In-groups and out-groups are central to the leader-member exchange theory. This is because the leader-member exchange theory “conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and followers.” (Northouse, 2013, p. 8) These interactions between the leaders and followers lead to relationships within the group that
can be defined as either a part of an in-group or out-group. I want to explore what makes up these two groups and identify instances in my own life where these two groups have been prevalent. Characteristics that are representative of the in-group in the context of a leader-member exchange are the fact that these members usually go above and beyond in regards to job responsibilities. They have a
relationship with the leader where they do more for them and in return the leader does more for them. This might include promotions, more desirable assignments and overall more support from the leader. These in-group members communicate and work well with the leader which creates an opportunity for positive outcomes for them both and the organization as a whole. In this situation the followers and leaders personalities seem to click and this leads them both to work harder and aim to please the
other one. (Northouse, 2013) With the out-group the leader and follower relationship is not quite as smooth and mutually beneficial for one another as well as the organization as with the in-group. People in the out-group, in relation to the leader-member exchange theory, are thought to not take on extra work and are seen as people who just show up and do what they are supposed to, nothing more nothing less. These out-group members are more likely to leave the organization, have bad attitudes, not be promoted, less desirable work assignments, less participation and less attention and support from their leader. (Northouse, 2013) As soon as I read about leader-member exchange theory and conceptualized in-groups and out-groups I immediately related to it. Although I had never read about it in this context I immediately could think about a work situation and know who was in which group. After realizing what group my co-workers and I were a part of I could see how that was related to each of our relationships with the leader. Everything the book stated about this leader-member exchange theory and the two groups was supported in this situation. The people in the in-group were promoted and did extra things outside of the job description for the boss. They got special treatment and better work assignments. (Northouse, 2013) I could see how their relationship was beneficial for both parties and the business because they were all aiming to make each other look better. Being a part of the out-group, I could see how my relationship with the leader was not as beneficial to each of us or the organization as the in-groups. My goal at work wasn’t to do things for him to make him happy. I wasn’t going to act like I was friends with him to get ahead or promoted. Our personalities clashed and we were not as communicative. My work situation was a great example of how this theory worked. Outside of this work relationship I started to think about where these in-groups and out-groups are also apparent. Obviously everyone has had experience with these groups in high school. Although there were probably more than just two groups I think it is something everyone can think back and relate this too. Another area where I realized this grouping went on was in my dance team. I was the captain which essentially made me the leader. Now I can think back and see who would have been considered part of the in-group and out-group. The in-group was basically my friends and if they weren’t necessarily my friends then we got along well. The out-group was people who I did not see as being up to par or on the same level as the others or we just did not really click or like one another. This goes right along with the information in the text. I guess the people in the out-group who I considered to be on a lower performance level were not going above and beyond and basically just did what they had to do and then went home. I don’t feel like I was ever mean to any of the people in the out-group. However, I am aware that the members of the in-group probably did get preferential treatment. That could have been in the form of a better position in the dance or the fact that I might be more open to taking their opinions and input. It in a way makes me feel bad because I truly believe in being fair and treating everyone the way I would want to be treated. Just like with the leader-member exchange theory this seems to be in a way discrimination because there are two groups and one receives special treatment and benefits based solely on the caliber of their relationship with the person that is in charge. (Northouse, 2013) The leader-member exchange theory is a very interesting concept that can be applied to other areas and relationships outside of a work relationship. There can be in-groups and out-groups in almost any relationship consisting of enough people. I could relate this theory to my experience being a leader of a dance team. There were people in the in-group and out-group and they were treating differently. The position in each group was largely based on my relationship with them and how our personalities worked together. I think that families even have the ability to form these types of groups based on the people’s relationship with whoever is informally considered the leader of that family. Everyone has had experience with these groups in high school. It is interesting that you can find these types of relationships in so many places especially when you can identify what characteristics lead to being in either group and how that relationship with the leader is either mutually beneficial or not so much. References Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. |
