LMX & SIT In City Hall
The other theory that I believe suits my persona work environment the best is the Leader Membership Exchange Theory. The reason that leader/follower dyads are so important within the workplace are to access the group dynamics that benefit office efficiency. The dyadic relationships that my supervisor has with each individual member of my summer team are important, in regard to, work load. The better the relationship quality the higher the work load. Members with higher levels of responsibility, decision making, influence, and access to more resources are a testament to the quality of their dyadic relationship with our supervisor. One of the members of my group has been with my supervisor for almost two years. They are entrusted with most of the harder tasks and if the supervisor is gone for the day they are appointed as the person everyone has to talk to.
With my supervisor being a very open and extraverted personality, she is willing to get to know and help everyone that works for her. With everyone knowing her personality, we as interns go out of our way to get to know her and ask her for advice whenever possible, which is beneficial to effectiveness of organization. The main reason that the dyadic relationships my supervisor creates with her personality is so beneficial to the organization because there is a sense of camaraderie, with her employees because of the connection they have with their boss. She creates a social environment where all of her subordinates feel within the “in-group” which strengthens group cohesion. That cohesion shapes the social identity leadership theory because the dyadic relationships connected even more people within the office ultimately creating a very efficient environment where each individual identifies as a part of the office or portfolio (group).
Interesting analysis. So within the office, are there any individuals who are part of an out-group? Is everyone part of the in-group? You suggest here that tenure (length of time at the organization) strengthens the relationship and seemingly leads to greater responsibility, etc. for that individual. Are there concrete examples of individuals who have less developed relationships with the supervisor and thus have less responsibility, etc.? Though these are not graded and grammar is not a major focus, this is a choppy reflection with some grammatical issues.