Learning about leadership-member exchange theory and in-group/out-group relationships reminds me a little bit of high school and its social cliques. I can recall as far back as elementary school there being a social segregation of certain groups of children. When I was in elementary school there were only two main groups, you were either part of the popular group or "cool kids" or you were the not "as-cool" kids. There was one place this was most evident in, it was the cafeteria. All of the "cool" kids sat at one big table and all of the other kids sat at smaller tables in smaller cliques. If there is one thing I can pride myself in is the fact that I never treated anybody any differently than I wanted to be treated no matter if you were the most popular kid in the school or in the "not as cool" group. However, I am guilty of participating in the class separation at a younger age. In about the fourth grade I remember inviting an "outsider" to the "cool kid" table like I was bestowing on them some sort of privilege. I had decided to elevate their social status and "allow" this person to sit with us like we were so special. Talk about ignorance! Who the hell was I and what made me so special? As I got older the social groups changed and became broader. I was no longer considered one of the "cool kids" as my status was revoked because my parents weren't rich enough, I didn't wear the latest fashion trends, and I was too ethnically different. It taught me a good lesson I admit. In high school there were the fashion plates, jocks, nerds, stoners, popular kids, progressive alternative kids (now known as emos) and the outcasts.
In high school, I didn't allow myself to conform with a group to define me. I made friends with everyone, played sports, and had one girlfriend throughout high school. She was my focus at that time as girls were for many boys my age.
There are several reason I feel that followers work harder for leaders who invest in higher quality relationships with them. The first reason that comes to mind is based on the relationship itself and not wanting to let the leader down. Leaders that spend more time building quality relationships with followers are more likely to be more successful. Those followers would be more willing to go the "extra mile" for these types of leaders based on mutual respect, admiration, and trust. For example, if your best friend asked for help moving (even if it was for the 10th time) aren't we more likely to not say no? Of course, because of the nature of the relationship. We want to help those that help us (the relationship has to be reciprocal). Another reason may be to the benefit of the follower. If the leader knows they can continually rely on this individual, who is more likely to be promoted, recognized, or rewarded for all of their efforts? It is certainly not the individual who is part of the out-group that performs only the minimum required work.
I pride myself on working harder than others. I try to excel at everything I do. It's almost as if I were in competition with myself. I contemplate ways to be more efficient, productive, and valuable to my organization. I am driven by my family values and I work as hard as possible to make sure I am a good provider for my wife and son. I grew up with some hardship however my parents always seemed to manage to get by and provide for me and my three brothers. I seldom saw my father because he worked 12 hour days. Sometimes I only saw my mom was when she would come home from her first job so she could eat in order to get ready for her part-time night job cleaning offices. When our house was foreclosed on they never gave up and proved to me that even when you are knocked down, against all odds, you can get up and be successful! I have spoken about the recent demands my organization placed on my team. While others were content to do just what was required of them, I took the opportunity to really prove myself to leadership. I worked longer hours, came in one weekends, and volunteered to help other departments out with their projects. Was I paid for this? No, I am an exempt salaried employee. I don't get any kind of monetary compensation for going above and beyond. However, I am proving to my organization that I can be trusted with additional responsibility, that I am willing to sacrifice my own personal time, and that I am not afraid of hard work.
Rowe and Guerrero (2013) wrote "Relationships within the in-group are marked by mutual trust, respect, liking, and reciprocal influence. In-group relationships develop when leaders and followers negotiate that followers do more than required by their job description, and the leaders provide more than that required by the hierarchy" (p. 201). Being part of the in-group affords followers the potential to stand out and be recognized for their effort and commitment to their organizations. The quality of the relationship between leaders and followers becomes positively influenced. The cohesion allows the parties to pursue their goals with a greater probability for success. This symbiotic relationship breeds happier co-workers, less turnover rates, and a higher quality of work. Yukl (2012) wrote "Out-group members do what is required and no more" (as cited by Rowe and Guerrero, 2013, p. 201). I cannot imagine not trying to do more than what is required of me. For me the bare minimum mentality is an alien concept. It is in my very nature to attempt to excel at any goal I attempt to accomplish. Being an out-group member would limit my own personal goal for professional development and growth. I am responsible for me, and as so, I can directly impact the type of future I would like to have and my future has no limits. We should all aspire to be in-group members and to always try to give 110% even if it means having to sacrifice certain aspects of ones life within reason.
Rowe, W. Glenn and Guerrero Laura. (2013).
Cases in Leadership. (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA. : Sage Publications, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment