Precepts of the Ibm Essay

Theory Getting the Best From all Team Members (Also known as LMX or Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory) Meaning of LMX This situation is at the heart of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory. This theory, also known as LMX or the Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory, explores how leaders and managers develop relationships with team members; and it explains how those relationships can either contribute to growth or hold people back. Intro to LMX Understanding the Theory The Leader-Member Exchange Theory first emerged in the 1970s. It focuses on the relationship that develops between managers and members of their teams. The theory states that all relationships between managers and subordinates go through three stages. These are: Role-Taking. Role-Making. â€Å"Routinization. † Let’s look at each stage in greater detail. 1. Role-Taking Role-taking occurs when team members first join the group. Managers use this time to assess new members’ skills and abilities. 2. Role-Making New team members then begin to work on projects and tasks as part of the team. In this stage, managers generally expect that new team members will work hard, be loyal and prove trustworthy as they get used to their new role. The theory says that, during this stage, managers sort new team members (often subconsciously) into one of two groups. In-Group – if team members prove themselves loyal, trustworthy and skilled, they’re put into the In-Group. This group is made up of the team members that the manager trusts the most. Managers give this group most of their attention, providing challenging and interesting work, and offering opportunities for additional training and advancement. This group also gets more one-to-one time with the manager. Often, people in this group have a similar personality and work-ethic to their manager. Out-Group – if team members betray the trust of the manager, or prove that they’re unmotivated or incompetent, they’re put into the Out-Group. This group’s work is often restricted and unchallenging. Out-Group members tend to have less access to the manager, and often don’t receive opportunities for growth or advancement. . Routinization During this last phase, routines between team members and their managers are established. In-Group team members work hard to maintain the good opinion of their managers, by showing trust, respect, empathy, patience, and persistence. ##can be used for outcome that effect the organization Out-Group members may sta rt to dislike or distrust their managers. Because it’s so hard to move out of the Out-Group once the perception has been established, Out-Group members may have to change departments or organizations in order to â€Å"start over. Once team members have been classified, even subconsciously, as In-Group or Out-Group, that classification affects how their managers relate to them from then on, and it can become self-fulfilling. For instance, In-Group team members are often seen as rising stars and the manager trusts them to work and perform at a high level. This is also the group that the manager talks to most, offering support and advice, and they’re given the best opportunities to test their skills and grow. So, of course, they’re more likely to develop in their roles. This also holds true for the Out-Group. The manager spends little, if any, time trying to support and develop this group. They receive few challenging assignments or opportunities for training and advancement. And, because they’re never tested, they have little chance to change the manager’s opinion. Using the Theory You can use the Leader-Member Exchange Theory to be aware of how you perceive members of your own team. To do this, follow these steps: 1. Identify Your Out-Group Chances are, you know who’s in your Out-Group already. Take a moment to note their names down. Next, analyze why these people have fallen â€Å"out of favor. † Did they do something specifically to lose your trust? Do they exhibit bad behavior at work? Are they truly incompetent, or do they have low motivation? Analyze what they’ve actually done, and compare the facts with your perceptions. Do these match, or have you (perhaps subconsciously) blown things out of proportion? 2. Reestablish the Relationship It’s important that, as the leader, you make a reasonable effort to reestablish a relationship with Out-Group team members. Research published in the Leadership Quarterly journal in 1995 showed that team members who have high quality relationships with their leader have higher morale, and are more productive than those who don’t. So you, and your organization, can benefit from creating a better relationship. Keep in mind that this group will likely be wary of any attention or support from you; after all, they may not have had it in the past. First, meet each team member one-on-one. Take the time to find out if they’re happy with their job. What are their career goals? What can you do to make their work more challenging or engaging? A one-on-one meeting can also help you identify that person’s psychological contract with you – that is, the unspoken benefits they expect from you, as their leader. If they’re in the Out-Group, they may feel that the psychological contract has been broken. You also need to discover what truly motivates them. Use McClelland’s Human Motivation Theory or Herzberg’s Motivators and Hygiene Factor Theory to find out what drives them to succeed. Once you’ve had a chance to reconnect with your team members through one-on-one meetings, do what you sensibly can to continue to touch base with them. Practice management by walking around, or drop by their office to see if they need help on projects or tasks. Work on getting to know these team members on a personal level. 3. Provide Training and Development Opportunities Remember, the biggest advantage to the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is that it alerts you to the preference you might unconsciously – and possibly unfairly – be showing some team members; this allows you to offer all of your team members appropriate opportunities for training, development, and advancement. Your Out-Group team members may benefit from a mentoring or coaching relationship with you. You may also want to provide them with low risk opportunities to test and grow their skills. Use task allocation strategies to make sure you’re assigning the right task to the right person. Also, take our Bite-Sized Training session, Setting Goals for Your Team, to learn how to set effective and realistic goals for these team members. You can also use the Nine-Box Grid for Talent Management to re-assess their potential from time to time, and to give them the right development opportunities. LMX Theory ;amp; Organizational Effectiveness: ##from http://www. technofunc. com/index. php/leadership-skills/leadership-theories/item/leader-member-exchange-theory-lmx-theory LMX theory is directly related to organizational effectiveness as the quality of leader–member exchanges relate to positive outcomes for leaders, followers, groups, and the organization in general. More In-Group members means high-quality leader–member exchanges and that results in less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions and greater organizational commitment. – Learn more at www. technofunc. com. Your online source for free professional tutorials. Info from†¦pdf The relationship Between Leader-member Exchange(LMX) motivated to support rather than resist the influence attempt. Conversely, employees in low LMX relationships are accustomed to antagonistic behaviors and may view consultation tactics as insincere and motivated by opportunistic intentions. For example, leaders with poor reputations who engage in supportive behaviors are viewed as self- serving and insincere. Similarly, for employees in low LMX relationships, a manager’s use of consultation tactics may be perceived as self-serving attempts to gain employee favor, or even to highjack employee ideas, rather than as an attempt to improve the change initiative. Such perceptions would likely cause these influence attempts to backfire and prompt employees to resist the influence attempt. It is likely that the contribution aspect of the leader–member relationship (which reflects the amount of effort expended toward mutual goals) will be a stronger predictor of citizenship behavior than will loyalty and professional respect, in part because citizenship behavior reflects effort expended beyond one’s normal role requirements (Illes, Nahrgana, and Morgeson, 2007). iffers from other leadership theories by its focus on the dyadic relationship and the unique relationships leaders develop with each follower (Gerstner ;amp; Day, 1997; Liden, Sparrowe, ;amp; Wayne, 1997). Strong LMX relationships are characterized by support, mutual trust, respect, and liking (Graen ;amp; Uhl-Bien, 1995). Interactions between employees and managers in strong LMX relationships typically reinforce positive affect and strengthen the relationship bond (Fairhur st, 1993). Such relationships include the exchange of material and nonmaterial goods that extend beyond what is specified in the formal job description (Liden et al. , 1997; Liden ;amp; Graen, 1980). This relationship has important implications for Biomedical Informatics technicians and vendors because at high levels of relationships, there is less resistance to change and use of sanctions also seems inconsistent with past behavior (Frust ;amp; Cable, 2008). The LMX model suggests that leaders do not use the same style or set of behaviors uniformly across all members. Instead, unique relationships or exchanges develop with each member. These exchanges range from low to high quality. In addition, the theory contends that a supervisor will develop different quality exchange relationships with each of his or her subordinates which remain relatively stable over time. Employees with high-quality exchanges have been referred to as in the â€Å"in-group† and those with low-quality exchanges as in the â€Å"out-group. In strong LMX relationships, employees are more likely to be involved and provide information needed for task accomplishment. These employees should be LMX and CMX Theory 6 An alternative approach to understanding a leaders’ influence on individual follower or subordinate effectiveness is through the focus on dyadic relationships between leaders and each of their subordinates (Dansereau et al. , 1975). Originally ter med vertical dyad linkage (Dansereau et al. , 1975), leader–member exchange theory LMX and CMX Theory 5