types of LMX relationships the most since their only objective is to complete work based on their job roles’ expectations. Any benefits outside of these expectations are not offered to out-groups, which discourages any opportunity of strengthening the exchanges between leaders and followers as they are unnecessary.

Low-quality LMX relationships are common between leaders and independent contractors hired to work on specific projects. Since the contract is temporary or short-lived, a leader will scrutinize each phase of the project to ensure that the independent contractor is fulfilling the objectives. This is indicative of the lack of trust that exists within the low-quality LMX relationships (Northouse, 2019). One would think that this thorough examination into a project would lead to a persistent engagement between independent contractors and leaders. However, leaders will generally withdraw from providing further direction on a project and follow up only for a status update when working with independent contractors. Because independent contractors are considered the subject matter experts on the assigned tasks, leaders also forgo collaborating with independent contractors. Regardless, this type of low-quality LMX relationship hampers the overall effectiveness of the leadership process between leaders and independent contractors.

As Northouse (2019) pointed out, the LMX theory provides areas of opportunity for leaders to analyze their interactions with followers and make appropriate adjustments in order to improve these relationships. Since independent contractors align closer to the low-quality LMX relationships that exist with out-groups, the following suggestions can help reform these types of interactions that are prevalent between leaders and independent contractors.

Leaders must understand that an organization’s restrictions on providing tangible benefits (e.g., insurance benefits, time off, company discounts, employee stock) does not mean that leaders are restricted from providing intangible benefits (e.g., positive work environment, job satisfaction, career growth advice). LMX theory teaches that positive outcomes follow strong collaborations between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2019). So, leaders should seek to increase their interactions with independent contractors and determine the best way to supply those intangible benefits. Satisfying this desire or need (which I have personally experienced) can set a solid ground for developing strong partnerships, which benefits the leader, independent contractor, and the organization as a whole (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, these partnerships help counter the shortcomings of low-quality LMX relationships and transform them into high-quality LMX relationships (Northouse, 2019). Above all, the most important element that must not go unnoticed in the LMX theory is communication (Northouse, 2019). Every interaction or engaged process requires some form of communication between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2019). Therefore, leaders should always make an effort to keep an open line of communication with independent contractors, as this benefits all those involved in the leadership process working towards a goal. As Northouse (2019) stated, strong communication develops the most effective interactions between leaders and followers.

The LMX theory provides guidance for strengthening the interactions between leaders and independent contractors by recognizing the types of groups and relationships present in a work environment (Northouse, 2019). High-quality LMX relationships are generally found in the interactions between leaders and in-groups (Northouse, 2019). Meanwhile, low-quality LMX relationships are experienced by leaders and out-groups, resulting in minimal interactions that leave much to be desired in the leadership process that involve followers such as independent contractors. It is up to leaders to establish strong communication levels with independent contractors, so they feel valued and accepted as part of the organizational team (Northouse, 2019). Maintaining an open communication line and establishing an environment of collaboration are a few ways to turn these low-quality LMX relationships into high-quality LMX relationships. Lack of employing these suggestions from the LMX theory will only result in stunted productivity and poor progress towards organizational goals. Thus, a positive level of engagement provides an incentive for the independent contractor to put their best effort into their work to produce top results for the leader and organization (Northouse, 2019), providing a win-win situation for all participating individuals in the leadership process.

Reference:

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Skip to toolbar