Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 347–357 | Cite as

A Longitudinal Examination of the Effects of LMX, Ability, and Differentiation on Team Performance

  • Loren J. Naidoo
  • Charles A. Scherbaum
  • Harold W. Goldstein
  • George B. Graen



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.


LMX Leader Differentiation Team Performance 


  1. 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
  2. Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader–member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 298–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader–member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis of change over time: An integrative approach incorporating longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Organizational Research Methods, 1, 421–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: Toward a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Fox, J. (1991). Regression diagnostics. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gersick, C. J. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Graen, G. B., Hui, C., & Taylor, E. A. (2006). Experience-based learning about LMX leadership and fairness in project teams: A dyadic directional approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12, 157–159.Google Scholar
  21. Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208–1219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D. B., & Anonyuo, C. (1989). Attributions and exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooper, D. T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. B. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 697–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  37. Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2008). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Preacher, K. J., Wichman, A. L., MacCallum, R. C., & Briggs, N. E. (2008). Latent growth modeling. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Switzer, F. S. I., & Schippmann, J. S. (1996). Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader–member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Sheard, A. G., & Kakabadse, A. P. (2004). A process perspective on leadership and team development. The Journal of Management Development, 23, 7–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 340–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: Organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loren J. Naidoo
    • 1
  • Charles A. Scherbaum
    • 1
  • Harold W. Goldstein
    • 1
  • George B. Graen
    • 2
  1. 1.Psychology Department, Baruch CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of IllinoisChampaigne-UrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations