A Longitudinal Examination of the Effects of LMX, Ability, and Differentiation on Team Performance
Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory posits that effective leaders form dyadic relationships with followers that differ in quality, and that differentiation positively affects team performance. The purpose of this study was to test the notion that leader differentiation positively impacts team performance, and to investigate whether such effects differ at different points in the team’s lifecycle.
Longitudinal data from three studies of a total of 125 small project teams were used. LMX was assessed at three points during the teams’ lifecycle, and used to predict independent expert ratings of team performance and team members’ ratings of team development assessed at the end of the team’s lifecycle. The effects of leader and follower ability were also examined.
Results of latent growth curve analysis indicated a positive effect for LMX differentiation on team performance, but only for LMX differentiation near the end of the team’s lifecycle. Differentiation was unrelated to team development.
The findings suggest that managers of work teams who differentiate among their employees in terms of their dyadic LMX relationships may elicit higher levels of team performance, provided that such differentiation occurs later rather than earlier in the team’s lifecycle.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that the effects for LMX differentiation on team performance differ depending on at what point in the team’s lifecycle LMX is assessed, and that such effects are distinct from those on team development.
KeywordsLMX Leader Differentiation Team Performance
- Arrow, H., Henry, K. B., Poole, M. S., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. (2005). Traces, trajectories, and timing. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 313–367). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Dotan, O., Goldstein, H., Nishii, L., Mayer, D. M., & Schneider, B. (2004, April). Leader–member exchange, group-level processes, and group performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Stryker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Fox, J. (1991). Regression diagnostics. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Graen, G. B. (2011). Leadership motivated excellence theory: The dynamics of interpersonal strategic alliances. In M. G. Rumsey (Ed.), The many sides of leadership: A handbook. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Graen, G. B., Hui, C., & Taylor, E. (2004). A new approach to leadership: Upward, downward, and horizontal differentiation. In G. Graen (Ed.), LMX leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12, 157–159.Google Scholar
- Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (Vol. 3, pp. 251–289). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Kozlowski, S. W. J., Watola, D. J., Jensen, J. M., Kim, B. H., & Botero, I. C. (2009). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of dynamic team leadership. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 113–155). New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
- Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., & Goldstein, H. A. (2008). Examining the relative importance of leader–member exchange on group performance over time. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), Knowledge driven corporation: Complex creative destruction. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Preacher, K. J., Wichman, A. L., MacCallum, R. C., & Briggs, N. E. (2008). Latent growth modeling. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
- Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Bluman, J. (2008). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Scherbaum, C. A., Naidoo, L. J., & Ferreter, J. M. (2007). Examining component measures of team leader–member exchange (LMX-SLX) using item response theory. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), New multinational network sharing (pp. 129–156). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader–member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resources management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 137–185.Google Scholar