Reading time: 4 – 6 minutes
In a comment he added to one of my previous articles, David Burkus suggested that perhaps our use of personal power is the “one ring to rule them all”, except that if the Leader-Member Exchange theory is to believed then even having personal power may not work with all followers.
Leader-Member Exchange theory, or LMX as it’s known, looks at the interaction and relationship between supervisors and their subordinates. LMX suggests that every leader has a unique, individual relationship with each follower and that each of these relationships is different in terms of the quality of the interactions. It is this one-to-one relationship that I have suggested we need to cultivate when looking at what motivates our followers.
LMX also goes on to suggest that as leaders we have a definite “in-group” and an “out-group”. Which group individual followers end up in will determine the quality of the interaction and relationship we have with each follower.
In-Group
Our in-group is made up of those individuals that we trust the most. Members of our in-group are the ones we go to when we need something done quickly and correctly. We value these folks for their dedication and loyalty. Because of our feelings for these individuals and the work that they do, we tend to give this group our attention and support and provide them with opportunities for challenging and interesting work. We also tend to overlook their mistakes.
Research has shown that in-group members tend to do work above and beyond their formal job description, be more satisfied with their jobs and tend to be promoted more often.
Out-Group
We tend to treat the folks in our out-group differently. For the most part, we restrict their work to what is defined by their job description because we perceive them to be less motivated or less competent to do more. Because of their status in the out-group, they tend to have less direct interaction with the leader.
Reliving High School
Even if we can’t (or won’t) readily recognize this in-group / out-group dynamic in our current work world, we’ve all experienced this phenomenon before. We called it High School. We can remember all too vividly the different cliques that existed and trying desperately to be accepted. We all just wanted to be part of some in-group. Or better said, not always be part of the out-group.
Things haven’t changed for us since then. The application of the in-group and out-group is just a bit more subtle than high school.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The problem with in-groups and out-groups is that they tend to become self fulfilling prophecies. Folks who are in our out-group are there because we perceive them to be either unmotivated and/or incompetent. Since we perceive them in this manner, we don’t ever give them the chance to prove our perceptions wrong and because of this they’ll never be worthy of becoming a part of our in-group.
In fact, for individuals who wish to grow and develop with an organization but find themselves in the out-group, the only option they may have is to find another department to work for within the organization or leave the organization altogether.
The self fulfilling prophecy is just as strong for those in the in-group. Since they have our support and attention, these folks end up with the opportunities and support to perform at high levels. Because of this we will also tend to “go to bat” for these folks when they run into obstacles within the organization, certainly something we don’t do for those in our out-group.
The in-group / out-group dynamic described by the Leader-Member Exchange theory determines how we treat each of our followers individually. To be truly successful and be the most effective leader that we can be, we need to be able to help all of our followers be the best they can be, not just those in our in-group. LMX presents us with the challenge of how to lead ALL of our followers. In a following article I’ll look at ways to meet this challenge.
Leader’s Reflection: Leader-Member Exchange theory suggests that every leader has a unique, individual relationship with each follower and that each of these relationships is different in terms of the quality of the interactions based on whether the follower is part of our “in-group” or “out-group”.
Great introduction to LMX. You did a good job of making it accessible. I look forward to reading your post about how to meet the challenge of leading all followers, valuing their contributions without creating in-groups and out-groups.
Good summary of LMX. I’m often confused by this theory. Mostly because researchers say, “some people are just going to be in the out-group.” Whereas consultants say “bring everybody into the in-group.”
I side with researchers and think you’re absolutely right, we can’t bring everyone into the in-group. Still, I think LMX only applies to referent power. Is personal power the “one ring to rule them all?” Probably not. But I like where the discussion is going.
Thanks.
David, you bring up a point that I honestly haven’t thought much about: does LMX only apply to referent power. This is something I think I want to ponder a while. Maybe you just gave me the inspiration for another post?!
Great. The in group and the out group become very apparent at performance review time! Looking forward to the next article on meeting this challenge. If you don’t see me here feel free to nudge me on twitter! @SusanMazza
Susan, I think you are so right about in groups and out groups becoming apparent at performance review time. During this time the whole dynamic seems to become more pronounced.