The Leader - Member Exchange Theory - Essay Example

The leader may have a quality relationship with other subordinates of the group that could be characterized by warmth, trusting and openness that could make followers group and could also have a poor relationship with others that could be characterized by coldness and suspicion which makes the followers hold back. It is the leader who initiates the relationship and through this exchange, could influence the degree of a subordinate’s relationship that could make them an in-group or an out-group. Leaders have close subordinates and are considered the in-group and their role in the group can be elevated to the degree of “trusted lieutenant” (Lunenburg, 2010 pg. 2). In effect, in-groups would be able to have greater latitude and influence in the process of decision making and enjoys open communication from the leader.

He or she may be given bigger responsibilities and more benefits to enjoy. The out-group members on the other hand are supervised according to the formality of their employment. The leader exercises his or her leadership, not through the quality of relationship as enjoyed by those in the in-group but rather by the implicit relationship between a leader and a subordinate and exercises leadership as dictated by job function and does not extend beyond what is stated in the formalities of employment contracts.

In sum, out-group members are treated as regular employees and only do what they are supposed to do as employees. The Leader-Member Exchange posits that relationships between leaders and subordinates go through the stages of role-taking, role making to routinization. Role-taking is the first stage when the managers first assess the new member’s skills and other abilities as he or she joins the group. Role-making then follows where the leader assigns the new member either as part of the in-group or out-group.

The members of the in-group are the trusted lieutenants of the leader whose relationships are characteristically positive. Often, they have a similar or share the same personality with their manager. Out-group are those members who are outside the grace of the leader and whose job is not as rewarding as those who are in the in-group. The leader also deems those in the out-group as less capable. Finally, relationships are established in the routinization stage where the categorization of roles becomes self-fulfilling.

In-group continues to work to maintain their status in the group where the managers delegate more responsibilities and groomed to advance in the corporate ladder while the out-groups receive casual treatment from the manager. II. Provide the results of your complemented questionnaire Score: 22 Low LMX: 20-24 III. Describe what you learned that you can apply to your leadership practice The exercise made me realized that my relationship with my leader falls into the category of low LMX. Our interconnectedness or dyad of the relationship falls in the neutral and therefore, can be taken as based on the contractual nature of my employment.

My leader is neither warm nor cold to me, nor trust or distrust me not initiates grand action that will make me believe him. It is basically grounded on the principle that if I do my job, I will be okay. Basically, my relationship with him is based on my job and falls on the out-group of LMX. This explains why I am not attached to the leader and to the organization because I felt that I am just an employee there whose value depends on the job that I do.

1. Detail an action plan for implementing this new knowledge into your personal leadership development planning. 43

The way I look at it, leaders who separate their groups between in-groups and out-groups are discriminatory.  It is a sort of favoritism that is not healthy in the group because this could breed grumbling and resentment that could result in the out-group’s non-performance.  It also runs the danger of laxity and being spoiled with those who are in the favored group performing less because they think they are close with the leader.  This kind of set-up of having permanent close lieutenants can also lead to group “cliques” or sub-group within a group which is again divisive and unhealthy.

My action plan for implementing this new knowledge into my personal leadership development planning will be grounded on the principle of avoiding the danger of developing a clique and resentment within my group that is unhealthy and divisive.  What I will do when there are responsibilities that need to be delegated is to rotate them among my subordinates.  That way, favoritism will be avoided and the existence of “favored lieutenants” will not be practiced also.  It is also good for the organization as a whole because the employees are informally trained to handle other responsibilities making them well-rounded and capable of multi-tasking.  In addition, the negative effect of having an in-group is avoided and instead, transformed the subordinates into a motivated workforce because they are given jobs of responsibilities that increase their professional satisfaction.

With regard to personal relationships, I will try to be nice, open, and warm to everybody and not just to a select few who could form an in-group.  Ultimately, I will strive for everybody to become a member of my in-group and none will be left out to the out-group.