The group get a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, receive special privileges. (Robbins & Judge, 2009). In our scenario, Hanes had an in-group and an out-group, and Tara was clearly one of the in-group members, she benefited from Frances attention, she had the privilege to be recommended for a position. The members of the in-group invested in the relationship, they interacted outside work. The out-group, which I was part of, could not get Hanes attention even if it was job-related. She will not spend time to explain the work; the interaction with her was formal. The leader is the one who implicitly categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out”. Robbins and Judge (2009) propose that the choice of in group members is based on the similarity with the leader as far as attitude, demographic, personality characteristics; or a higher level of competence than out-group members. As a result of these disparities, the members within the in-group status have higher performance rating; they help more, and report a greater satisfaction with the leader. (Robbins & Judge, 2009). It is hard to commit to the job knowing that you are not part of the preferred