Reference no: EM131920967
RESPOND TO DISCUSSION FROM PEER BELOWFOLLOWING THESE INSTRUCTIONS
Write a response in 300-500 words to the discussion below.
My response should be thorough and address all components of the discussion question in detail, include citations of all sources, where needed, according to the APA Style, and demonstrate accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation
Do the following when responding to the discussion below:
• Read the discussion answer below.
• Provide substantive comments by
o contributing new, relevant information from course readings, Web sites, or other sources;
o building on the remarks or questions of others; or
o sharing practical examples of key concepts from your professional or personal experiences
• Make sure your writing
o is clear, concise, and organized;
o demonstrates ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; and
o displays accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
RESPOND TO DISCUSSION FROM PEER BELOW
Leaders adopt a leadership style and uses traits, skills and abilities to interact with followers. "The Leader-Member Exchange Theory is also known as the Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory." It states there is a dynamic between the leader and team members recognized as a dyad; a social relationship where the interaction results in an interchange. Members commit, perform their roles as required to meet the common goals and are rewarded as part of the group.
Leaders assess what interactions are appropriate for each member of the team or group and these individuals are identified as being part of two groups: the in-group and the out-group (Northouse, 2016).
In-group members tend to be more empathetic, sensitive, patient and committed to the leader. They are characterized as being reliable and engaging. They are trusted and are awarded additional responsibilities, including administrative duties, so they gain "access to more resources." Out-group members are followers that are excluded from the in-group of members and comply with "directives" because they have no "choice or influence," but there is no rapport with the leader (Northouse, 2016).
Examples of In-groups roles -
TWC Special project staff - Gained regional recognition for working cases for other units.
Able to travel outside agency to other offices to work
TWC liaison person - Conducted public speaking engagements away from office
Were recognized by agencies
Gained more access to resources and collaborations to complete tasks
Quality Control member - Contributed to case accuracy improvement plans
Recognized for exceptional policy knowledge
Met outside office for meetings
Case reader - Reviewed workers' case actions and provided feedback
Recognized for exceptional policy knowledge
Authority to require workers to review policy
Example of Out-group roles -
TWC staff - Regular case manager performed only the duties required of them
Relief for scheduler, clerical staff, and PBX operator
Dynamics
All individuals were workers at the same level but the workers that were in the in-group were able to perform their case manage duties and take on other assignments. They were happy to engage in the other activities they were participating in but were still performing their normal roles on the job.
Due to members of the in-group having special consideration from the leader, they were permitted to engage in extra activities, spent more time with the leader discussing these special duties, they could leave the facility, they were eligible for merit raises and special recognitions at the Annual Appreciation day (Northouse, 2013). Individuals within the in-group have a positive social identity.
For example, because they are interacting with other units, agencies, organizations and are being recognized individually and within the group and organization; their social interaction is positive (Platow& van Knippenberg, 2015).
The workers in the out-group completed repetition work daily, had to relieve other staff members and perform their duties which were at a lower level.
They also resented the case reader identifying errors in their cases even though cases readers had exceptional policy knowledge, so many times workers would not correct the errors even in the event of inaccurate benefits being issued. Workers were completing the cases according to their competency and they did not feel they should be making corrections based on a worker at the same level requesting it.
The case reading policy was implemented to catch errors prior to benefits being issued to avoid any over- or under benefit issuances. The worker argued that they had completed the actions on the cases and did not have time to correct cases and that it was causing unnecessary delays in service delivery.
The actions were serious and could have resulted in individuals being reprimanded, suspended, or even terminated so there was always tension, discord, and delays that causes untimely reports to be generated; all reflecting negatively on the unit. If the cases had been pulled, they would have caused sanctions for the unit, caused the state funding so they were serious situations (Northouse, 2013).