A640.5.2.RB - Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

A640.5.2.RB - Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

 

Individuals are willing to work harder than required for leaders who invest in their relationship because that’s what people need – relationships – to feel as though they make a difference or that they have an impact, however meager, on their organization. When leaders seek out people and work to make their interactions meaningful and positive it just helps everyone involved. People know when leadership is invested in them or not, if they are in the in-group or the out-group. In the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, there is an in-group and an out-group.

The in-group relationships are marked with mutual trust; respect, liking, and reciprocal influence…members of the in-group are generally given more responsibility, more participation in decision making, more interesting job assignments, more tangible rewards, and more support in career advancement. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) When an employee sees that a leader or mentor or someone they respect has invested in their work and in them as a person, they see the leader/follower boundaries as bigger and brighter than originally thought so of course they are going to put into that relationship more than is required. When someone believes in you, you want to make sure that they have put their belief in the right person. The effort put into that relationship is the responsibility of both parties though.

The out-group members do what is required to keep their jobs and no more. They will not go the extra mile that is often required to achieve higher levels of effectiveness. Out-group members work strictly within the guidelines governing organizational roles with their leaders and only do the minimum necessary. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) The question that resonates in my head while reading this is, “But why?” Why do people pull back into their shells and refuse to do more than is required to keep their jobs? This brings to mind people who are jaded and who have perhaps once been part of the in-group but disillusioned by a less than honest leader.

 Personally, I have been part of both groups. When I’ve been part of an in-group, I felt a higher obligation to the company to do more than my best whenever possible. I also felt a stronger sense of ownership and autonomy. This is because I knew that people expected more from me – they had put their faith in me to be my very best self for the company. When part of the out-group I felt left behind and as if my very existence didn’t matter one way or another. I used more of my sick leave than I needed to and really didn’t give my best to the work. I also didn’t express interest in being part of the in-group. A person is willing to invest in you if you are willing to do the work. This works both ways – as a leader willing to invest in a follower or a follower willing to invest in the leader – you both have to do the work. I have had leaders who have promised to help with my career development only to disappoint me when opportunities to take classes or be part of a workshop that would give me critical experience by giving it to someone else – or to take it for themselves.  

Obviously I prefer to be in the in-group and I know that when I’m in the in-group, I have to work to stay in the in-group. The implications of being in the in-group are that you are held to a higher standard because you have demonstrated that you can adhere to the higher standard. You can be trusted and counted on to do your work and then some. Leadership sees this potential in someone who exhibits this initiative and works to develop them into leaders as well. Organizations that want to boost employee engagement should start by cultivating more inclusive leaders. These executives will need to spend time looking not only at demographic breakdowns but also at the people in front them. Interest and attention help employees thrive. (David, 2014)

 

References:

 

David, S. (2014). Inclusiveness means giving every employee personal attention HBR.org. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/06/inclusiveness-means-giving-every-employee-personal-attention

 

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.