Explaining the relational mechanisms and outcomes of multi‐modal leader–member‐exchange differentiation

Abstract

Research suggests that multi-modal leader-member-exchange (LMX) differentiation could be the most problematic pattern of differentiation. Therefore, we outline a conceptual model to explain how multi-modal LMX differentiation can manifest as an LMX faultline-a special type of group faultline representing leader-sourced social divides between a leader's preferred subgroup and nonpreferred subgroup(s) within a specified collective. LMX faultlines have dimensions of perceived multi-modal LMX differentiation as well as faultline potency components of compositional diversity, unfairness of differentiation, and faultline agreement. We use LMX faultlines to explain how group members coalesce into subgroups based on concurrent forces of intrasubgroup cohesion and inter-subgroup polarization. Cohesion and polarization explain group-level outcomes (coordination, performance, and viability), subgroup-level insulation, and individual-level outcomes (performance, wellbeing, and conformity to the subgroup).

Perceived difference in expertize and individual performance in cross‐functional teams

“…Our study further complements the theoretical model of LMX differentiation (Bruning et al., 2022). Bruning and colleagues proposed how team LMX faultlines may lead to inter‐subgroup polarizing to affect group process and group performance; they also discussed how LMX faultlines may cause intra‐subgroup cohesion to influence subgroups and individual processes and performance.…”

“…Our study complements the model of Bruning et al. (2022) by suggesting how team informational diversity, in other words, knowledge‐based subgroups, may have an unfavorable impact on individual performance. Our findings also verify the intervening mechanism.…”

“…Bruning et al. (2022) further extend the above argument to propose that shared knowledge within knowledge‐based subgroups not only hinders information exchange across different knowledge subgroups but also strengthens intra‐subgroup cohesion and inter‐subgroup polarization.…”

“…Scholars define the team faultline as the dividing line that “splits a group into subgroups based on one or more team attributes” (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328). Although the research on faultlines have traditionally examined demographic characteristics (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), the concept of faultlines may also be used to examine team members' status and treatment within the team (Bruning et al., 2022; Harrison & Klein, 2007). Authors thus extend the idea of faultline to propose the concept of subgroups, which refers to a subset of group workers characterized by sharing a certain aspect of group composition (see Meyer et al., 2014 for a review).…”

“…Because individuals in the same knowledge subgroup share a similar knowledge base and mode of communication, interactions within‐subgroup increase, which leads to greater within‐subgroup cohesion. Conversely, members dissociate themselves from colleagues belonging to different knowledge subgroups because of the subgroup identification process (Bruning et al., 2022). Therefore, individuals in cross‐functional teams may have a less‐than‐ideal social relationship at work with teammates possessing different skills and knowledge.…”