LMX differentiation as a double‐edged sword: A social hierarchy perspective for understanding the beneficial and detrimental effects of LMX differentiation on team performance
LMX differentiation as a double‐edged sword: A social hierarchy perspective for understanding the beneficial and detrimental effects of LMX differentiation on team performance
复制标题
LMX 差异化是一把双刃剑：从社会等级视角理解 LMX 差异化对团队绩效的有利和不利影响
DOI：
10.1111/peps.12564
复制
发表时间：
2022-12
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Jingzhou Pan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haoying Xu;S;y J. Wayne;Linda C. Wang;Jingzhou Pan
借鉴团队文献中的社会等级制度，我们认为领导者-成员交换差异（LMXD）可能作为一种协调促进机制和冲突促进机制来传递其对团队绩效的积极和消极影响。具体来说，我们认为 LMXD 对团队绩效的积极影响是由于其对团队角色清晰度的影响，而负面影响是通过团队关系冲突产生的。为了阐明限定发散机制的边界条件，我们进一步研究了三个团队结构特征（也称为团队类型维度）的调节作用，包括权威分化（AD）、技能分化（SD）和时间稳定性（TS）。我们进行了两项研究来检验我们的模型，其中涉及来自不同行业的多个组织的多源和多阶段滞后数据。在这两项研究中，我们发现对协调促进机制以及 AD 和 SD 在限定该机制中的作用的一致支持。关于冲突引发机制，两项研究都支持可持续发展的调节作用。相比之下，我们发现 TS 对协调促成和冲突促成机制的调节作用的支持有限，尽管我们只能在研究 2 中对此进行检验。我们讨论了这些发现对 LMXD 和团队绩效的未来研究的影响。
Drawing on the social hierarchy within teams literature, we contend that leader‐member exchange differentiation (LMXD) may function as a coordination‐enabling mechanism and as a conflict‐enabling mechanism in transmitting its positive and negative effects on team performance. Specifically, we propose that the positive effect of LMXD on team performance is due to its impact on team role clarity, whereas the negative effects operate through team relationship conflict. To shed light on the boundary conditions that qualify the divergent mechanisms, we further examine the moderating roles of three team structural characteristics (also referred to as team type dimensions), including authority differentiation (AD), skill differentiation (SD), and temporal stability (TS). We conducted two studies to examine our model, which involve multi‐source and multi‐phase lagged data from multiple organizations from diverse industries. Across the two studies, we find consistent support for the coordination‐enabling mechanism and the roles of AD and SD in qualifying this mechanism. Regarding the conflict‐enabling mechanism, both studies support the moderating effect of SD. In contrast, we find limited support for the moderating effect of TS on both the coordination‐enabling and conflict‐enabling mechanisms, although we were only able to examine this in Study 2. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research on LMXD and team performance.