Skip to main content

Conflict Behaviors Mediate Effects of Manipulated Leader-Member Exchange on Team-Oriented Outcomes

Journal of Business and Psychology volume 37, pages 977–997 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

We tested an underexplored component of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory that high LMX is associated with valuing team-interests whereas low LMX is associated with valuing self-interests. We experimentally manipulated leaders’ behaviors to create different LMX conditions within novel teams. We also manipulated LMX conditions between members within teams to affect LMX relational separation (LMXRS; the degree to which one’s LMX is different from the average within the team). We expected that LMXRS would exaggerate the effects of LMX, particularly for those in low LMX conditions. We examined individuals’ collectivistic and individualistic conflict behaviors as behavioral mediators and indicators of team- and self-interest, respectively. Participants were 316 undergraduate students in teams of three participant followers with one confederate leader who followed a script to manipulate LMX(RS). Results suggest low LMX, particularly when coupled with high LMXRS, is associated with greater use of individualistic conflict behaviors and lower use of collectivistic conflict behaviors. The greater use of individualistic conflict behaviors and lower use of collectivistic conflict behaviors partially mediated the relationship between lower LMX condition and lower levels of leader satisfaction, teammate satisfaction, and motivation to work with the team, as well as higher levels of negative affect. Results hold implications for the prescriptive use of LMX theory, social ostracism within teams, and future research at the intersection of leadership and team research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. The Sage Handbook of Leadership, 311–325.

  • Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., Maltarich, M. A., & Hendricks, J. L. (2018). Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 246–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cogliser, C. C., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 487–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. R., & LePine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48.

  • 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(1), 46–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144–192.

  • Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of relative leader–member exchanges (RLMX) and perceived organizational support (POS). The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdman, B. M. (2020). The state of progress in diversity and inclusion initiatives: Perspectives for consulting psychology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 72(4), 243–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cardwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, S. E. (2017). Leaders on their best behavior: Leader behaviors resulting in effective virtual teams (Unpublished masters thesis). University of South Florida.

  • Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, R. K., Wright, S. L., & Heaphy, E. D. (2020). A critique of the leader-member exchange construct: Back to square one. The Leadership Quarterly. [online first].

  • Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, K., Luo, Z., Peng, J., Wang, Z., Sun, H., & Qiu, C. (2013). Team networks and team identification: The role of leader-member exchange. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(7), 1115–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2017). Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 178–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX’s influence on OCB and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 314–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. E., & Smith, M. B. (2020). The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(6), 577–596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, J. C., & Pond, A. W. (1974). The desert survival problem. Human Synergistics Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Blanc, P. M., & González-Romá, V. (2012). A team level investigation of the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 534–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loi, R., Ngo, H. Y., Zhang, L., & Lau, V. P. (2011). The interaction between leader–member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 669–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Thomas, G., Legood, A., & Dello Russo, S. (2018). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, M., Yukl, G., & Taber, T. (2012). Leader behavior and LMX: A constructive replication. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E. (1977). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. IV). University Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39(1), 203–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setlock, L. D., Quinones, P.-A., & Fussell, S. R. (2007). Does culture interact with media richness? The effects of audio vs. video conferencing on Chinese and American dyads. Paper presented at the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

  • Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A. O. D. W. N. J. P., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, Anit. (2008). Managing Conflict in School Teams: The Impact of Task and Goal Interdependence on Conflict Management and Team Effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, D., Liu, H., Gu, J., & He, C. (2018). Collectivism and employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of team identification and the moderating role of leader-member exchange. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(2), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693–713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader—member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 507–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 44–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, P. D. (1990). Distributive justice and pay satisfaction: A field test of an equity theory prediction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4(3), 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Guillaume, Y., & Lee, A. (2013). Social cognition in leader–follower relationships: Applying insights from relationship science to understanding relationship-based approaches to leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S63–S81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., Bauer, T. N., & Potter, R. E. (2002). Extra-role behavior among Mexican employees: The impact of LMX, group acceptance, and job attitudes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(4), 292–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., Imai, K., & Yamamoto, M. T. (2014). Package ‘mediation’. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1-38.

  • Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of Management, 11(3), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 219–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. C., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2019). LMX in team-based contexts: TMX, authority differentiation, and skill differentiation as boundary conditions for leader reciprocation. Personnel Psychology, 72(2), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362–378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Z., Li, N., Jiang, W., & Kirkman, B. L. (2019). The paradox of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation: How treating followers differently can both enhance and impede employee performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 18(4), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, A., Matta, F. K., & Cornfield, B. (2018). Is leader–member exchange differentiation beneficial or detrimental for group effectiveness? A meta-analytic investigation and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1158–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Influence of leader behaviors on the leader-member exchange relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals for the role they played in collecting the data for this study: Medjine Jeanty, Wednesday Radke, Zackery Vaughan, Lora Bishop, Daniel Acosta-Florez, Bella Costanza, Danielle Crawford, Gabriela Cabrer Nazco, Rachel Seng, Elise Collins, Lauren Harrell, Nick Hernandez, Andrew Kimelman, Nelson Larzabal Ruiz, Drausty Patel, and Tricia Tran. Also, thank you to Dr. Kimberly A. French for her friendly review and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry Street, NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Keaton A. Fletcher

  2. Psychology Department, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave, PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL, 33720, USA

    Michael T. Brannick

Authors
  1. Keaton A. Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael T. Brannick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keaton A. Fletcher.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 33 KB)

Appendix Study measures

Appendix Study measures

LMX-MDM (Reported by the participant)

(Liden & Maslyn, 1998)

My leader is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend

My leader is a lot of fun to work with

My leader defends my actions to others, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question

My leader would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others

I do work for my leader that goes beyond what is specified in my job description

I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to further the interests of my team

I am impressed with my leader’s knowledge of his/her job

I respect my leader’s knowledge of and competence on the job

I admire my leader’s professional skills

My leader is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend

My leader is a lot of fun to work with

My leader defends my actions to others, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question

My leader would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others

I do work for my leader that goes beyond what is specified in my job description

I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to further the interests of my team

I am impressed with my leader’s knowledge of his/her job

I respect my leader’s knowledge of and competence on the job

I admire my leader’s professional skills

Teammate satisfaction (Reported by the participant)

(Adapted from Spector, 1985)

I find I have to work harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence of my peers on my team

There is too much bickering and fighting among my peers on my team

I enjoy the peers on my team

Leader satisfaction (Reported by the participant)

(Adapted from Spector, 1985)

My team leader is quite competent in doing his/her job

My team leader is unfair to me

My team leader shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates (myself and my peers)

I like my team leader

Negative affect (Reported by the participant)

(Van Katwyk et al., 2000)

How much did you experience each emotion:

Angry

Annoyed

Anxious

Bored

Confused

Depressed

Disgusted

Discouraged

Frightened

Frustrated

Furious

Gloomy

Fatigued

Intimidated

Miserable

Motivation to work with the team (Reported by the participant)

(Developed for this study)

When I was working with my TEAM…

I was committed to doing well on the desert survival task

I really cared about doing well on the desert survival task

I was dedicated to doing well on the desert survival task

I put forth a lot of effort to do well on the desert survival task

I was motivated to do well on the desert survival task

Individualistic conflict behaviors (Rated by the trained raters)

(Adapted from Rahim, 1983)

Member A was generally firm in pursuing his/her side of the issue (Competing)

Member A had a “my way or the highway” attitude. (Competing)

Member A refused to hear other team members’ opinions. (Competing)

Member A usually engaged in open discussion of differences with the team. (Avoiding)

Member A attempted to avoid being “put on the spot” and tried to keep conflict with the team to a minimum. (Avoiding)

Member A gave in to the wishes of the team. (Avoiding)

Collectivistic conflict behaviors (Rated by the trained raters)

(Adapted from Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Rahim, 1983)

Member A tried to investigate an issue to find a solution acceptable to the team (Collaborating)

Member A tried to integrate my ideas with those of the team to come up with a decision jointly. (Collaborating)

Member A tried to find a middle course to resolve an impasse. (Collaborating)

Member A expressed his/her own views directly toward other team members. (Openness)

Member A engaged in open discussions of issues in the group. (Openness)

Member A openly acknowledged any discomfort or conflict in the group. (Openness)

  1. For conflict measures, the referent (Member A) was changed to (Member B) or (Member C) as necessary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fletcher, K.A., Brannick, M.T. Conflict Behaviors Mediate Effects of Manipulated Leader-Member Exchange on Team-Oriented Outcomes. J Bus Psychol 37, 977–997 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09775-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09775-y

Keywords

  • Leadership
  • Conflict
  • LMX
  • Teams
  • Attitudes