Only Time Will Tell: The Changing Relationships between LMX, Job Performance, and Justice

Although it has been argued that LMX is a phenomenon that develops over time, the existing LMX literature is largely cross-sectional in nature. Yet, there is a great need for unraveling how LMX develops over time. To address this issue in the LMX literature, we examine the relationships of LMX with two variables known for changing over time: job performance and justice perceptions. On the basis of current empirical findings, a simulation deductively shows that LMX develops over time, but differently in early stages versus more mature stages. Our findings also indicate that performance and justice trends affect LMX. Implications for LMX theory, and for longitudinal research on LMX, performance, and justice are discussed.

The Changing Relationship between Supervisors and Subordinates: How Managing This Relationship Evolves over Time

Understanding how the relationship between a subordinate and manager develops over time has been a critical matter both for academics and for business. In both academic journals and industry publications, some writers have argued that the relationship is driven by perceptions of fairness and treatment, and that developing the relationship can lead to better performance. Others have argued that higher performers get better treatment and resources, which results in superior relationships with their managers. There is really no clear answer of what comes first—perceptions of fairness, satisfaction with the supervisor, or job performance—and which leads to which.

Team Member’s Centrality, Cohesion, Conflict, and Performance in Multi-University Geographically Distributed Project Teams

This study examined team processes and outcomes among 12 multi-university distributed project teams from 11 universities during its early and late development stages over a 14-month project period. A longitudinal model of team interaction is presented and tested at the individual level to consider the extent to which both formal and informal network connections—measured as degree centrality—relate to changes in team members’ individual perceptions of cohesion and conflict in their teams, and their individual performance as a team member over time. The study showed a negative network centrality-cohesion relationship with significant temporal patterns, indicating that as team members perceive less degree centrality in distributed project teams, they report more team cohesion during the last four months of the project. We also found that changes in team cohesion from the first three months (i.e., early development stage) to the last four months (i.e., late development stage) of the project relate positively to changes in team member performance. Although degree centrality did not relate significantly to changes in team conflict over time, a strong inverse relationship was found between changes in team conflict and cohesion, suggesting that team conflict emphasizes a different but related aspect of how individuals view their experience with the team process. Changes in team conflict, however, did not relate to changes in team member performance. Ultimately, we showed that individuals, who are less central in the network and report higher levels of team cohesion, performed better in distributed teams over time.