One-strike And You’re Out

While working at World Pediatric Project, I have noticed that one leadership theory, the leader-member exchange theory (LMX), is particularly relevant. The LMX theory describes how leaders  maintain their positions within their respective groups. The LMX theory states that this is feasible by having an in-group and an out-group within the organization. The in-group is a tight circle of people who are close to the leader, are totally committed to the mission and who fully support the leader. On the other hand, there is also the out-group who is given fewer responsibilities, and those people have less choice and influence. By having these two groups, if helps a leader maintain their position as the leader.

In order for someone to become a part of the in-group, it would likely begin right after they join the group and would occur in three stages. The first stage is role-taking. This involves the leader and group evaluating the abilities of the new individual, as well as assessing how respectful they are and how they like to be respected. The second stage is role-making. In this stage, there is an informal, unsaid agreement between the leader and follower whereas a role is developed and the leader convince the new follower that by being loyal, they will receive power and benefits. The third stage is routinization which is the ongoing social exchange between the leader and follower.

This theory seems to be very successful at World Pediatric Project. Since I have been working for WPP for the past month, I have seen two new people begin working at the company as well as two new interns start. Each time someone new comes, their respective boss goes through the same sort of procedure: they explain to the individual the mission of the organization, they begin to establish a role for the new employee that focuses the leadership around the boss, and finally they ask the new hire or intern what they want to contribute to the organization. This helps the new member feel as though they have a place, and that for their loyalty to the leader there will be reward.

On the contrary I have also seen this theory in play that resulted in someone becoming a part of an out-group. One of the interns showed up late to something when she was told specifically she needed to be on time. As a result, for the rest of the day, our boss only texted others in the in-group about information, decisions and plans and asked us to relay them to her. Because she did not respect the leader, she was given less choice and less influence.

However, this could be where the theory falls short. Say for example, the intern who arrived late was having a bad day, or she was late for some reason out of her control. She may be completely loyal to the leader, but because of that mistake, she was out of the in-group (at least temporarily). The leader could lose beneficial insight if they maintain a one-strike policy in determining in-group status. They could mistakenly place someone in the out-group who does not truly belong there, and it is likely that it would be hard for that person to again gain the trust of the leader and maintain status in the in-group.