Continual Reliance on the Leader

I can safely say that I have become overwhelmingly reliant on my buddy Tom for just about all of my work, issues, or questions I have on a daily basis. Our constant communication, emails, and in-person conversations can verify such claims. I know in my first blog, 7 weeks ago, I talked about the leader/follower exchange I had created with Tom for he was the individual who integrated me into Guidepoint on my first day. Despite meeting the CEO, several high executives, team leads, and vice presidents, it is amazing to me the intrinsic connection I have with Tom as the most influential leader.

This may partially be because of the structure of the organization, specifically on the corporate business development side of the team I am on. But even with such a hierarchy, I view Tom as the leader I seek to please and report to rather than our vice presidents or even global head of business development who sits in our office. Work comes through Tom, who designates assignments to me- but this is not the only way for work to be given to me. I can receive work from any vice president with the understanding of complement as if it were any other assignment. But for some reason, Tom is the leader who I inherently make sure I have all the work done for, and the one who I check in with most frequently. I find this connection so interesting because I know other interns who only report to team leads rather than their buddies on a daily basis. The standardized procedure of allocated work is very structured across teams, but the connection I had made with Tom from a leader follower prospective has in a way broken some of the Guidepoint leadership dynamics.

The more I thought about my willingness to Tom as my leader, the more the Leader-Member Exchange Theory kept popping into my head as a potential theory justifying my actions. After all, Tom is ultimately the one who will speak on my behalf, about my work, and about my overall performance at Guidepoint. At first I had not thought about this, but my two-way relationship with him shed more clarity on why I, the follower, was and continue to be so loyal to him first and foremost. Whats so telling about the LMX theory, specifically with Tom and myself, is that he is not the most influential in terms of formal leadership roles- based solely on titles. He is only an associate, one official rank above interns in the hierarchy, but his far more powerful force of influence exerted on me supersedes any of the previous titles I mentioned before.

In terms of strengths of our unique leader/follower relation, I think such an understanding on my part makes me work harder. After all, I am doing such diligent and efficient work for Tom in exchange for good words and recommendations on my behalf. Our mutually understood relationship helps me complete work directed my way while also making me feel trusted by my leader. I think our relationship has only enhanced from the start of the summer, while my work has simultaneously improved as well. In terms of challenges, however, I think our relationship and the LMX theory is heavily reliant on transactional leadership solely, without a component of raising morality or motivation necessarily. However, I think in the business environment I am working in, transactional leadership is actually more effective in our case.