Reading time: 3 – 4 minutes
My previous two articles included and introduction to Leader-Member Exchange theory, or LMX, as well as the challenge we face as leaders because of this theory. Once again I owe the topic for this article to David Burkus who, in a comment he posted to the last article, asked a great question: Do we always want to move people out of our in-group, or are there valid and preferable reasons to relegating someone to our out-group?
As I’ve thought about this question, I can certainly think of reasons why I’ve put folks in my out-group, but I struggle with believing that those reasons were actually “valid and preferable” to putting in the time and effort to deepen my one-on-one relationship with each of these folks and possibility moving them to my in-group.
As I’ve struggled to come up with a good answer to David’s question, I actually started to think about this in a wider context. Leader-Member Exchange theory is based on the idea that the leader has a relationship with each individual follower, though each relationship differs in the quality of the interaction. So I wonder, as leaders should we be looking to bring everyone into our in-group? Or said differently and in a wider context, do we need to focus on leading each and every one of our followers individually?
Certainly, when we are higher up in an organizational hierarchy and the more individuals we are responsible for, time just doesn’t allow us to have the same quality of one-to-one relationships as we can if we only have a team’s worth of individuals following us. However, we do still have the ability to shape what that individual relationship is like with the masses. Here I’m thinking of the relationship Sam Walton had with all Walmart employees, even though he didn’t know each of them individually.
So to me these three questions are all related:
Do we always want to move people out of our in-group, or are there valid and preferable reasons to relegating someone to our out-group?
Should we always be working towards bringing everyone into our in-group?
Do we need to focus on leading each and every one of our followers?
I’m finding it tough to come up with a really clear answer to these questions, so I’m really looking for your help here. I’m looking for your insight into this. Do leaders have the luxury of being able to bring everyone into the fold? Can it actually work? Are we really going to be able to motivate each of our employees to support the efforts of the organization? Or are there times when it really is preferable to keep someone in our out-group?
Here’s my request to you: please provide your feedback in a comment below. I’m really interested in what others think about this because I still haven’t been able to come up with my own definitive thoughts on this that make sense to me. If I can get enough feedback about this, I promise to follow up with another article on my findings after hearing other’s opinions.
Leader’s Reflection: As leaders, do we always need to focus on leading each of our individual followers?
Hi Tom!
Great questions. As I read through your post, I thought about the strategy used by a business leader I am currently working with.
She always worked hard at getting everyone into her in-group. While rewarding (great employee engagement, she build trust and respect, etc.) it was exhausting. She changed her strategy and created an inner in-group and outer in-group. She focused on her inner group who would communicate the same passion and authentic leadership to the outer group. In fact the outer in-group became the inner in-group of these key leaders.
She still engaged with the outer group but just at a different level of intensity.
Looking forward to seeing other perspectives!
Sonia
Inner in-group and outer in-group? I’m confused. Although it does make me think. Maybe we shouldn’t define it to two groups, but rather a series of degrees of closeness in the relationship.
[...] Tom Glover presents Should Leaders Focus on Each Individual Follower? posted at Reflection Leadership, whether leaders should move followers in and out of their “in-group.” [...]