The impact of LMX differentiation on perceptions of team conflict and procedural justice climate

The fundamental tenet of Leader Member Exchange (LMX) theory is that leaders develop different quality relationships with each of their employees; however, to our knowledge, no study has investigated the impact of LMX differentiation on teams. Drawing upon the justice literature, we suggest that fostering different quality LMX relationships runs counter to principles of equality' and consistency, which are important for maintaining social harmony in groups, and perceptions of procedural fairness. We therefore propose that differential treatment of employees by the leader (as indicated by within-team variability in LMX relationships) will have a negative effect on team reladons, and percepdons of procedural jusdce climate. Two samples of employed individuals are used to invesdgate the hypothesized reladonships. Sample A consists of 74 individuals from a variety of occupadonal and organisadonal backgrounds, and Sample B consists of 152 individuals from an Australian organisadon dealing in the sale and service of heavy machiner)'. In both samples, high LMX variability within teams is associated with higher reports of team reladonal conflict, and lower reports of procedural jusdce climate. The results suggest that leaders may need to be caudous about fostering special relationships with only a select subset of employees.

Intergroup processes in intragroup contexts: The roles of group status, group identification and communication in diverse work teams

The present research examines employee identification and communication in organisations. In Study 1, 2229 soldiers from a military organisation completed measures of perceived status and strength of identification with their unit, employment category and their brigade. As predicted, the status of a key organisational group influenced reactions to different organisational groups: full-time soldiers evaluated their work unit and the organisation as being lower in status and identified less strongly with both of these groups than part-time soldiers. The second study extended these findings to a different research context: a large psychiatric hospital undergoing downsizing and restructuring. Surprisingly, there were no differences in survivors' and victims' levels of identification with organisational groups. Instead, and consistent with Study 1, there was evidence to suggest that employees adjusted their patterns of identification and perceptions of group status through a compensatory mechanism that maximised opportunities for selfenhancement and positive distinctiveness. In the third study, employees from a public hospital (N = 142) rated communication from double ingroup members (same work unit/same occupational group) more favourably than communication from partial group members (same work unit/different occupational group). These results are considered in terms of their practical implications for identity management in organisations.