In Groups and Out Groups

A theory of leadership we study in our Leadership Concepts and Practices Course (among many others) is called Leader-Member Exchange. Although this theory had led to abundant research, it is not particularly helpful regarding how to lead effectively. One aspect of LMX as it is called is quite helpful and resonates with anyone who has had experiences with groups of people (which is all of us, right?)

This idea concerns “In Groups” and “Out Groups”. LMX suggests leaders make attributions (such as “Are they going to be conscientious or hard-working?”) concerning team members early in their interactions and (usually) unconsciously place them into “In-Groups” or “Out-Groups” based on these attributions. In-group members, as the name implies, receive benefits not afforded to the out-group members. These might include tangible rewards such as better offices, newer equipment, or better assignments and/or intangible rewards such as more time with or mentoring by the leader. Research indicates that because of this extra attention, in-group members are more likely to be boundary spanners (individuals who join other committees and projects either within or outside of the organization), they are more likely to exhibit a positive attitude about the organization, they are more likely to work harder (discretionary effort) and they are more likely to remain with the organization, among many other benefits.

However, the out-group members are less likely to work harder, they tend to get lower performance evaluations (regardless of actual performance), and they are more likely to leave the organization.

Leaders may argue that they mindfully place individuals in these groups. After all, shouldn’t the best workers be rewarded? However, that is rarely the case. If we consider the effect of unconscious bias, we know the tendency is to place people who are similar to us in our in-groups and individuals who are dissimilar in our out-groups without conscious awareness. Similarity may take many forms: gender, race, nationality, religion and even college affiliation may influence group placement.

Interestingly, if you are in the “In-Group,” you may not realize it; however, the “Out-Group” members know exactly who is in which group. No doubt this resonates with anyone who has attended high school. In fact, I usually term this theory “Organizational Mean Girls.”

The solution? It is important to become aware of this tendency if we are leaders. Leaders can implement practices that mitigate this by blind reviews of resumes and talent and hiring by diverse committees. This ensures a diverse team; however, it does not ensure a level playing field for everyone. Our students have provided some of the best solutions to this problem, and their advice includes the following:

“Looking at my team to determine whom I have placed into these groups and then taking appropriate action to include everyone.”

“Having one on one’s with everyone on my team.”

“Assigning projects based on merit and expertise.”

“Taking more time with the members I’ve placed in the out-group to determine their goals and aspirations.”

These are just a few recommendations savvy leaders suggest for mitigating the LMX factor. In a rapidly changing world where everyone’s expertise and commitment are needed to solve complex problems, leaders must ensure all team members are “In Group” members.

Suzette Plaisance Bryan, PhD, SPHR, GPHR, SHRM-SCP

Director OBCC Leadership Center