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.

Am I being treated fairly by my leaders? The roles of group identification and self-other comparisons in judgements of procedural justice

The current experiment focuses on the roles of social identity and social comparison in perceptions of procedural justice. Participants are randomly allocated to conditions in a 2 (whether the participant has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other is an ingroup or an outgroup member), between subjects design. Participants are then asked to report the extent to which they perceive the procedure they are involved in to be fair. It is predicted that participants will have a strong feeling of procedural unfairness when they are not given an opportunity by the leader to voice their opinion, but learn that their comparison other is given that opportunity. It is also predicted that the feeling of unfairness should be stronger when the comparison other is an outgroup rather than an ingroup member. Additionally, participants receiving a fair treatment may regard the procedure as fair when their outgoup comparison other receives an unfair treatment. Results support these predictions and reveal that how people make judgments of procedural justice through social comparison is qualified by the social identities of the parties involved.