Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

I need 2 responses to each student discussion board post. 200 words min with references. Please keep in order. Daniel LeBron XXXXXXXXXXRE: Week Three Discussion Collapse Leaders, Early on in my career...

1 answer below »
I need 2 responses to each student discussion board post. 200 words min with references. Please keep in order.
Daniel LeBron XXXXXXXXXXRE: Week Three Discussion Collapse

Leaders,

Early on in my career I found myself working at an organization where many of my peers and I were treated as members of the out-group. Northouse describes the “out-group” as the relationship between a leader and a team member that does not expand beyond the boundaries of that of a formal employment contract (2016, p XXXXXXXXXXIt was during my supervisor’s introduction to the unit that he selected who was going to be in the in-group and the out-group. During the introduction he expressed his hobbies and passions in efforts to identity and connect with his audience. The select few members of the group who shared his interests were instantly the center of his attention and to whom he became fast friends with. Among those choice individuals those who were not as gifted as the supervisor or as passionate about these activities were then segregated but still remained closer to the in-group the rest of us. The rest of us were cast in to the out-group. The supervisor’s interactions and contact with the groups couldn’t have been more different.

While I can only speculate as to the benefits of being in the in-group I can attest to what I witnessed. The supervisor took and expressed interest with the select few members of the in-group. They were the only ones chosen to hold positions of authority and managed all special projects. When the collective team was successful the in-group efforts were acknowledged and decorated with special rewards and considerations while the rest of us were not. The supervisor took a direct interest in the in-groups personal and professional development constantly worked with them on achieved their aspirations.

Some of the drawbacks were experienced as being a part of the out-group was the lack of connection with the leader. Outside of the required managerial duties like attendance and assigning tasks; interactions were infrequent, uninteresting and cold. We received our tasking mostly by the junior supervisors (in-group members) and had little direct interaction with the supervisor. When anyone of the out-group exceeded expectations, we were rarely validated beyond saying good job. Our development as followers and as leaders was stagnant. We were told if we wanted increased responsibility we to display more initiative but were never provided any opportunities to do so. It appeared as if the supervisor chose his prodigies and the rest of us were there to ensure his success.

The LMX theory described by Northouse illustrated for me where my supervisor went wrong and how adjusting his approach could have yielded a vastly more effective team. Under the LMX theory it states that “leadership making develops progressively over time in three phases: (1) the stranger phase, (2) the acquaintance phase and (3) the mature partnership phase” (p XXXXXXXXXXIt was clear the out-group was never given a change to exceed past the stranger phase, the outer hub of the in-group was in the acquaintance phase and in-group was in the mature partnership phase. While this supervisor’s leadership approach was clearly flawed he could have enhanced unit cohesion, comradery and unit production by adhering to just one of the tenets of the LMX theory where it “warns leaders to avoid letting their conscious or unconscious biases influence who is invited into the in-group” Northouse, p XXXXXXXXXXThe LMX theory proves to be a worthwhile leadership application when wielded by a leader who’s conscious of their actions and how those decision affect his team. However, like many other theories it can also prove to be equally destructive when approached haphazardly.

References

Northouse, P.G XXXXXXXXXXLeadership: Theory and practice (7thed). Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications



Nicole Jencen

XXXXXXXXXXRE: Week Three Discussion Collapse

I have experienced being a part of the in-group more times than I have been in the out-group. But, I have experienced it both ways during my career life. According to Northouse, “those that were based on expanded and negotiated role responsibilities (extra-roles), which were called the in-group, and those that were based on the formal employment contract (defined roles), which were called the out-group” (Northouse, 2016, p. 138).

I was not part of the out-group because I wanted to be. The status was decided when I was ostracized by my superiors. I had a superior that did not care for me. She talked behind my back (literally) as I stood behind her when she did not know it, and I heard everything she had to say about me. It was embarrassing and hurtful, to say the least. I began to act differently after that situation occurred. I was no longer interested in working, I despised going to work and socializing amongst the group. I quickly retracted from excelling at my job. Once that supervisor left the company, I bloomed again and made my way back to the in-group.

The benefits of being in the in-group were the closeness to my superiors, easy interaction with peers, the fluidity of workflow, job effectiveness, confidence, job security and more. The downfall to being in the out-group was the lack of self-esteem, lack of trust with my co-workers, lack of motivation; in essence, the out-group does what they need to do, no more, no less. Northouse suggests being in the out-group as, “They do what is required of them but nothing more. Leaders treat out-group fairly and according to the formal contract, but they do not give them special attention” (p. 144).

The LMX theory is a process that focuses on the interactions between followers and leaders (p XXXXXXXXXXThe theory helps us understand ourselves within a group setting. Followers can create an experience for themselves that makes them part of the out-group and vise-verse for the in-group. As for leaders, the theory gives us a sense of who is doing more in the group and who is doing less. The in-group is “rewarded” by the leader with nurturing their relationship and praise with their work. The leader can treat the out-group the same, although the follower can retract from doing their best, and stick to their assigned duties only.

Northouse, P. G XXXXXXXXXXLeadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.



Answered Same Day Jun 21, 2020

Solution

Akansha answered on Jun 22 2020
121 Votes
RESPONSE
Response        1
RESPONSE
UNIVERSITY NAME:
STUDENT NAME:
DATE:
Response 1:
Dear Daniel LeBron, my point is quite similar to your point that due to favoritism, an in-group member gets more work as compared to the out-group people. The in-group members generally show much friendly behavior with the leader so that they able to maintain their strong image in their eyes. The supervisor used to contact mainly with the in-group members and out-group member never gets praises even if they worked hard. The appreciation goes into the pocket of the in-group members only as they interact with the leaders more. They are large benefits, and able to provide high-quality work along with taking big responsibilities because of the trust shown on them by the leaders who increase their confidence to give quality work. The out-group members lag behind or even terminate from the group in the recession because they did not get much work to show their capability (Babič, 2014).
Response 2:
Dear Daniel LeBron, I do agree with your opinion that LMX theory shows the communication and interaction between the leader and follower. But I cannot agree with the...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here