Page 204 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Leading Small Groups: Theoretical Perspectives 187

leader is not surprising; women seem to be more comfortable calling themselves orga-
87
nizer or coordinator, because they perceive a stigma attached to the leader label.
88
Women often become leaders by outworking men in a group, and they use more themes
89
of cohesion. Clearly, gender bias in a group influences interaction in complex ways.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Model
One model that has looked systematically at the nature of the interdependent relation-
ship of leader-member behaviors and perceptions is the Leader-Member Exchange Leader-Member
(LMX) model, which suggests that supervisory leaders develop different kinds of lead- Exchange (LMX) Model
ership relationships with different members, depending on leader and member char- The leadership
acteristics. Members differ in the amount of negotiating latitude they are allowed by model based on the
leaders; a member with a high negotiating latitude is given a great deal of leeway to finding that
supervisors develop
design and perform his or her job, whereas a member with low negotiating latitude is different kinds of
not accorded such freedom by the leader. Generally, members with higher negotiating leadership
latitude are more satisfied and more committed to the organization or group. The relationships with
member’s degree of negotiating latitude is created through a reciprocal interaction their subordinates,
process with the leader, whose impression of the member’s capabilities helps deter- depending on
mine the degree of negotiating latitude permitted. 90 characteristics of
The best leader-member fit seems to be determined by similarity about the need both the leader and
for power. Leaders with high power needs gave greater negotiating latitude to members.
91
members with high power needs; likewise, leaders with low power needs gave greater
negotiating latitude to members with low power needs. Clearly, leaders with high
power needs take a different approach to forming groups than leaders with low power
needs; both types of leaders appear to be more comfortable with members who share
their assumptions about the appropriate use of power.
Leaders must be careful not to play favorites. McClane compared groups with
wide variations in the amount of negotiating latitude and groups with little variation.
92
High differentiation (having some members with high negotiating latitude and some
with little latitude in the same group) may have an undesirable effect on a group, par-
ticularly if the members accorded high negotiating latitude are seen as an elite core
group with the rest feeling like hired hands. Lee found that members with little nego-
tiating latitude perceived less fairness than members with high latitude. Those mem-
93
bers who thought things were fair also perceived the work group’s communication to
be more cooperative. Although it is normal for leaders to interact differently with
different members, clearly, they must tread carefully in doing so.
The foregoing discussion is designed to remind us that neither the leader nor the Transformational
members operate in a vacuum; instead, their interactions are shaped by each other. Even Leadership
though we isolate leadership and treat it as an individual variable for study purposes, in Transformational
fact it is a system-level variable that is a property of the group as a whole, not of the indi- leadership empowers
vidual called the group’s leader. Contemporary transformational leadership models try to group members to
capture this interdependence between leaders and followers in a different way. exceed expectations
by rhetorically
Transformational Leadership creating a vision that
inspires and
The concept of transformational leadership emerges out of contemporary organizational motivates members.
94
and management philosophy. Traditional models of leadership assume that leaders

gal37018_ch07_169_196.indd 187 3/28/18 12:36 PM