It never ceases to amaze me how a
college course can bring me right back to high school and the days of the
clicks. They exist in every school: jocks, cheerleaders, student government
officers, yearbook and newspaper staff, band, and brainiacs. Speaking from my
own experience, I was viewed as a brainiac, which, when you are a sixteen year
old girl, is not the click of which you wish to be a member. For a while, you
attempt to utilize your intelligence as a way to be accepted by the other
clicks. I helped jocks and cheerleaders with assignments so they could pass
classes and still be able to score touchdowns and shake pom-poms. Sadly, the
acceptance is short-lived; you are only given “more opportunities, more
responsibilities, more support,” and in this case, more acceptance until such
time you have served your usefulness (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). It took my
entire sophomore year to realize the popular clicks would never accept me in
the way I wanted; so, I focused on my studies, which led to the work ethic I
have today.
Rowe and Guerrero (2013) note that
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership is descriptive and
prescriptive. The descriptive element recognizes the existence of clicks within
the workplace identified as “in-groups and out-groups” (Rowe & Guerrero,
2013, p. 202). Leaders recognize those in the in-group are willing to work
harder and more often than not are more innovative than those in the
out-groups. Out-group members are happy with the status quo. They are there for
the paycheck and perform the bare minimums with respect to daily tasks. These
are the folks that lead me to scream while waiting in line for a government
office to perform a simple task such as address change on a voter information
card. Out-group workers arrive either right at the start time for work or five
to ten minutes later. They are the first ones to shut down their computers,
straighten their desk, punch out for the day, and make their way to the parking
lot. In-group workers, on the other hand, usually arrive long before it is time
to clock in, their desk is organized in a way that is designed to accomplish
more than the expected workload, they are the ones who volunteer for overtime
and weekend work days, and they are the ones who figure out better and more
efficient ways to achieve a comprehensive work flow. As in high school, the
out-groups remind me of the jocks and cheerleaders, willing to do just enough
to get a passing grade in class; while the in-groups are the brainiacs who, by
ironic coincidence, are seen as brainiacs and not accepted into the “click” by
the out-groups.
According to Rowe & Guerrero
(2013), the prescriptive portion of this theory states leaders are to form high-quality
relationships will all subordinates from all groups, not just the in-groups. By
doing this, the three phases: stranger, acquaintance, and partnership can begin
and hopefully the goal of expanding opportunities, responsibilities, and
support to those once considered out-group members will lead to an increase in
those who work hard and provide innovation and decrease those who are just
there for a paycheck (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). I have worked for leaders
like this; and, at first I was willing to work harder as I perceived a level of
acceptance not offered by the out-group members. Although I was able to expand
my knowledge and help the organization achieve its goal, the proof, as they
say, was in the pudding; and, come review time, more often than not the
government entrenched mentality of the organization did not make any
distinction with reviews between an in-group or out-group worker. Those that
showed up a few minutes past eight, took longer than an hour for lunch, stayed
longer than allowed for breaks, and left promptly at five were rewarded with
the same merits as someone who adhered to the rules and went that extra mile.
This style of leadership, in my opinion,
can be quite deflating, especially when the differences in work ethics are so
visible. Again, speaking for myself, I think the reason people are willing to
be a part of the in-group is there is an initial level of acceptance the
out-group, or the popular “click” will not provide. Also, there is an adrenalin
rush for out-performing others; and, the chance to learn is very tempting and
welcomed. Just as in high school, it takes some time to realize your talents
and abilities are truly not appreciated, especially in a governmental
organization. It matters not an in-group worker can enter fifteen new cases per
hour to an out-group worker’s six per hour. It matters not an in-group worker
can multi-task and perform functions that span separate areas of a department.
In the end, the out-group worker’s paycheck is going to be increased the same
amount as the in-group worker, despite doing less work. I have worked for
leaders like this. The initial opportunities are great; but, eventually you
begin to feel used up. I don’t mind going the extra mile as long as my
compensation levels are commensurate with my quality of work and my output.That is why I tend to stay away from governmental organizations as these groups are prevalent and the outcome is always the same. You end up asking yourself why am I busting my butt to get this work done and come up with ways that will provide for more efficient methods while others can just sit, talk, and make the same rate of pay? I prefer to be rewarded for a job well-done; so, although I have experienced such groups and leaders, I prefer to avoid them.
No comments:
Post a Comment