Leader-Member
Exchange Theory of Leadership
Why are individuals willing to work
harder than required for leaders that invest in high-quality relationships with
them?
Simply stated, leaders
that invest in high-quality relationships with subordinates expect more from
those individuals than they do others. Further,
by working harder than required, individuals receive benefits that others do
not. On the surface, these relationships
resemble ‘good ole boy’ or ‘scratch my back and I will scratch yours’
agreements. In fact, individuals that
have a high-quality relationship with the leader are considered to be part of
the in-group. Indeed, this is a major
criticism of the leader-member exchange theory of leadership (Dunaetz, 2015).
However, this is not the
intent of the theory. These high-quality
relationships run deeper than appearance would suggest. They form as a result of the interactions
between the leader and an individual and are marked by mutual trust, respect,
liking, and reciprocal influence (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018). While every subordinate has the opportunity to
make it to the leader’s in-group, not all exchanges are equal and some are not
in-group quality. Those subordinates
become part of the out-group.
Rowe and Guerrero (2018)
go on to clarify, “in-group relationships develop when leaders and followers
negotiate that followers do more than required by their job description, and
the leaders provide more than that required by the formal hierarchy” (p. 122). Leaders give in-group members more
responsibilities, more say in decisions, better jobs, more rewards, and more
support for career advancement (Rowe and Gurrero, 2018). Therefore, in-group subordinates are the individuals
in an organization with high leadership and promotion potential. So, to finally answer the prompt question,
individuals that have high-quality relationships with the leader will work harder
than required so as not to fall out of the leader’s favor and find themselves
among the out-group.
Would you be
willing to work harder than required for someone like that and under what
conditions?
My simple answer to this
question is yes, I would. However, this
is not a simple question. Therefore, I
feel I must qualify my answer. Having
been a member of an in-group and an out-group at different points in my career,
there are truths that I learned and can share about each. First, while in-groups and out-groups are not
announced or recognized by the organization, they do exist and they are
real. Second, everyone in the
organization knows who is in which group.
Third, the groups create different classes of people in the organization. Fourth, impressions are based on these
classifications placing a stigma on the lower-class out-group members. Fifth, once one is relegated to the out-group,
finding their way into the in-group is extremely difficult, if not
impossible.
There are people that are
content being in the out-group. They are
the ones that have not set goals for their career. They are the ones that have not had a leader
take an interest in them and discuss their career in terms of opportunity,
goals, and accomplishment. Perhaps they
were nervous and did not make a good first impression with the leader and fell
victim to expectations lower than their abilities (Rowe and Guerrero,
2018). For whatever reason, they find it
easier to do what is expected and nothing more, than it is to get the leader’s
attention. It is an unfortunate loss of
organizational potential, but these people do exist. However, most people in the out-group have
greater aspirations and, for a while, they will work hard and do whatever they
believe is necessary to be accepted into the in-group. Time is of the essence though because
everyone has a breaking point.
In my case, I can
honestly say that I worked harder and longer doing the jobs no one else wanted
to do to demonstrate my worthiness to a leader that really did not care, than I
ever did as an in-group member exceeding a leader’s expectations. When I finally succeeded and found myself in
the in-group, I resented the leader for his arrogance and never got past
it.
This explains the simple
answer I provided earlier. My easiest
day trying to work my way out of the out-group and gain the acceptance of the
leader who had previously rejected me was exponentially harder than the hardest
day I ever worked exceeding the expectations of a leader that already accepted
me.
What are
some of the implications of being a member of the in-group? out-group?
The things I have
discussed are not the intent of the leader-member exchange theory of leadership,
but they are reality within the organization.
When leaders only form high-quality relationships with a few select
people, in-groups are the natural result.
If one is not in the in-group, then there must be an out-group. The creation of these groups or even the
perception that these groups exist is where the problems with the theory
begin.
There are implications
for members of the in-group. Everyone else
will see them as ‘the chosen ones’ or as receiving preferential treatment. Additionally, expectations of in-group members
could become unrealistic. Finally, they
could begin to see themselves as better than others or give others that
impression.
I have already mentioned
several implications for out-group members, and will summarize here. Out-group members may be seen as lower-class
members or be put in a situation in which they cannot succeed. The leader’s rejection could create a sort
self-fulfilling prophecy resulting in even lower performance. Finally, out-group members can be stigmatized
unfairly and permanently.
The implication for the
organization is simple: low morale, in-fighting, and poor performance.
Rowe and Guerrero (2018)
assert that in-group relationships result in responsibility, good jobs, rewards,
and career advancement where out-group relationships include formal
communications focused on job descriptions.
In-group members grow as a result of their relationships with the
leader. Out-group members stagnate as a
result of their relationship with the leader.
Leader-member exchange
theory is based on having high-quality exchanges between the leader and an
individual. The more high-quality
relationships the leader can develop the better the organization will
perform. The existence of in-groups and
out-groups is inconsistent with the theory.
The mere presence of an out-group implies that performance is not as
effective as it should be. Leaders
cannot form high-quality relationships with a select few and expect to achieve
organizational effectiveness, they must strive to form high quality
relationships with all their subordinates and succeed. Only then can the leader-member exchange
theory of leadership improve organizational effectiveness (Rowe and Guerrero,
2018).
~Pete
References
No comments:
Post a Comment