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. 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