Leader-member exchange model and in-group vs. out-group experiences

Abstract:
An evaluation of the leader-member exchange model and the devastating effects of being an out-group member after a corporate transfer, despite a long history with the same firm as an in-group member in other offices is presented. Additionally, the bi-directionality of groups is examined noting that both managers and subordinates have the ability to contribute to in-group and out-group status.

Introduction:
As people choose interpersonal relationships in life, inevitably and unavoidably, so too do people choose interpersonal relationships at work. Leaders in the workplace are not immune to the phenomena of preference, seeking higher quality relationships with some subordinates over others. All relationships are bi-directional in nature, but while generally leaders define the direction of, and are responsible for, relationships with their subordinates in the workplace, the relationship with a leader can be defined by the subordinate as well.
In The Art and Science of Leadership, Afsaneh Nahavandi identifies the concept of high and low quality relationships within the workplace as leader-member exchange, (LMX); qualifying high-quality relationships as in-group and low-quality relationships as out-group, and discusses the phenomena as it is influenced from the direction of the leader. Nahavandi characterizes in-group relationships as involving mutual respect, trust, and higher interaction leading to expected higher performance, with leaders tending to overlook the errors of the in-group members, (2009, p.87). Diametrically opposed to this, out-group relationships are characterized by Nahavandi as having lower interaction between the leader and the subordinates with lower expectations and prophecies of failure, (p.88). Generally, a leader’s perceptions of the performance of in-group members or out-group members are neither fair nor accurate due to these relationships, with in-group members receiving undo praise and out-group members receiving undo criticism and can ultimately be detrimental to an organization.
The leader-member exchange is not always controlled by the leader; subordinates sometimes work to set their bosses up in dysfunctional situations in which they will ultimately fail.
Jean-Francois Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux describe the phenomena and detail what leaders can do to prevent out-groups from harming their success; evaluating it from the role the subordinates play in the relationship, and detail that subordinates can provoke their leaders passively or actively, (2009). Passive provocation occurs when subordinates view their leaders as difficult or incompetent, which incoming leaders generally are, and they either withhold information or limit contact that would allow the leader to make appropriate decisions. Alternatively, active provocation occurs when the subordinates inappropriately and overtly blame new leaders for what they feel are past transgressions by previous leaders and expect them to correct them. In either case, the employees more readily communicate with each other regarding the out-group leader and place these leaders in no-win situations. Manzoni and Barsoux maintain that new leaders can subvert being placed into an out-group by understanding where they stand with new employees, investing early in their subordinates by spending one on one time with them, being mindful of their behavior to prove early on that they are fair, and intervening early if they feel their subordinates are not engaging them, (2009).
As a member of a virtual team working for a large multinational I began my career in Boston and was transferred to Miami and subsequently to Atlanta. Although my ultimate performance manager was in Minneapolis, area managers also contributed to my performance review and my personnel file. I had the opportunity to be part of the “in groups” when I operated out of both the Boston and the Miami offices. This was a great position to be in as I was able to get support for my team and our initiatives from these offices. Being a successful member of the in-group in these locations, these managers not only contributed positive comments to my performance reviews, but also commendations to my personnel file and additionally I garnered numerous performance awards. Ultimately it is doubtful that I would have been transferred if my personnel file hadn’t indicated that I was a conscientious and effective worker. While in Boston I was able to identify a gap and effectuate a successful training initiative for employees that later became a part of the job description for my team. While in Miami I was asked to be a representative for South Florida on the Local Action Committee that was responsible for improving the work-life balance for employees in those offices. I had numerous other successes in these offices and I was known as a creative and supportive hard worker, it was acknowledged that I was easy to get along with.
Atlanta had always been a difficult office for my team leader to staff; previously three of my peers had been terminated from this office. When my leader asked me if I would consider relocating and handling the mid-South and the Carolina offices I readily accepted as Atlanta was one of the four largest offices in the country and I thought it would be an opportunity to deliver much needed services to this area of the country. I arrogantly made the mistake of believing that my co-workers that had served in these offices were unsuccessful because they were lacking in necessary skills. I expected my reputation and my previous record of successes would bode me well and that I would be readily accepted. My popularity however changed abruptly and noticeably when I was relocated, my performance was constantly under attack by the local members of the in-group, and I attempted to resolve this by working harder. Ultimately my efforts were unsuccessful as the office was predisposed to not appreciating the efforts of my team and although I gave my best efforts initially I was immediately relegated to the position of an out-group member in this office and eventually my performance suffered. Initiatives that I knew were needed and would have been readily accepted in my previous offices and areas, were met with only lukewarm success at best and more often than not they were entirely unsuccessful. I only found out when I was terminated that the local manager, claiming that she was in fact my performance manager without my performance manager’s knowledge and approval, had consistently been submitting fraudulent complaints concerning my performance to my personal file in this office. By the time of my termination, through non-renewal of my contract, my self-esteem was low, I was feeling dejected and I was so dissatisfied with the company due to this experience that accepted the termination quietly, I wouldn’t even accept the assistance of my actual performance manager by allowing her to intervene. I only realized in retrospect that I did the firm a disservice by not making them aware of the inconsistencies in the performance reports of the local manager: I should have illustrated to human resources before it came to this how detrimental the local manager had been.
I, my team, and my team leader had some truly great initiatives and services that could have benefitted the employees of the Mid-South and the Carolina offices. The services we were delivering were only changed for the better during this period of time, so I can definitely state that the actual tasks we were performing had little or nothing to do with the viability of our assistance, however the delivery of the tasks was interrupted due to my status as an out-group member. Due to the local manager’s efforts, and my inability to change her and the in-group members, many of whom were my subordinates, preconceived notions regarding the value of my team, the firm’s employees in these locations ultimately suffered.

Conclusion:
I have to say that I had been warned that this local manager was extremely difficult to work with. Arrogance due to my previous successes and my confidence in my ability to be an accepted in-group member prevented me from heeding these well intended warnings and acknowledging that the same thing could happen to me that had happened previously to my co-workers in this office.


References:

Manzoni, J. and Barsoux, J. (2009, Summer). Are your subordinates setting you up to fail? MIT Sloan Management Review, (50) 4, 42-52. Retrieved from ProQuest ABI/Inform Complete.

Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.