Blaming leaders for team relationship conflict? The roles of leader-member exchange differentiation and ethical leadership

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to extend our understanding of the role of leaders in team relationship conflict. Leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation was hypothesized to be positively related to team relationship conflict. Additionally, ethical leadership was hypothesized to moderate relations between LMX differentiation and team relationship conflict. Design/methodology/approach – Hypotheses were examined in a sample of 79 working teams. Data were collected via a questionnaire containing measures of LMX, team relationship conflict and ethical leadership. Findings – Hypotheses were supported by the data. LMX differentiation was positively related to team relationship conflict, and ethical leadership weakened the relationship between LMX differentiation and team relationship conflict. Originality/value – This is the first theoretical analysis and empirical study of relationships between LMX differentiation and team relationship conflict. Theoretically, by using LMX theory to account for team-level outcomes, this study extended power of LMX theory. Practically, these results suggest that leaders may be responsible for team relationship conflict.

Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review

“…Overall, the greater the LMX variation, the higher was the team conflict. Such a notion is supported by a recent study by Zhou and Shi (2014) which found that high LMX variation was associated with increased relationship conflict. Cobb and Lau (2015) also found that LMX variation had a negative effect on team conflict.…”

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

“…Specifically, the literature on LMX differentiation (i.e., variance in reported LMX within teams; e.g., Li & Liao, 2014) has been instrumental in documenting this phenomenon. Although there is some inconsistent evidence on its effects (Martin et al, 2018), LMX differentiation has been found to increase relationship conflict (Chen, He, & Weng, 2018; Cobb & Lau, 2015; Zhou & Shi, 2014), which has been shown repeatedly to attenuate group performance (De Drue & Weingart, 2003; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; O’Neill, Allen, & Hastings, 2013). Similarly, LMX differentiation has been found to attenuate cohesion in groups (Chen et al, 2018), which is critical to facilitating team performance (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002; Castaño, Watts, & Tekleab, 2013; Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Evans & Dion, 1991; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995; Mullen & Cooper, 1994).…”

How and When Relative Leader–Member Exchange (RLMX) Invigorates Attendance at Work Within a Context of LMX Differentiation

“…At the collective level, these relational boundaries within teams (“us” and “them”) are not desirable because a high LMX separation may elicit tensions and relational conflicts (Buengeler et al, 2021; Zhou & Shi, 2014) as well as reduce performance (Sui et al, 2016). We argue that high RLMX team members are more likely to experience energizing emotions, such as pride or gratitude, when LMX differentiation is high because this context signals that these employees are treated better than the other group by the leader.…”