Leader-member Exchange Differentiation Research Articles

When leader–member exchange differentiation improves work group functioning: The combined roles of differentiation bases and reward interdependence

AbstractDrawing on social hierarchy theory, we develop a contingency model of leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation in which LMX differentiation is positively and negatively related to group cooperation and group social undermining, respectively, when it is based on the group members’ performance, but the relations are reversed (i.e., negative and positive, respectively) when it stems from a leader's personal liking of the members. In addition, we propose that the moderating effects of the performance and personal liking bases of LMX differentiation are magnified by the levels of reward interdependence. Specifically, under a high (vs. low) level of reward interdependence, LMX differentiation based on performance more strongly relates to high group cooperation and low group social undermining, whereas LMX differentiation with a personal liking basis is more likely to decrease group cooperation and increase group social undermining. Group cooperation and social undermining are then hypothesized to convey the three‐way interactive effects of LMX differentiation, its two bases, and reward interdependence on subsequent group performance. Analyses of data from 328 sales groups of a large retailer support the core part of our contingency model of LMX differentiation.

LMX 차별화가 팀 갈등을 통하여 팀 조직시민행동에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 정치적 기술의 조절효과

LMX 차별화가 팀 갈등을 통하여 팀 조직시민행동에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 정치적 기술의 조절효과

LMX Differentiation and Group Outcomes: A Framework and Review Drawing on Group Diversity Insights

In this review, we address inconsistencies and a lack of clarity in the study of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation and group outcomes. We do so by drawing on another highly visible group dispersion literature in the management domain, group diversity, based on the recognition that LMX quality is a characteristic on which group members vary. Utilizing insights from Harrison and Klein’s typology of group diversity constructs, we introduce a framework that specifies the meaning and shape of three variations of differentiated leader-member relationships in groups and connects each construct with implications in terms of theorizing and measurement. Specifically, our framework conceptualizes LMX differentiation as LMX separation (dispersion in LMX relationships as disagreement or opposition regarding an opinion, perception, or position), LMX variety (dispersion in LMX relationships as distinctiveness in kind, source, or category), and LMX disparity (dispersion in LMX relationships as inequality in concentration of valued social assets or resources). We then apply this framework to conduct a systematic review of the LMX differentiation literature with particular attention to alignment among a study’s descriptions of the construct, application of theory, expected group outcomes, and construct measurement. Finally, we offer recommendations for future research and for applying our framework to enhance reliability, validity, and generalizability in studies of LMX differentiation and group outcomes.

Conflict, justice, and inequality: Why perceptions of leader–member exchange differentiation hurt performance in teams

SummaryTo better understand why leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation in teams may be detrimental to individual and team performance, we propose that team members' perception of LMX differentiation (PLMXD) is more important than statistical measures of LMX differentiation. Specifically, we hypothesize a multilevel model in which relationship conflict and procedural justice (climate) mediate the relationships of individual and collective PLMXDs with individual and team performance, respectively. Using a sample of 235 individuals in 53 teams, we found that individual PLMXD was negatively related to individual performance through relationship conflict perceptions, controlling for LMX. At the team level, collective PLMXD was negatively related to team performance through procedural justice climate and relationship conflict, controlling for a statistical measure of LMXD. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are explored.

Multifocal Studies about LMX: Impact of Team Level LMX, LMX Differentiation and Quality on Multi Efficacy and Stress

Although the concept of LMX has been introduced for more than 40 years, many team-level researches utilizing it have not been conducted. Also, despite the dyadic relationship between LMX and its subordinates, researches about the effect of LMX on the leader are insufficient. This study explored this problem by focusing on the different effects of team level LMX, LMX quality and LMX differentiation. Generally, since LMX quality affects attitudes and behaviors of members, this study explains the effect on self-efficacy at the individual level. Team level LMX and LMX differentiation, on the other hand, are team-level variables that will affect team-efficacy rather than an individual self-efficacy. Further, these team-level LMX variables will affect not only the positive factors, but also certain negative factors. A high Team level LMX means the leader treats and cares about the members individually. In this case, the leader will be under pressure. This study explains the different effects of LMX on the level of analysis and verifies the effects of LMX on the leader''s time stress as well as its advantages. Through this process, this paper is meaningful to study the effectiveness of LMX at various levels and to suggest new perspectives.

LMX Differentiation and Voice Behavior: A Resource-Conservation Framework

The purpose of this article is to investigate how and when leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation influences employees’ voice behavior by examining trust as a psychological process and two types of leader power as opposite moderators. Based on a sample of 61 teams from an energy corporation in China, we tested a moderated mediation model using multilevel structural equation modeling. The results show that LMX differentiation is negatively related to employees’ trust in leaders and, in turn, reduces employees’ voice behavior. Moreover, leader reward power negatively moderates the influence of LMX differentiation on employees’ trust in leaders such that the relationship is stronger when leader reward power is low but not significant when leader reward power is high. Leader coercive power positively moderates the relationship such that it is stronger when leader coercive power is high but not significant when leader coercive power is low. Furthermore, these two types of power moderate the indirect relationship between LMX differentiation and employees’ voice via their trust in leaders. This study is the first to unpack the mechanism that links LMX differentiation and voice behavior and the conditions under which LMX differentiation can exert influence. This study delineates a resource-based process with conservation of resources theory through which employees appraise the social stressor (LMX differentiation), perceive the value of future resource investment (trust), strategically respond to resource signals (leader power), and finally make resource investment decisions (voice behavior).

Leaders—watch out for LMX differentiation: A multilevel model of leader-related antecedences and consequences of LMX differentiation

Research has shown that leader–member exchange differentiation affects individual and group outcomes. However, it is not yet clear how such unequal treatment affects the team’s perception of their leader in terms of leader-related outcomes, such as perceived leader communication quality, satisfaction with the leader, and perceived leader effectiveness. We analyzed how leader–member exchange differentiation in teams affects leader-related outcomes, and how it is affected by transformational leadership at the team level. Multilevel analyses of data from 92 teams with 831 employees indicated that leader–member exchange differentiation within teams is negatively related to leader-related outcomes, whereas transformational leadership is negatively related to leader–member exchange differentiation. In addition, we found positive indirect effects from transformational leadership to the leader-related outcomes via leader–member exchange differentiation.

Avoiding or embracing social relationships? A conservation of resources perspective of leader narcissism, leader–member exchange differentiation, and follower voice

SummaryIn this study, we draw from the conservation of resources theory and the narcissism literature to examine why and when narcissistic leaders develop and maintain differentiated social relationships with followers in a group setting, therefore demotivating follower voice. Using data from 457 employees and their 95 supervisors working at a large Chinese consulting company, we tested and found support for our hypotheses that leader narcissism had a negative direct effect on employee voice, as well as a negative indirect effect on voice via group‐level leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation. Our findings further showed that leaders' upward exchange, leader–leader exchange (LLX), with their own supervisor moderated the negative indirect effect of narcissism on voice such that this negative indirect effect was stronger in the presence of low leader LLX but turned nonsignificant in the presence of high leader LLX. Theoretical and practical implications of our research are discussed. Limitations and directions for future research are also offered.

The Paradox of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Differentiation

Abstract. Drawing from the equity-equality paradigm and social interdependence theory, we examine cross-level effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation on both task performance and creativity using 461 team members and 98 team leaders in China. We demonstrate the paradoxical (i.e., positive and negative) effects of LMX differentiation in teams. Specifically, while LMX differentiation was positively, directly associated with task performance and creativity in more interdependent teams, it also had negative, indirect influences, through interactional justice climate, on these outcomes. Overall, in more interdependent teams, LMX differentiation had positive effects on employee performance-based outcomes, but in less interdependent teams, the effects were more negative. Our findings also provide practical implications for team governance.

A social identity perspective on the association between leader-member exchange and job insecurity

ABSTRACTThis study aimed to understand the association between leader–member exchange (LMX) and employee job insecurity. We proposed that LMX quality may foster a sense of organizational insider status, which could reduce the perception of job insecurity. Moreover, the extent to which employees identify their supervisor with the organization (i.e. the extent of supervisor organizational embodiment, SOE) and the variation in LMX quality within the work group (i.e. LMX differentiation) were theorized to be moderators of the effect of LMX quality on perceived organizational insider status. Time-lagged data were collected from a sample of 186 Chinese employees working in 31 work groups. The results indicated that perceived organizational insider status mediated the relationship between LMX quality and job insecurity and that SOE moderated the effect of LMX quality on perceived organizational insider status such that the effect was stronger when SOE was high (vs. low). However, we did not find support for the moderating effect of LMX differentiation. This study provides new insights into the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of the association between LMX quality and job insecurity, a typical stressor for many present-day workers.

How Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Differentiation Reduces the Benefit of LMX on Work Stress in Teams

Stress in teams is gaining more and more attention due to the huge costs caused by stress and the increasing importance of teamwork in many organizations. Although research has examined stress in t...

To voice or not? The role of leader power base on employees’ response to LMX differentiation

To voice or not? The role of leader power base on employees’ response to LMX differentiation

The influence of leader-member exchange differentiation on work unit commitment: the mediating role of support climate

We investigated whether the influence of LMX differentiation (the extent to which the quality of the leader-member relationships within a work unit varies) on work unit commitment is mediated by support climate. We tested this mediated relationship in a sample composed of 30 health care units. The results obtained showed that LMX differentiation measured at Time 1 was negatively related to work unit support climate measured one year later (Time 2), which in turn was positively related to work unit commitment measured at Time 2. The negative indirect effect of LMX differentiation on work unit commitment through support climate was statistically significant. Our study contributes to having a better understanding of the role of LMX differentiation in work unit functioning.

Group power structure, inter-subgroup cross-dependency, and work group performance

In this paper, we examine group power structure and intragroup process with a focus on demographic faultline and subgroups. Specifically, we investigate the effects of group faultline, power imbalance, and cross-dependency between subgroups on overall group performance. Drawing on mutual dependence theory, we develop a new construct of cross-dependency, which refers to dependence between subgroups across different resources. We also examine the moderating effect of LMX differentiation. Using data from 50 work teams from a manufacturing company in Korea, we found that group faultline itself did not have a significant impact on group performance. Instead, perceived power imbalance between subgroups was negatively associated with group performance. Consistent with our expectation, cross-dependency between subgroups in task-advice and friendship networks had a positive effect. Lastly, LMX differentiation exacerbated the negative effect of power imbalance and mitigated the positive effect of cross-dependency. We discuss implications of our findings for group faultline and subgroup theory to better understand the positive potential of subgroups and inter-subgroup process.

The Effects of LMX Differentiation on Team Performance: Investigating the Mediating Properties of Cohesion

Although conceptualized initially as a dyadic-level theory, scholars have since broadened the theoretical underpinnings of leader–member exchange (LMX) to account for its effects on group-level phenomena. LMX differentiation, for example, captures the extent to which variance in LMX quality within teams affects numerous outcomes (e.g., performance). However, the specific mechanisms by which LMX differentiation affects team-level outcomes remains virtually unknown. In an attempt to address this limitation, this study investigates the extent to which task and social cohesion mediate the effects of LMX differentiation on team performance. Results indicate that the negative effect of LMX differentiation on team performance is mediated by task cohesion but not by social cohesion. In addition, LMX differentiation was found to have a negative effect of social cohesion, which was also mediated by task cohesion. A discussion is offered in which the implications of these results are entertained.

The importance of being psychologically empowered: Buffering the negative effects of employee perceptions of leader–member exchange differentiation

Although differentiated relationships among leaders and their followers are fundamental to leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, research provides limited knowledge about whether employees’ responses to individual perceptions of LMX differentiation are uniform. In a field study, we examined whether individual‐level psychological empowerment buffers the negative relationship between perceived LMX differentiation and job satisfaction and found that the negative relationship is strongest under low employee psychological empowerment conditions, as compared to high psychological empowerment. Furthermore, in a multi‐wave field study and an experiment, we extended these initial findings by investigating employees’ perceptions of supervisory fairness as a mediator of this moderated relationship. We found that the indirect effect between perceived LMX differentiation and job satisfaction, through supervisory fairness perceptions, is strongest under low employee psychological empowerment, as compared to high psychological empowerment. Collectively, our findings showcase the importance of psychological empowerment as a tool for employees to use to counteract the negative effect of perceived differentiated contexts.Practitioner points When employees perceive that their managers have differentiated relationships across workgroup employees, employees tend to be less satisfied in their jobs, and this negative relationship is explained through employees’ perceptions of supervisory fairness. Employees with low psychological empowerment levels (e.g., employees who feel less in control of their work) report lower levels of job satisfaction when they perceive that their managers differentiate among employees. However, employees with high levels of psychological empowerment are more resilient in contexts where managers are perceived to differentiate across workgroup employees. The findings reinforce the necessity for managers and organizations to implement and promote empowerment initiatives.

Nationality diversity and leader–Member exchange at multiple levels of analysis

PurposeThe diversity literature has yet to investigate relationships between diversity and leader–member exchanges (LMX) at multiple levels of analysis. The purpose of this paper is to test a multilevel model of nationality diversity and LMX. In doing so, the authors investigate the role of surface- and deep-level diversity as related to leader–member exchange differentiation (LMXD) and relative LMX (RLMX), and hence to subordinate job performance.Design/methodology/approachThe authors test a multilevel model of diversity and LMX using multisource survey data from subordinates nesting within supervisors. The authors do so in a context where diversity in nationality is pervasive and plays a key role in LMXs, i.e., a multinational organization in Dubai. The authors tested the cross-level moderated model using MPlus.FindingsThe results suggest surface-level similarity is more important to RLMX than deep-level similarity. The relationship between surface-level similarity and RLMX is moderated by workgroup nationality diversity. When workgroups are more diverse, there is a positive relationship between dyadic nationality similarity and RLMX; when workgroups are less diverse, similarity in nationality matters less. Moreover, LMXD at the workgroup level moderates the relationship between RLMX and performance at the individual level.Originality/valueThis study is one of very few to examine both diversity and LMX at multiple levels of analysis. This is the first study to test the workgroup diversity as a cross-level moderator of the relationship between deep-level similarity and LMX. The results challenge the prevailing notion that that deep-level similarity is more strongly related to LMX than surface-level diversity.

LMX differentiation is good for some and bad for others: A multilevel analysis of effects of LMX differentiation in innovation teams

Based on economizing resources (e.g., time, energy), leaders tend to develop different quality dyadic relationships (i.e., LMX, leader-member exchange differentiation) with different team members, ...

Correction

This article refers to:LMX differentiation is good for some and bad for others: A multilevel analysis of effects of LMX differentiation in innovation teams

LMX and welfare trade-off ratios: An evolutionary perspective on leader-member relations

A growing stream of theory and research in evolutionary psychology proposes that people mentally represent dyadic relationships through an internal regulatory variable, the “Welfare Tradeoff Ratio.” I introduce welfare tradeoff theory and indicate how it speaks to the problematic distinction between social exchanges and relationship quality in Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory and research. I then address issues related to leader-member agreement, LMX development, upward impression management, emotions in leader-member relationships and LMX differentiation from the perspective of welfare tradeoffs. Implications and consideration of measurement also are discussed.