Video Transcript - Week 6

Hello class today we are talking about so when I was a leadership, young leadership PhD student and researcher, one of the first ones that I grabbed on to was leader, member exchange theory. And the reason I did is because I can totally see it and I can get it. And actually, one of my research heroes, she was one of the very early people that came up with this theory. Her name was UhlBien, and she worked with Dr Graen, G, R, A, E, N, I believe. And they came up with this theory. And it's just, it just made perfect sense to me. And I'm going to show you a quick picture, and then we're going to pray. So this is the theory, and this is it. There's an in group, and the in group is treated completely different than the out group. And hence the theory. It's that simple. Now you may say, Well, if it's that simple, why are we going to talk about it? And we're going to talk about it because it's incredibly important. It's incredibly important. It's incredibly practical, and I think you will find a lot of value in it. So let's, let's pray, and then let's, let's start talking about some leader member exchange theory, which, again, I like because it just makes sense to me. So Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this day. Thank you for each member of this class. Thank you that we've reached a halfway point, Lord. I mean, we are halfway done with this. And thank you for what you've done to help the class get to this point. You know, it's significant. And I also want to thank the class for sticking with me. It was pointed out to me that that, you know, sometimes I I may not communicate things as as well as I want, but one thing Lord, that I hope that I'm able to do is I'm able to help you get your message out, Lord, and I'm able to help give the students tools that they can use in their own lives again to further your kingdom, Lord. So Lord, as we go into this leader, member exchange lesson, I pray for the students that all distractions from their life will be removed so they can focus on the material. And also pray Lord, that I will be able to effectively communicate in a way that is pleasing to you in Jesus name, amen, alrighty. So like I said, I love leader member exchange theory, and not only because one of my favorite leadership theorists, Mary Uhl-Bien, was one of the very early people in this theory, but and actually she's one of the early adopters in another Leadership Theory, which is a passion of mine, which we'll be talking about later, which is complexity science comply a complex adaptive leadership. But that's another lecture for another time. Let's focus on LMX theory. So I already showed you what it is. Remember that most theories focus on the leader view, or the follower. In the context, LMX really looks at the inner at the interactions, and only the interactions between leaders and followers. So in this way, they call that a didacticc relationship, and that means it's a two party, bi directional relationships. So what that means is that you're influencing me. I'm influencing you. We're kind of working together and influencing each other, and that's what LMX really focuses on. So leaders before LMX, leader said hey, or theorist said leadership is something that we leaders do to you, right? As a follower like you don't have any say in it, they just do it to you. But what LMX said is, leaders teach treat each person differently, right? So you have a different relationship with each follower. And I think if you think about your workplace, you'll see them right. In one of my workplaces. I was called My leader's best friend, and that was meant in a very positive way, not in a negative way, in that relationship in another organization, and this is a leader I'm very critical of. I was also called a leader's best friend, but that was meant in a very hostile way, and in a very hostile environment. And the reason why is because, if you think about those different interactions, the way the leader treats me and treats others is seen differently based on how everybody else is treated. So in the first relationship that I described, it's a very supportive relationship, right? Everybody works together, kind of helps each other out. We're all family, and that's the way it's perceived. Now, I'm not actual family, but that's the way it's perceived. We're all family. I feel like I'm the owner's adopted son in the other relationship, the leader treats pretty much every single person horribly. He would claim that he doesn't, but he does. He treats. Everybody horribly, even treats me horribly. So the interactions that the followers have with the leader really frame their their view of the leader and then their view of others that are in the in group. So as we, as we talked about the in group and out group like I hope that makes sense, that each leader treats each person differently. In my own life, I see that. So I am a de facto leader in one organization, and I certainly treat the let's say, the three people that I that directly report, or four people very differently the first one I can share this now because he's no longer with us, but his name was Michael. I treated him like a really close friend, and we had a very close relationship, both professionally and personally, where another person, Jules, I treat him in a very, very positive way as well, and we have a very close relationship, but it's different than my relationship with Michael. The trust isn't this at the same level. It's different, right? And that's not a bad thing, it's just the nature of our relationship. So Jules and I are very, very close. There's others in the organization who I'm not as close with, and I treat them differently, so maybe I don't give them as much autonomy as I give Jules or as I give my Michael. Maybe I don't, I don't invite them out to activities, because I don't have that same relationship. So the notion that we treat everybody the same as a leader is just not true. There's some people that that you've worked with longer, that you've earned their trust, and neighbor your trust. And you know, in all the leadership theories that we've talked about recently, whether it's situational, whether it's tactical, whether we talk about behavior, you know, we talk about some of those, those things where you have to treat people differently based on the roles and the tasks and all that. So there's this relationship. So we're going to talk a little bit about the early studies. But basically, when I talk about the in group and out group, the one thing that's very important is those are called linkages, linkages, and that's the linkages between the leader and the subordinate. So in groups mean that if you're in the in group, you have increased responsibility, and you have more autonomy and you have different things. The out group means that you have a very formal contract type relationship, right? So an example of this in my life, in one of my workplaces, is because those that are outside of the leaders good graces, we'll call it, they have a very formal contractual relationship with Him, and His basically philosophy is somebody's a tool, and they are to be used as a tool, right? So if you're a member of the out group, you are a tool until you become a member of the in group, and then you're a more valuable tool, and you can be you're given extra things and extra rewards and extra stuff. I just received a text no less than 35 minutes ago from somebody that was talking about how they are not a member of the in group, their their raise was not that of a member of the in group, and how that has led to dissatisfaction, right? And that just happened just now. So you can see that the in group is treated very differently and those linkages. Remember, those linkages, they're treated very differently than members of the out group. So what is group membership? Well, it's how well a follower works with the leader. It's how well the leader works with the followers. So that's a that's both sides of that. Remember, didactic, the personality and other personal characteristics. So I will tell you in one of my jobs, the reason why. So how to describe it? To keep it very generic, I will say that I have some personal characteristics that match that of my leader, in the sense that we have similar value systems when it comes to lifestyle. I'm a minimalist. This person tends to be a minimalist. I am a vegetarian. This person tends to be a vegetarian. I don't drink alcohol. This person doesn't drink alcohol. So we share some similarities in that way, which certainly, would certainly benefit me, right? And then, you know, but there are things that that doesn't benefit me, like, for instance, he values jumping in 42 degree weather of water and swimming in that I will not jump in a pool. That's less than 85 right? Because I grew up in Florida, and I don't want to be frozen. I just enjoy my water warm. So. That's something he doesn't value. So you know, that could force me into the out group. When we talk about personality and other personal characteristics, it's what each person values, and then finally, how the ball or follower involves themselves in expanding role responsibilities with the leader. So there's some people that just want to sit at their desk and gaining and gather a paycheck, and there's other people that really want to go above and beyond, to do other things. Well, if you have a boss, such as my boss, that values people who do more than what they're asked to do, then he's going to treat that person differently than somebody who doesn't, who doesn't share his value system. So that leads to the in group and the out group. So an in group. Normally, followers are going to do things that are beyond their job description. And in the out group, people aren't interested in taking different roles. Why would you if you don't respect your reader and your leader doesn't respect you, why would you want to do more for him or her? Right? So that is an example of the in group and out group. Remember that the in group is going to get more information, more influence, more confidence and more concern from from their leaders. They're considered to be more dependable, more motivated and more communicative than the out group. The out group is basically the opposite of all that, right? They're less compatible. They focus on coming into work, doing their job and going home. They don't want to talk to anybody. They just want to do it. And if they could avoid talking to their boss. They consider that a success. There's something to be said for that sometimes, right? But that is what they want to do. They perform what their job description is, and that's it. So you don't ask them do anything extra. They come in, they do their job, and they go home at the end of the day, and that doesn't mean you're poor performer by any means, it doesn't. So, you know, poor performance is different than the in group. In the out group, the out group is just somebody who doesn't get the extra benefits right. And there's a lot of jealousy that can be formed by out group members that aren't part of the in group. And certainly, I can see that my organization, the way my organization is run, the one I'm thinking of is horrible, to be honest with you. It's horrible, and it leads to a lot of dissatisfaction. In fact, I think if we measure satisfaction within the organization, specifically within my unit, we would find that most people, including myself, are extremely dissatisfied with the organization and the way the organization is run. So that would be a common feeling among people in the out group. And I think you can see why I like this theory, right? Because it makes sense, if you're not engaged with the leader, then typically you're not going to be doing extra stuff. If you're really engaged with the leader, then you're going to be given all the extra stuff. You're going to get all the rewards, you're going to get all the extras. You're going to get going to get all that because you're engaged with the leader. So it makes perfect sense, right? Those that are in the in group get the rewards. Those are in the out groups are dissatisfied and typically are not part of it. But that doesn't mean you're a poor performer. Just means you're not getting any of the extra reward. So you may get your 1% Cola, for instance, which is your Co Location assistance, right? So as you know, most companies give you a cost of living increased, and then in addition to that, then you get your raise. So some people just get their cost of living every year, and they're good with it, or their location assistance, whatever. So if you live in Chicago, you might get a little bit more money than if you live in Dayton, Ohio, or if you live in, I don't know, I can't think of a small town, oh, Arleigh, Alabama. So you may make more money there than you would in other places. Let's see. So that was, that was earlier studies in group, out group, and then the higher quality LMX, meaning if you have really good exchanges, what that means is that you're going to have a higher frequency of promotions, which I've seen in my own life, a greater organizational commitment, which I've seen in my own life, more desirable work assignments, better job attitudes, greater participation, less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations and faster career progression over 25 years. And I think all that makes sense if you're a part of the in group, and if you have really good exchanges and quality interactions with your with your leader, then there's going to lead to positive outcomes. I think you all might have heard the same before, but people don't leave organizations. They leave their bosses. And this theory, I think, describes that perfectly, if you're satisfied, if you're promoting, if you're meeting, getting those motivational things that motivate you met, we get those needs met, then you're not going to want to leave the organization. You're going to want to stay. We talked about how LMX is related to job performance, Supervisory, satisfaction, commitment, role, clarity and then turnover, intention. So there are some very recent studies that say electronic communication between leader and followers resulted in more positive leader member relationships. So that means that you find ways to communicate with your team, and you do it. You know, if somebody my boss were to text me right now, which actually have quite a few texts, none from him, though, but if I had a text from my boss right now, then you know my that may lead to higher satisfaction, because I know he cares, and he's checking on me and those things. If I don't hear from him, then I'm going to think, when I'm out of sight, I'm out of mind, right? So that's that's something to consider as well. So anyway, there were a bunch of theories, theorists that did a bunch of work in these different areas. They all basically say the same thing, that if you're in the in group, if you have positive, high quality, hot, positive exchanges, then that leads to better organization outcomes. If you don't, then you don't, right? And that makes sense. The only other thing I want to say about that is that, remember that if you're empowered to do your job, which would be characteristic of the in group, right? Or high quality exchanges, another way to say it, there's relationships. High quality exchanges between a leader and follower, and a follower and a leader and they're working together. That's synergy. If you have more empowerment, then that's going to have a higher effect on job outcomes, which makes perfect sense, right? If you're empowered to do your job, you have high quality exchanges, you feel supported, then, then that's going to result in greater organizational outcomes. I think, I think that's fairly obvious, so let's see. There's been some predictions, but we just discussed those. So I just want to mention one other thing as we discuss this theory, and that is that leadership development, it says that you should have high quality exchanges, and the goal is to make all followers feel like part of the in group. And I emphasize that and I hit the table, and I say it very static. With a staccato on purpose. Every person in the organization should feel valued. Every single person, everybody should have those high quality exchanges. And when you alienate people, my boss, I'm looking at you, when you alienate people, or when you make people not feel like they're part of the in group, then organizational outcomes are going to be hurt, right? And that's and that's really what it boils down to. So what I'm going to do is I want to challenge I started this class by saying, every single person in this class is a leader, and I'm going to challenge you with this theory, which is my favorite, but I'm going to challenge you right now, if there's somebody in your organization that you lead that does not feel like they're part of the in group, then I encourage you to reach out to her or reach out to him, and talk to them and find out the ways that they're motivated and really work hard to make them feel included and to give them those higher outcomes, one of my favorite books was written by my dissertation chair. His name is Dr Bruce Winston. I love Dr Winston. And in his book, it's called Be a leader. For God's sake. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it. And in the book, he talks about somebody who had, and this was way back in the day, even before remote work was a known thing. And there was somebody who came, he came into work, and he noticed that that person was kind of struggling, right, that their job performance has fallen off, and this and that. And he went and talked to them. And this is probably more relevant for servant leadership, but it applies here as well. He went and talked to them, and they found out what was happening, and the first thing he said was, you are included. You're a valuable part of the team. You're going through what challenges I'm going to send you home for three months. I'm gonna let you figure things out, but here we're gonna structure things so you can still feel part of the team, so you can still feel included, that you're a valuable member of our group here. And he said he got more work from that person during those three months than anybody else on the team, that their productivity shot up by 300% or something like that. I forget the exact percentage, but it shot up significantly. And I think there's a lesson there. And the lesson there is this, if, if somebody doesn't feel included, if somebody has something going on, and we don't show them, we don't have those high quality relationships with them, and that high and that empathy and that emotional intelligence and all those things, and we don't realize what's going on, and we don't help them feel included and support them and help them, then we lose them. And not only does that person suffer needlessly, but so does the organization. And again, we're going to separate poor poor performance from that, because poor performance is something different. But generally, we should do everything we can to make everybody feel included, and we should reward them for their behavior. So that is my that is my pitch, that is my plea with you, and that is as passionate as I can be about something I really firmly hold true to the fact that a lot of leaders out there are failing their employees, and it's because they're treating them as outsiders and less than when they shouldn't be. So That, my friend, ends that, and let's just talk about some of the strengths. It's a very, very, very strong, strong descriptive theory. It's the leadership approach that makes makes really talks about the didactic relationship, that's the interaction between the leader and follower, and it talks about the importance of communication criticisms. It the existence of in groups and out groups may have under undesirable effects on the group as whole. I think that makes perfect sense as well. You know, if you're not part of the in group, and there's a lot of people who aren't, then organizational outcomes are going to suffer. But that's a fair criticism of the theory. So let's give you, let's give you some things to think about as you take the quiz. LMX theory says there's an in group and an out group. I think we beat that. That thought a lot. LMX theory fails to examine individual relationships between the leader and follower. We know that that's not true, right? I mean, they do. Out group relationships are based on a formal employee contract. I did say that that's true. Let's see. LMX has been criticized for failing to look at gender issues. That is something that it has not done. It hasn't looked really at gender issues. A strength of the LMX approach is communication. We talked about that the didactic relationship in LMX is both descriptive and prescriptive. So just know that. And then one last one, the leaders, emotions generally play a significant role in which stage of the LMX relationship that would be the role taking stage. So So that is some things to think about. And let us close in prayer, dear Lord, I pray that that this lecture has resonated with everybody and that they understand the power of in groups and out groups, whether that's in their own church community, whether that's in the workplace, whether that's in their family relationships, that they can see the practicality of this degree and then how our response as Christians should be, and as Christian leaders have what our response should be as well. So Lord, I pray that we will reflect on all this as we continue to watch the videos and readings and all those things. I pray that you will help convict us in ways that we can perform better as leaders. Thank you so much Lord for all you do in Jesus name. I pray Amen. So thank you all so much. I just want to tell you next, we're we're getting to, we're kind of shifting away from LMX and those theories, and we're going into what we call emergent leadership theories. So we'll be talking about servant, authentic and transformational, transformational being first then servant, then authentic. And I believe that's our next three lectures. But we're now moving into what we call emergent leadership theories, which are the newer leadership theories. So servant leadership was should be bass. I believe that's right, and that, I believe, came about in the 50s, 60s timeframe. So you can see we're kind of moving right along. So look forward to getting into those with you, and we'll see you here for the next one, have a wonderful day.