base on the information and theory provided $.$ Compare the earlier LMX studies, which described in$-$groups and out$-$groups to the leadership$-$making studies in which there are three phases. How is it more helpful to describe LMX in three phases instead of categorizing in$-$ and out$-$groups? Early Studies $$ Researchers found two general types of

linkages $($or relationships$)--$those based on

Expanded$/$negotiated role responsibilities $($extra$-$roles$)=$ in$-$group

Relationships marked by mutual trust, respect, liking,

and reciprocal influence

Receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern than out$-$group members

Formal employment contract $($defined$-$roles$)=$

out$-$group

Relationships marked by formal communication based on job descriptions $$ In$-$group$/$out$-$group status based on how well follower works with the leader and how well the leader works with the follower

$$ How followers involve themselves in expanding their role responsibilities with the leader determines whether they become in$-$group or out$-$group participants

$$ Becoming part of the in$-$group involves follower negotiations in performing activities beyond the formal job description

In$-$Group

more information, influence, confidence, and concern from leader

more dependable, highly involved, and communicative than out$-$group

Out$-$Group less compatible with leader

usually just come to work, do the job, and go home

Leadership$-$making studies : A prescriptive approach to leadership that emphasizes that a leader should develop high$-$ quality exchanges with all of her or his followers, rather than just a few. Three phases of leadership making which

develop over time:

$($a$)$ stranger phase

$($b$)$ acquaintance phase

$($c$)$ mature partnership phase

Phase $1$ Stranger

$$ Interactions within the leader$$follower dyad are generally

rule bound

$$ Rely on contractual relationships

$$ Relate to each other within prescribed organizational

roles

$$ Experience lower quality exchanges

$$ Motives of follower directed toward self$-$interest rather

than good of the group

How do leaders and followers determine relationship

quality?

$$ By leaders using narrative storylines to determine how

trustworthy followers are $($Kelley$,2014)$

$$ By looking at the social interaction between leaders and

followers $($Sheer$,2014)$

$$ By using traditional relationship$-$building techniques such

as conflict management and shared tasks $($Madlock &

Booth$-$Butterfield, $2012)$

Phase $2$

Acquaintance

$$Begins with an $$offer$$ by leader$/$follower for improved career$-$

oriented social exchanges

$$Testing period for both, assessing whether

$$ the follower is interested in taking on new roles

$$ leader is willing to provide new challenges

$$Shift in dyad from formalized interactions to new ways of

relating

$$Quality of exchanges improves along with greater trust and

respect

$$Less focus on self$-$interest, more on goals of the group $$ Phase $3$

$$ Mature Partnership

$$ Marked by high$-$quality leader$$member exchanges

$$ Experience high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation

toward each other

$$ Tested relationship and found it dependable

$$ High degree of reciprocity between leaders and subordinates

$$ May depend on each other for favors and special assistance

$$ Highly developed patterns of relating that produce positive

$$ Outcomes for both themselves and the organization

$$ Partnerships are transformational$--$moving beyond self$-$interest to

accomplish greater good of the team and organization