In 1948, Ralph Stogdill offered for consideration, the thought that leadership i
ID: 393493 • Letter: I
Question
In 1948, Ralph Stogdill offered for consideration, the thought that leadership is actually a relationship. Not a matter of passive traits that an individual was born with, or actions that they take in a specific circumstance—leadership is a culmination of working relationships.
I feel a more accurate examination of the theory would consider that leaders develop separate exchange relationships with each of their individual followers—some good, some not-so-good. The true value of the theory, in my humble opinion, is membership in in-group or out-group can be predictive of success, satisfaction, job performance, turnover intentions, and ultimately the evaluated effectiveness of the leader. That alone probably makes it worth our time to investigate the theory more closely.
Northouse observes: “Followers in the in-group receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from the leader than do out-group followers… In addition, they are more dependable, more highly involved, and more communicative than out-group followers…”
Question #1:
At what point does this become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you are a member of the in-group, aren’t you more inclined to freely offer your discretionary effort in all matters work related? Wouldn’t you be inclined to accept more responsibilities, work more holidays and weekends, just to stay a member of the in-group?
Question #2:
At what point do you, as the leader, cease with strategies to move followers into the in-group, acknowledge that you are honoring a sunk cost, allow them the option of remaining as a member of the out-group?
Professor Northouse states: “Out-group members act quite differently than in-group members. Rather than trying to do extra work, out-group members operate strictly within their prescribed organizational goals.”
Question #3:
Doesn’t this seem to be another way of describing the difference between the Economic Worker and the Social Worker? What studies from the History of Management have reinforced this concept?
Nestled in Case 7.2, there is an interesting issue of leader/follower relations that we should explore. In explicating Jenny’s style of leadership, it is mentioned that, “…she avoids social lunches because she thinks they foster the perception of favoritism.” More broadly than the issue of favoritism, is the issue of being friends with our followers.
Question #4
Explore the pros and cons of becoming friends with your workers when you are the leader in an organization.
Explanation / Answer
1. Under the assumption that I am a member of the in-group, to a large extent this will be true. I will be naturally more inclined to put in more effort to place myself more strongly to be in the in-group. Humans by nature have a flair for more power which goes a long way in satisfying the human ego. Thus being in the in-group, I will be more privy to the information that is not available to people outside the group. On matters concerning working on weekends, as a responsible person of the group, I will offer my services on weekends which will be absolutely necessary. However, if one is of the expectation that one must offer his/her service on all weekends no matter what the situation is, is being slightly unrealistic. Humans do need to switch off from the professional world and reflect back on the situation. Family is an important part of one's being. Thus a work - life balance is extremely important to keep going on for a longer duration. If one is efficient and smart enough, then these situations can be aptly handled without causing much concern.
2. Committment towards one's job, honesty and transparency are the factors which in my opinion should be the criteria of deciding who gets to be in the in-group. In this cut throat competitive world, one needs to be compassionate leader who backs his troops. However, if one is not able to prove his mettle even after repeated chances and trainings, then based on the skills that an individual possesses, the restructuring is a logical choice.