This post has perhaps been in the making for a while now and
at first I was not sure if I wanted to avoid it or embrace it. I have a lot to
say and some of it stems from a logical place while some of it does not.
Perhaps that is one of the most fundamental essences of leadership; that we
deal with people who are both logical and emotional simultaneously during a
single conversation undulating between each and separately depending on the circumstance.
These reactions are combined with our past experiences and the effects that our
relationships and exchanges can have on us, which is very human and of course
individualized in nature and context for each person.
In my opinion this is how leadership diverges from
management. What looks beautiful on paper is messier in real life. Being a true
leader requires the ability to understand and sense differences in each person
and not merely classifying all people as the same. This is where Leader-Member Exchange
Theory (LMX) bridges this underlying idea. “LMX theory is the dyadic
relationship between a leader and each of his or her followers” (Rowe &
Guerrero, 2013, p. 200).
Something that I have observed with our current internet culture
is that people have a yearning to be understood. We want to be heard and
sometimes we want to feel we are valuable and important. Even if our mission is
getting coffee we want to know how it contributes to the bigger picture. In an
age of digital immediacy few wish to be anonymous. Our work lives are not much
different from this notion. We want to our leaders to see us for who we are and
what we bring to the table.
For me personally I am on a bit of a crusade that an
organization is simply not as valuable as a person. We keep traveling in the
direction that the idea of organizations and its needs should be upheld more
than the people who make up a company and their wellbeing. I say nay, let’s put
that in reverse. This is why LMX is impactful, because it realizes there is a symbiotic
relationship between these things. What is good for one can be good for the
other. There is no requirement that one should detract from the other.
I have always seen myself as being in a relationship with my
job or organization. I am willing to give and take, but I am not interested in only
being taken from. Few would accept this in a romantic courtship and when it is
beyond one sided it is called unrequited. Those who seek healthy relationships
wouldn’t stay committed if this was the premise and this has direct parallels
to our work lives. If I am giving my mind and heart I want something for it,
something that benefits me and replenishes me. Why is it that we think it is
okay to run people dry and then discard them when there is nothing left? This
is poor leadership.
Rowe & Guerrero (2013) summarizes the benefits of
effective LMX stating:
Essentially, empirically based
studies have found that where there are higher-quality leader-member exchanges,
there are lower employee turnover, better employee evaluations, more frequent
promotions, better work assignments, more participation by employees in
decision making, enhanced commitment to the organization, more favorable
attitudes toward the job, and great support and interest from the leader. (p.
201)
There is beauty to the coadjuvancy because both sides have equal
representation in the relationship. I
have a belief that generally people want to do a good job but something goes
awry along the way that causes a derailment. So what happens when this is
overlooked and dyads are no longer aligned in fruitful harmony?
Rowe & Guerrero (2013) describes from the early studies an
emergence of two types of groups: in-groups and out-groups. “In-group
relationships develop when leaders and follower negotiate that follower do more
than required by their job description, and leaders provide more than that
required by the formal hierarchy” (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013, p. 201).
Out-groups are much
the opposite. They are physically present but do the minimum to retain their
jobs, they give nothing more than required and leaders provide only what is
contractually obligated (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). Essentially this is an
outbreak of organizational zombieism as these individuals mentally vacate or defect
from their jobs.
In the song “She Wolf” Shakira muses, I've been devoting myself to you Monday to Monday and Friday to Friday.
Not getting enough retribution or decent incentives to keep me at it. Starting
to feel just a little abused like a coffee machine in an office. I don’t
know about you but that doesn’t sound too appealing.
The implication of each of these groups is dramatic in terms
of meeting goals and being effective organizationally. Without people the
organization cannot meet its goals. When people are invested the results are
better. Without fail, leaders have influence in this matter. In-groups and
out-groups exist in any group or
organization and leaders participate in the development of each (Rowe &
Guerrero, 2013). The more members in the in-group the better your team will do.
The more players on the out-group team the more in trouble an organization will
be.
Reference:
Rowe, W. G. & Guerrero L. (2013). Cases in Leadership. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment