Maybe It Is Who You Know: Social Networks and Leader

Abstract

Existing literature on leader–member exchange differentiation (LMXD) offers a meaningful view into the multilevel outcomes associated with leader follower relationships. However, despite the rapid growth of literature on LMXD, scholars lack a complete understanding of its antecedents or the processes that cause leaders to differentiate among team members. We address this issue by using social capital theory to propose that leaders perceive their followers’ social networks as potential resources to grow their own social capital. Because each follower has unique social networks, we propose that leaders differentiate LMX among followers depending on which followers provide them with access to the most social resources. In this conceptual paper, we posit that as leaders gain information about their followers’ social networks, they attribute status to each follower depending on their perception of that follower’s social capital. We then propose that key contingencies, such as a team’s psychological safety climate or a leader’s ambition, influence the relationship between social network characteristics and LMXD. Overall, our model provides a unique multilevel perspective of LMXD and provides important insights for both researchers and practitioners alike.

Keywords

leader/follower relationships social networks social capital leader-member exchange differentiation teams or teamwork

When employees report to the same supervisor in an organization, there is usually a discrepancy in the quality of relationships between the supervisor and each subordinate, which often is referred to as leader–member exchange differentiation (LMXD; Liden et al., 2006). Although this discrepancy is a popular discussion among both researchers and practitioners (e.g., Fleischman, 2015; Martin, Thomas, Legood, & Dello Russo, 2018), the factors that influence a leader’s tendency to develop higher (and lower) quality relationships with some followers are not well understood. Yet, we know that today’s business leaders are keenly aware of the importance that networking may have for their careers (Cole, 2019), which is exemplified by the 810 million members of LinkedIn. Thus, in this conceptual paper, we posit that one reason managers may develop higher quality relationships with some followers and not others is because they perceive that certain followers have particularly rich social networks. We argue that leaders may develop (either consciously or subconsciously) close relationships with certain followers in an effort to borrow the social capital of those followers for their own gain.

Leader–member exchange (LMX; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005) describes the quality of the leader–follower relationship and has been thoroughly examined in the management literature. Since LMX was first introduced nearly a half-century ago (Densereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), several reviews (e.g., Bauer & Erdogan, 2015; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999) and meta-analyses (e.g., Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016) regarding LMX have emerged. In contrast, the limited literature surrounding LMXD, or the differing quality of LMX relationships within a team (Liden et al., 2006), lacks significant clarity of both the antecedents and theoretical frameworks that drive LMXD (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009; Martin et al., 2018). Thus, an examination of the active role a leader plays in prioritizing follower relationships provides a potentially deeper understanding of LMXD to guide management research and practice. By developing a better theoretical understanding of the sources that drive LMXD, we advance the literature and provide several avenues for future empirical research on this topic.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is thus to build theoretical arguments to explain why leaders decide to select certain followers for higher or lower quality relationships. To do so, we integrate extant research on social networks (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Wellman & Berkowitz, 1988) with social capital theory (Coleman, 1994; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981) to argue that leaders differentiate amongst members of a team due to perceptions of followers’ social networks. We argue that a follower’s social network structure and prominence within their networks (Carter, DeChurch, Braun, & Contractor, 2015) influence the leader’s attribution of status for that follower. These varying status attributions within a team influence a leader’s decision to develop higher quality relationships with high-status individuals, which consequently impacts the overall LMXD within the team.

Our paper provides several theoretical contributions to the LMXD literature. First, while prior research has primarily focused on identifying the consequences of LMXD on a team, we advance this literature by proposing one potential source of LMXD: followers’ social networks. Second, we use social capital theory to highlight the influence of followers’ social networks on overall LMXD by focusing on their perceived social capital. This perspective not only addresses previous calls for research on the influence of social networks on LMXD (Buengeler, Piccolo, & Locklear, 2021; Goodwin, Bowler, & Whittington, 2009; Martin et al., 2018), but also provides a novel theoretical lens through which to understand the sources of LMXD and a foundation to build future research. Finally, by analyzing the LMXD process from follower, leader, team, and organizational levels, we answer calls to examine LMXD from multilevel perspectives (e.g., Matta & Van Dyne, 2020).

We structured this conceptual piece in the following way. First, we briefly review the literature on LMXD and social networks. Next, we use social capital theory to propose a theoretical model that explains the role of social networks in LMXD. From this model, we develop several propositions regarding mediating and moderating factors that influence the relationship between follower social networks and LMXD. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical implications, as well as directions for future research.

Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation and Social Networks

Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

The literature on LMXD has been growing in recent years. Although significant research attention has focused on uncovering the outcomes of LMXD, most of the extant literature has largely ignored the antecedents or processes that lead to LMXD (see Table 1 for a summary). One notable exception is a conceptual paper by Henderson et al. (2009), which argues that the origins of LMXD include leadership characteristics, group culture, organizational structure, and human resource practices. Of the few empirical studies exploring the antecedents of LMXD, many have focused on the leader characteristics driving this phenomenon. For instance, leader narcissism and power motives are positively related to LMXD (Huang et al., 2020; Lee, Chae, & Shin, 2016), while a leader’s universalistic values, affiliation motives, and servant leadership are all negatively related to LMXD (Chiniara & Bentein, 2018; Lee et al., 2016; Ma & Qu, 2010). Interestingly, even though LMXD depends on a leader’s ability to distinguish between team members, only one study evaluated team diversity as an antecedent of LMXD; Le Blanc and González-Romá (2012) found that dissimilarity among team member work values is positively related to LMXD.

Table 1.

Research on LMXD by position in model.

Author(s)	Year	Journal	Empirical	LMXD Position	Findings
Han et al.	2021	PP	Yes	IV	Finds that LMXD is indirectly related to group performance, via group cooperation and group social undermining. This relationship is influenced by reward interdependence as well as the level to which LMXD is based upon performance or personal liking.
Choi et al.	2020	JOB	Yes	IV	Developed and validated a measure of perceived LMXD (PLMXD) as a team member’s perception of LMXD within the team. The negative relationship between PLMXD and performance is mediated by relationship conflict (individual level and team level) and procedural justice (team level).
Matta & Van Dyne	2020	AMR	No	IV	LMXD at the group-level leads to affective events and social comparisons at the individual level. This ultimately influences organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.
Emery et al.	2019	JOOP	Yes	IV	Supervisory fairness mediates the relationship between an employee’s perceived LMXD and job satisfaction. This indirect relationship is stronger under low levels of psychological empowerment.
Chen et al.	2018	JOM	Yes	IV	The relationships between LMXD and group cohesion, group relationship conflict, and group proactivity depend on the degree to which LMXD is performance-based and/or OCB-based. The relationship between LMXD and perception of procedural justice is more negative when there is less performance-based LMXD. The relationship between the interaction of LMXD with performance-based LMXD and group proactivity is mediated by group procedural justice climate.
Seo et al.	2018	JAP	Yes	IV	Proposes five categories of LMX configurations. These configurations moderate the relationship between LMXD and collective organizational commitment, which ultimately influences collective turnover.
Yu et al.	2018	AMJ	Yes	IV	This meta-analysis of LMXD finds that LMXD is negatively related to group processes (i.e., collective feelings) and emergent states (i.e., collective action). Group processes and emergent states mediate the relationship between LMXD and group performance, as well as suppress the positive relationship between LMXD and group performance.
Herdman et al.	2017	JOM	Yes	IV	The relationship between LMXD and group work behavior is more positive when leader–leader exchange, or the relationship between superior and their boss, is low. This work group behavior is positively associated with team effectiveness.
Bernerth & Hirschfeld	2016	LQ	Yes	IV	LMXD affects a group leader’s well-being beyond the effect of the leader’s workplace attitudes.
Kauppila	2016	PP	Yes	IV	The relationship between LMXD and individual-level commitment and OCB is more positive for employees with lower LMX. This relationship is influenced by top management’s decentralization of responsibilities and shared vision.
Sui et al.	2016	PP	Yes	IV	LMXD has a curvilinear relationship (i.e., inverted U-shape) with team performance via team coordination. The effect of LMXD on team coordination varies with team size or power distance in the team.
Haynie et al.	2014	LQ	Yes	IV	The relationship between LMXD and task performance is positive when distributive justice climate is high, but negative when distributive justice climate is low.
Naidoo et al.	2011	JBP	Yes	IV	LMXD is positively related to team performance at later periods (rather than earlier periods) of a team’s life cycle.
Erdogan & Bauer	2010	JAP	Yes	IV	When the justice climate is low, LMXD leads to more negative work attitudes, more negative coworker relations, and higher withdrawal behaviors.
Stewart & Johnson	2009	GOM	Yes	IV	The relationship between LMXD and group performance depends on both the level of group diversity and aggregate LMX of the group.
Hooper & Martin	2008	LQ	Yes	IV	The negative relationship between perceived LMXD and employee reactions is mediated by relational team conflict.
Liden et al.	2006	JOB	Yes	IV	Seminal article that defines LMXD as the differing quality of LMX relationships within a group. They found that the interaction between LMXD and LMX affects individual-level performance and the interaction between LMXD and median LMX affects team-level performance. They also found that the interaction between LMXD and team interdependence affects team-level performance.
Li & Liao	2014	JAP	Yes	IV and Mod	LMXD is negatively related to team performance via team coordination. LMXD strengthens the positive relationship between LMX quality and an individual’s role engagement.
Huang et al.	2020	JOB	Yes	Med	LMXD mediates the relationship between leader narcissism and employee voice. This indirect relationship was stronger in the presence of low leader–leader exchange (LLX).
Chiniara & Bentein	2018	LQ	Yes	Med	Servant leadership is negatively related to perceived LMXD, and perceived LMXD is negatively related to team cohesion.
Chen & Zhang	2021	GOM	Yes	Mod	Finds a three-way interaction between LMX relational separation (LMXRS), LMX quality, and LMXD, such that the relationship between LMXRS and perception of procedural justice is more negative for low LMX members when LMXD is low. This ultimately influences the level of organizational altruism behaviors.
Mackey et al.	2020	JBE	Yes	Mod	High LMXD strengthens the positive relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate’s relational ego depletion.
Liao et al.	2017	LQ	Yes	Mod	LMXD moderates the positive relationship between idiosyncratic deals and perceived supervisory procedural justice. In their model, LMXD ultimately moderates the indirect relationship between idiosyncratic deals and job satisfaction, performance, and helping.
Epitropaki et al.	2016	JOB	Yes	Mod	Individual-level perceptions of LMXD moderate the relationship between political skill and LMX. Group-level LMXD moderates the relationship between political skill and relative LMX.
Gooty & Yammarino	2016	JOM	Yes	Mod	Dyadic dispersion (a dyadic-level measure of LMXD) moderates the relationship between LMX and performance. The positive relationship between individual LMX and performance remains only in low-LMXD contexts.
Harris et al.	2014	LQ	Yes	Mod	The relationships between individual LMX and both OCB and turnover intention are stronger when LMXD is lower.
Liao et al.	2010	AMJ	Yes	Mod	When LMXD is high, the indirect effect of LMX on creativity via self-efficacy is more positive.
Nishii & Mayer	2009	JAP	Yes	Mod	LMXD exacerbates the positive relationships between both demographic and tenure diversity with turnover. When moderated by LMXD, there is a stronger interaction between demographic diversity and turnover when mean LMX is high (i.e., a three-way interaction).
Henderson et al.	2008	JAP	Yes	Mod	Group-level LMXD strengthens the positive relationship between relative LMX quality and individual-level psychological contract fulfillment.
Lee et al.	2016	APJM	Yes	DV	The negative relationship between leaders’ affiliation motives and LMXD was stronger when members’ affiliation and power motives were higher. Leader’s power motives were also positively related to LMXD.
Le Blanc & González–Romá	2012	LQ	Yes	DV and IV	Dissimilarity among team members work values is positively related LMXD. LMXD is positively related to team commitment and team performance in teams with a low median LMX quality.
Ma & Qu	2010	LQ	Yes	DV and Mod	A leader’s universalistic values are negatively related to LMXD. Also, when LMXD is high, there is higher performance evaluation inflation by the leader based on LMX.
Buengeler et al.	2021	JOM	No	-	Reviews LMXD literature through a group diversity lens. The authors introduce separation, variety, and disparity to LMXD research and highlight social networks as an area for future LMXD research.
Sparrowe	2020	LQ	No	-	Examines LMX constructs, including LMXD, through the lens of welfare tradeoff ratio. Proposes that LMXD increases competitive group dynamics, which influences how cost and benefits are viewed within the group.
Martin et al.	2018	JOB	No	-	Review of LMXD literature. Highlights social networks as a key area of future LMXD research.
Cropanzano et al.	2017	AMR	No	-	Argues that group member’s perceptions of LMXD are affective events for followers, which influence various outcomes.
Henderson et al.	2009	LQ	No	-	Examines antecedents and outcomes of LMXD. While social networks are referenced as a basis of resources, they are not examined in this model.

Note. APJM = Asia Pacific Journal of Management; AMJ = Academy of Management Journal; AMR = Academy of Management Review; EJWOP = European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology; GOM = Group & Organization Management; JAP = Journal of Applied Psychology; JBE = Journal of Business Ethics; JBP = Journal of Business and Psychology; JOB = Journal of Organizational Behavior; JOM = Journal of Management; JOOP = Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology; LQ = Leadership Quarterly; PP = Personnel Psychology. In LMXD position column IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; Mod = moderator; Med = mediator.

Although these findings provide value to our understanding of LMXD, several challenges remain for scholars in this area. Because of the dearth of studies on the antecedents of LMXD (Henderson et al., 2009), researchers lack the conceptual knowledge to advance theory without a clear understanding of the source of LMXD. Moreover, the narrow focus of the leader’s influence has led to a lack of understanding how follower characteristics may influence LMXD. We therefore contribute to the LMXD literature by proposing that a follower’s social network may be one factor that contributes to LMXD on a team. To do this, we employ social capital theory (Coleman, 1994; Lin et al., 1981) to explore reasons why a leader may invest in a higher (or lower) quality relationship with a follower based on that individual’s social network. Our perspective not only answers several scholars who have called for an examination of LMXD through a social network lens (Buengeler et al., 2021; Goodwin et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2018), but also extends our theory and understanding of LMXD from this fresh theoretical perspective.

Social Networks

The term “social networks” refers to the web of connections that link individuals to their various relationships, both personal and professional (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Wellman & Berkowitz, 1988). Extant literature indicates that several types of social networks may exist in organizations, including advice networks (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001), influence networks (Bono & Anderson, 2005), friendship networks (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994), and intrateam networks (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). As indicated in two recent reviews, these social networks (regardless of type) influence individual- and team-level outcomes in various ways (Sparrowe et al., 2001). Specifically, Tasselli et al. (2015) argue that embeddedness within social networks influences an individual’s attitudes, behaviors, and work outcomes, and Park et al. (2020) highlight the influence of social networks on team outcomes, such as team performance. Finally, social networks impact outcomes for both leaders and followers (DeRue, Nahrgang, & Ashford, 2015). Both, a leader’s ability to hold critical positions in leadership networks (Bono & Anderson, 2005) and a follower’s ability to emerge into leadership roles (Serban et al., 2015) are dependent upon their respective social networks and prominence within those networks.

More specific to our focus in the leader–follower relationship, the effects of social networks should be especially salient within a leader–follower dyad, because dyadic relationships do not occur isolated from the social network of each person (Goodwin et al., 2009; Kilduff & Brass, 2010). In other words, the relationship between leader and follower is likely influenced by their respective social networks, such that the leader’s social network should influence the follower, and the follower’s social network should influence the leader. Although we know that a leader’s connectedness within their social network impacts follower outcomes (e.g., Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994; Sparrow & Liden, 2005), our proposed model analyzes the influence of the followers’ social networks on the leader. Specifically, we expect that leaders perceive followers’ social networks as a resource for their own social capital. Because each follower possesses a unique social network, leaders differentiate LMX among team members by developing higher quality relationships with followers whose networks provide the most value.

Social Networks, Social Capital, and Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

To explain the influence that follower social networks have on a LMXD, we draw on theories of social capital to illustrate how leaders perceive followers’ social networks as a resource for their own social capital (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973; Lin et al., 1981). According to Coleman (1994), social capital is created when an individual’s network of relationships creates value in some way and/or facilitates instrumental action for individuals within that network. Put simply, social capital refers to the value created by one’s social network. Social network theories have proposed various mechanisms through which social networks influence career success. For example, Granovetter’s (1973) weak tie theory posits that weak ties, or social connections that reach outside of one’s own social clique, create value for an individual by providing a unique source of resources and information. Social resources theory (Lin et al., 1981), on the other hand, suggests that network ties (no matter the strength) are valuable when they provide the necessary resources for individuals to fulfill their objectives. Finally, structural hole theory argues that individuals gain value when social networks act as a broker of information or resources between two network connections who are otherwise not connected (Burt, 1992).

Although theorists diverge on the mechanisms that explain how social networks influence career outcomes, prior research clearly demonstrates that social capital, derived from an individual’s social network is a valuable resource for employees (Belliveau, O’Reilly, & Wade, 1996; Burt, 1992; Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2001; Gabbay & Zuckerman, 1998; Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001; Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004). For example, by integrating the three major social capital theories (i.e., weak tie theory, structural hole theory, and social resources theory), Seibert and colleagues (2001) found that social network characteristics are positively associated with employees’ salaries, career satisfaction, and promotions over their entire careers. Prior research also demonstrates the value that upward social connections provide followers, indicating that the quality of social capital matters. For example, the relationship between an individual’s social network and their influence in a team depends on the extent to which they share ties with leaders in the organization (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005). Similarly, Burt (1998, 2000) argued that individuals who lack legitimacy in an organization can overcome this challenge by essentially “borrowing the social capital” of a sponsor (i.e., their leader). However, in our theoretical model, we propose the reverse also occurs—leaders may seek to “borrow the social capital” of their followers.

This motivation to borrow a follower’s social capital influences the leader’s decision to prioritize certain follower relationships, which ultimately influences the team’s LMXD. Importantly, the leader’s decision-making process may be automatic or controlled, where an automatic decision is largely unconscious, but a controlled decision involves active and conscious information processing (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). For example, a leader may automatically ascribe higher status to a follower with a personal connection to the CEO. However, a leader may engage in controlled processing when interacting with a team member who previously worked for a competing organization; the leader may intentionally ascribe higher status to that team member in order to build trust and gain information regarding the competitor.

Theoretical Model

As is illustrated in Figure 1, we propose that the varying levels of status that leaders attribute to each follower are influenced by each follower’s social network. Specifically, when a leader perceives a follower’s social network includes valuable (or not valuable) social capital, the leader ascribes that individual with higher (or lower) status. These various attributions of status impact the leader’s prioritization of each follower’s relationship and thus, the overall LMXD of the team. Because our model explores the social networks and attributed status at the individual level between each team member and the leader, and LMXD is an aggregated measure of the dispersion in relationship quality of the team from the leader’s perspective, this model provides a multilevel model to explain how individual-level factors influence team-level outcomes. To illustrate these conceptual arguments further, we outline several propositions regarding the relationship between social networks and LMXD.

Figure 1.

The indirect effect of followers’ social networks on LMXD.

Leader Assessments of Social Capital

Because individuals draw conclusions about others’ social networks (Brands, 2013; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001), leaders likely perceive each follower’s social capital based on information they know regarding that follower’s social network. Prior research indicates that both an individual’s position within a social network and characteristics of the network itself influence outcomes for that individual (e.g., Perry-Smith, 2006). Therefore, a leader likely utilizes both of these sources of information to assess each follower’s social capital and consequently ascribes higher (or lower) status to that individual.

Position Within Social Network

In order to account for a follower’s position within social networks, we utilize network centrality, or the extent to which a person has a central position within their network (Kilduff & Brass, 2010; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Follower network centrality has been shown to relate to important employee outcomes such as job performance (Regts, Molleman, & van de Brake, 2019). Within the leader–follower dyad, a follower’s centrality is a key social resource because individuals with network connections provide access to others in the same network (Goodwin et al., 2009). By analyzing an individual’s access to resources within their social network, the leader may draw on follower centrality to distinguish between those who are simply members of a network and those who are influential within that network. The extent to which a follower is central in their networks, should give the leader an indication of the follower’s potential social capital. Specifically, an individual with high centrality may provide the leader with access to more connections and resources than an individual with low centrality.

Although there are differing ways to conceptualize centrality in a social network (Kilduff & Brass, 2010), we focus on the follower’s degree centrality, or the number of direct connections to others in a network (Regts et al., 2019). Degree centrality is the most commonly used measure of centrality in the social network literature (Lee, Qureshi, Konrad, & Bhardwaj, 2014) and has been shown to influence the perception of one’s power and prestige based on their access to resources and alternatives inherent to the network (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Perry-Smith, 2006). Thus, the follower’s centrality is likely a key factor in the leader’s evaluation of potential social capital; a follower who has a high degree centrality may have more social capital due to both high accessibility to network resources and high ability to grant access to those resources. A leader may learn of a follower’s degree centrality in several ways (see Table 2). For example, the follower may include information regarding their community involvement on their resume. Other times, followers may communicate information regarding their social networks directly to their leader.

Table 2.

Examples of how leaders may perceive a follower’s social network characteristics and the implications for attributions of follower status. For each of the examples below, assume the follower is a member of a Board of Directors for a local organization.

Network Measure	Example of Communication from Follower	Leader Perception of Network Measure	Leader Attribution of Follower Status
Follower Centrality	“I may arrive later than usual tomorrow. Because I’m the incoming Vice Chair, when the meeting ends, I expect everyone will want to give me their opinion on what the organization should do this next year.”	High	Increase
Follower Centrality	“I can leave my board meeting early tomorrow. I really do not have much influence at these meetings, so I can easily slip out.”	Low	Decrease
Network Size	“Sometimes it is hard to find a space big enough for the board members to get together in one place.”	High	Increase
Network Size	“Since there are only three of us on the Board of Directors, the meetings are relatively short.”	Low	Decrease
Network Density	“Every board meeting feels more like a family reunion. Everyone knows everyone else.”	High	Increase
Network Density	“There is a lot of silence before the meeting officially begins, because nobody really knows each other outside of the annual meetings.”	Low	Decrease

One way that leaders may respond to a follower’s position within their social network is by attributing higher status to that individual. There is good reason to expect that a follower’s position within a social network impacts the leader’s perception of that follower; as previously discussed, prior studies demonstrate that dyadic relationships do not occur isolated from each person’s social networks (Chiu, Balkundi, & Weinberg, 2017; Kilduff & Brass, 2010; Sparrowe & Liden, 2005), and leader–follower relationships “do not exist in a vacuum” (Yu et al., 2018, p. 1159). In fact, Chiu et al. (2017) found that managers’ centrality within social networks predicted followers’ perceptions of their leadership.

As a leader evaluates a follower’s network centrality, the leader likely makes attributions about each follower’s status. Because a follower’s network position can give that individual access to the resources in the network (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Goodwin et al., 2009), a more central position indicates more social capital and importance. For instance, if a leader recently discovers that a follower is the president of a board of directors instead of simply a member, the leader’s perception of the follower’s status should change with the newly acquired information about the follower’s position in that social sphere. Hence, the leader will attribute a higher status to this follower. Ultimately, there should be a positive relationship between each follower’s position within their social networks and the leader’s attributed status.

Proposition 1: Each follower’s degree centrality is positively associated with the leader’s attributed status for that follower on the team.

Social Network Characteristics

In addition to looking at the individual’s position within the social network, we include the social structure of the follower’s network, or “the configuration of interactions among actors in a social network” (Kilduff & Brass, 2010, p. 357), by considering two structural factors: size and density. As discussed below, previous literature has linked network characteristics with perception of status. For instance, a person’s reputation is boosted when others perceive that the individual holds friendship ties with powerful individuals (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994). Thus, when assessing a follower’s social capital and assigning status, a leader likely takes into account followers’ social network characteristics, such as size and density.

Size: Social network size refers to the number of individuals in the network (Hayton, Carnabuci, & Eisenberger, 2012). Because larger social networks typically provide more resources for an individual to draw upon (Lin, 1999), a follower’s social network size is likely one indication of their social capital. Prior literature has shown that “high-status people tend to have larger, more expansive social networks than low-status people” (Cao & Smith, 2021, p. 111). This characteristic is important for the leader–follower dyad because a follower who has access to a larger social network has the potential to provide the leader with more social capital. For example, a follower actively involved in an international professional association may provide their leader with more connections and resources than a follower involved in a local professional association. Thus, we propose that the leader’s attributed status to each follower will be influenced by the perceived size of the follower’s networks.

Density: Social network density refers to the number of ties per member within the social network (Serban et al., 2015; Sparrowe et al., 2001) and “is perhaps the most common way to index network structure as a whole” (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006, p. 50). Density determines the interconnectedness of a network through a comparison of the number of existing ties within a network to the possible number of total ties in the network (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). That is, while size reflects the number of people in a given network, density is concerned with the number of ties within the network. To illustrate, a social network of 10 people has a higher density if all 10 people are connected to nine others than if all 10 people are connected to one other. Density is also a prime determinant of the quantity and ease with which information and resources can be transferred throughout the network. High-density networks, or those with more network ties, involve more information sharing and collaboration, whereas low-density networks are not conducive to information flowing within the social network (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Serban et al., 2015). Thus, a leader may use the density of a follower’s social network as a proxy for the accessibility of social capital.

In a similar manner to the leader’s interpretation of a follower’s position within a network, the size and density of followers’ social networks likely communicate the follower’s importance and prestige to leaders. Because high-status people are usually connected to large networks (Cao & Smith, 2021), and larger networks provide members with more potential resources, a leader may perceive that those individuals tied to larger social networks have higher social capital. Additionally, because high-density networks include more ties through which resources can flow, leaders may connect a follower’s importance to the density of the network, especially if the leader considers the follower as an access point to the resources found in the network (Goodwin et al., 2009).

In sum, the characteristics of a follower’s social network likely influence the leader’s perception of that individual’s social capital. Whereas a small network may indicate a low amount of potential network resources, a network that is not well-connected may indicate inaccessible network resources. In either case, the leader’s attribution of status for each team member is likely influenced by these characteristics. Thus, we expect both the size and density of each follower’s social networks to be positively related to the leader’s attributed status of each follower.

Proposition 2: (a) The size and (b) the density of each follower’s social networks are positively associated with the leader’s attributed status for that follower on the team.

Attributed Status and Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Because individuals likely belong to different social networks and occupy different positions within those networks, followers within the same team should inevitably have various levels of social capital, resulting in various levels of status assigned by the leader. Prior research indicates that people are motivated to align themselves with high-status individuals (Preller, Patzelt, & Breugst, 2020). Status is often used in the organizational context as a signal of quality (Cao & Smith, 2021) and individuals hold high expectations of those who have high status (Driskell & Mullen, 1990). Therefore, we propose that leaders will desire to align themselves more with individuals who they perceive are high status (rather than low status) because they perceive high-status followers have more social capital from which they can borrow, which should influence a leader’s decision to develop higher quality relationships with those followers.

As this process occurs, the dispersion in the quality of leader–follower relationships (i.e., LMXD) will be influenced. In their recent review, Buengeler et al. (2021) argue that varying levels of status have implications for team outcomes, including composition and interactions within a group setting. Thus, we propose that varying levels of status should influence another team-level outcome: a leader’s decision to differentiate the quality of their relationships with each follower on a team, or LMXD. Because people want to align themselves with others of high status, leaders will likely select high-status followers as targets for higher LMX in order to have a better opportunity to borrow their social capital. Ultimately, this creates a variation in the quality of leader–member relationships of the team and changes LMXD at the team level. We thus propose:

Proposition 3: The various levels of follower status on a team influence overall team-level LMXD.

Furthermore, we expect attributed status to mediate the indirect relationship between the social networks of followers and LMXD. That is, as a leader assesses each follower’s position in a social network and the network’s characteristics, the leader interprets this information through a social capital lens to determine each follower’s level of status. Because individuals interpret status as quality of the individual (Cao & Smith, 2021) and want to align with higher status people (Preller et al., 2020), leaders then use the attributed status as criteria for gauging the quality of relationships with each follower on the team. Because followers will have varying levels of social networks, the leader will have differing views on the leader–follower relationships within the team, or team LMXD. Thus, we expect attributed status of each follower to mediate the relationships between follower social networks and LMXD. Ultimately, we expect followers’ social networks and LMXD will have a positive indirect relationship, via attributed status.

Proposition 4: The leader’s attributed status of followers mediates the relationship between the follower’s degree centrality and team-level LMXD.

Proposition 5: The leader’s attributed status of followers mediates the relationship between the (a) size and (b) density of the followers’ social networks and LMXD.

Multilevel Influences on Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

While the focus of our model is the indirect relationship of follower social networks on LMXD via follower status, there are several factors from a social capital perspective that should influence each stage of our conceptual model. In the following section, we propose several moderators that should influence the relationship. Overall, these factors deepen our multilevel examination of social networks on LMXD.

Follower Moderators

Perceived politics: Although the focus of our model is from the leader’s perspective, the follower’s perception of politics in the organization will likely influence the relationship between social networks and attributed status. Perception of organizational politics (POP) is the extent to which an individual perceives there is a high level of self-serving political behavior in the workplace (Miller, Rutherford, & Kolodinsky, 2008; Rosen, Ferris, Brown, Chen, & Yan, 2014). A substantial body of literature has shown that POP is associated with an array of negative workplace outcomes, including higher turnover intentions, higher employee strain, and lower performance (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Miller et al., 2008). Employees with high POP typically avoid engaging in political behavior (Chang et al., 2009). Thus, a follower’s POP should influence their willingness to engage or withdraw from any actions associated with political behavior in the workplace.

If a follower perceives that their leader is engaging in self-serving political behavior (e.g., using follower social networks as a proxy for access to social capital), they will be more likely to have a higher degree of POP. This perception will encourage followers to withdraw from any political behavior which may attenuate the otherwise positive effect of their social network on their attributed status (Chang et al., 2009). For instance, although a subordinate may be well-connected to a large social network, their POP may cause them to refrain from communicating information regarding that network to their leader, which likely influences the evaluation of their social capital. Thus, POP should then weaken the relationship between follower social networks and leader attributions of status.

Proposition 6: A follower’s POP weakens the otherwise positive association between that follower’s social networks and attributed status.

Follower modesty: Follower modesty should also influence the relationship between a follower’s social networks and attributed status of the follower. Modest individuals are those that are unassuming of their own achievements (Ridge & Ingram, 2017) and avoid attention (Chen, Bond, Chan, Tang, & Buchtel, 2009). Furthermore, modesty involves enhancing others rather than oneself (Chen et al., 2009), so a modest individual is not likely to promote information that may seem self-serving. Although modesty can be used as an impression management tactic (Blickle, Schneider, Kalthöfer, & Summers, 2012), we focus on trait modesty as a consistent characteristic across time in which individuals do not feel entitled to be treated preferentially (Diekmann, Blickle, Hafner, & Peters, 2015). More specific to our model, modest followers in a team likely do not draw attention to themselves in order to increase their own status.

Modest individuals have been linked to greater career success and upward mobility within organizations (Blickle et al., 2012). However, from a social capital perspective, we propose that modesty may act as a detriment to the leader’s evaluation of that individuals’ social capital, considering modest followers are not as willing to display the value of their social networks. Because modesty involves underestimating one’s own achievements (Ridge & Ingram, 2017), a modest individual may downplay their centrality within their networks or the size of their social networks in which they are involved. Furthermore, in their drive to enhance others (Chen et al., 2009), modest individuals may be prone to talk more highly of others in their social networks rather than themselves. Thus, when modest followers are interacting with their leader, they will be less likely to emphasize their valuable position or network structure, which affects the leader’s assessment of social capital and attributed status. We propose that a leader will underestimate the social capital of modest individuals and attribute less status to them, which weakens the positive relationship between the follower’s social networks and attributed status.

Proposition 7: The level of follower modesty influences the positive association between the follower’s social networks and attributed status, such that more modest followers have lower attributed status.

Leader Moderators

Perceived utility of followers: We also expect there are leader factors that should impact the leader’s willingness to borrow social capital. First, the team leader’s perceived utility of each follower, based on their social capital, should moderate the relationship between attributed status and LMXD. According to the social network literature, leaders have varying degrees of structural holes, or gaps of connections in their social networks (Burt, 1992; Oh, Labianca, & Chung, 2006). Further, the social capital and types of individuals needed to bridge these gaps in their social networks vary depending on the leaders’ needs (Oh et al., 2006). Because individuals have access to the resources within their social networks, they may serve as an access point for others to obtain those resources and achieve their own personal goals (Goodwin et al., 2009). In other words, a team’s leader will use each follower’s status (derived from their perception of that individual’s social capital), as an indicator of how useful each follower may be to the leader.

However, a leader’s reliance on follower status to enhance their own social capital may depend on the leader’s unique needs. A leader who has assigned two followers an identical level of status may favor the follower whose social capital helps them accomplish their own goals. For example, if a leader has a strong internal network in the organization but weak external connections throughout the industry, they may value a follower with industry connections over a follower with internal connections, even if those individuals technically have the same status. Therefore, the leader will be likely to invest more in relationships with individuals that they perceive to be of higher utility, which should ultimately impact the team’s LMXD.

Proposition 8: The team leader’s perceived utility of followers moderates the relationship between attributed status and LMXD, such that higher levels of perceived utility lead to more LMXD.

Leader ambition: Following the definition set forth by Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2012), we define ambition as “the persistent and generalized striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment” (p. 759). Ambition may be a product of both personality and environment that is influenced by the feedback one receives (Steffens et al., 2018), personality traits (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012), or level of social status (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). The outcomes associated with ambition have been mixed and may even carry a negative stigma in society (Jones, Sherman, & Hogan, 2017). Organizational studies have linked ambition to counterproductive work behavior (Schreurs, Hamstra, Jawahar, & Akkermans, 2020) and unethical behavior (Gürlek, 2021). However, researchers continue to emphasize its importance for career success (Jones et al., 2017; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Thus, we expect that a leader’s ambition will influence the extent to which they differentiate the quality of their follower’s relationships based upon the follower’s attributed status.

Despite evidence that ambition can be both a vice and a virtue (Pettigrove, 2007), an ambitious leader aims to achieve success in the workplace and utilize the work team to achieve this success. Because people are motivated to get ahead in social settings (Hogan & Holland, 2003), and connections from others’ social capital can benefit an employee’s career (i.e., R. Li, Zhang, Zhu, & N. Li, 2021), a leader may see certain team members as more valuable in their striving for success. Therefore, ambitious leaders will be more likely to differentiate LMX relationships, such that they develop stronger relationships with those of higher status.

Proposition 9: The team leader’s ambition moderates the relationship between the attributed status of each follower and the LMXD of the work team, such that high leader ambition is associated with more LMXD.

Team Moderators

Psychological safety climate: A few team characteristics are important in the explanation of how social networks ultimately impact LMXD as individual-level dynamics of social networks, and ensuing status, emerge at the team level in our described model. We specifically propose that psychological safety climate will reduce status’ impact on LMXD. Kahn (1990) defined psychological safety climate as “being able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status, or career” (p. 708). In the intervening years, team scholars have recognized it as a key variable that makes a group of people a team (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan, & Vracheva, 2017; Newman, Donohue, & Eva, 2017). Individuals in teams with high levels of psychological safety are more likely to adopt a learning orientation (Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010) and deal with problems and conflict productively (Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2012).

A leader’s motivation to borrow followers’ social capital and attribute higher LMX to a high-status follower may be subdued, mitigated, or lessened in teams with high levels of psychological safety climate. Members in these teams not only feel safe sharing and working together, but because of that, are also likely to feel more connection to each other and the leader. Further, teams with higher levels of psychological safety are more likely to work together and be productive (Frazier et al., 2017). In the contexts of these unified teams, the impact of the natural variation of follower status on a leader’s LMX judgments is more likely to be attenuated as the leader is less likely to prioritize each member’s social capital and status. Indeed, high safety teams are less status conscious and thus likely to have less LMXD from status influences. That is, leaders are more likely to attribute more LMX to lower status followers and less LMX to higher status followers, than leaders’ teams with low levels of psychological safety. We thus propose:

Proposition 10: Team psychological safety climate moderates the relationship between attributed status of followers and LMXD, such that teams with high levels of psychological safety have less LMXD.

Relationship conflict: Another team-level characteristic that we argue is key to understanding how social networks impact LMXD is relationship conflict. This construct involves emotional incompatibilities and tensions among teammates (Bradley, Anderson, Baur, & Klotz, 2015). Since the seminal work by Jehn (e.g., 1995), scholars have found more and more evidence that relationship conflict damages important team processes (Barrick Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998) and ultimately team performance (de Wit et al., 2012). Scholars now consider relationship conflict one of the main “negative” aspects of teams and something to be avoided (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012), although some evidence suggests it can be overcome (Thiel, Harvey, Courtright, & Bradley, 2019). In addition to the standard “main effects” view of relationship conflict in teams, this variable can also characterize certain teams and help paint a “contingency” picture of a unique team context within which other team variables can be better understood.

Relationship conflict breeds division in teams and creates a context where teammates harbor resentment and animosity toward each other, which causes the team to underperform. Teammates in these teams do not work well together, and hence, individual efforts and behaviors may become more important in order to get work done. This individualized focus of high-conflict teams also creates an environment in which social capital is a prominent feature of each team member rather than that of the team as a whole. This situation will likely promote dyadic relationships between the leader and certain followers to work with, more so than the entity of the entire team. Leaders who need to identify a few followers to work with more closely to access their network resources are more likely to differentiate relationships amongst their followers. That is, a leader will likely give less LMX to low-status members and more LMX to high-status members. We propose the following:

Proposition 11: The team’s level of relationship conflict moderates the relationship between attributed status of followers and LMXD, such that teams with high levels of relationship conflict have more LMXD.

Organization Moderators

Organizational climate: Finally, we propose two contextual factors as organizational-level boundaries in our model: organizational climate and organizational reward system. First, organizational climate is “the shared perceptions of and the meaning attached to the policies, practices, and procedures employees experience and the behaviors they observe getting rewarded and that are supported and expected” (Schneider et al., 2013; p. 362). An organization’s climate is determined by employees’ expectations and beliefs, which influences behavior and outcomes, at various levels within an organization (e.g., Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008; Zohar & Luria, 2005). Thus, the organizational climate will influence the relationships outlined in our model.

Because organizational climate influences leader behaviors in the organization (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005), we propose that the organizational climate will influence the degree to which leaders differentiate relationships among team members. In some organizational climates (Schneider et al., 2013), leaders may be expected to differentiate among their followers. For instance, because social networks are salient in the sales environment (i.e., Collins & Clark, 2003; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, Zhou, Quintane, & Zhu, 2015; Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, 2006), organizations that are highly sales-dependent may expect leaders to have higher quality relationships with higher status team members who can utilize their social capital to sell more for the company. Conversely, in nonprofit organizations (or organizations with strong prosocial missions), the climate may dictate that valuing certain employees over others based on their social capital is unacceptable. Overall, the organizational climate dictates which leader behaviors are normative, so we expect that organizational climates that encourage leaders to prioritize relationships with high-status team members should be associated with more LMXD.

Proposition 12: The organizational climate influences the indirect relationship between follower’s social networks and LMXD, such that organizational climates that value high-status individuals lead to more LMXD.

Compensation system: Second, the compensation system of the organization will influence the relationships in our conceptual model. More specifically, we focus on the extent to which a company utilizes pay-for-performance (PFP), or the degree to which an employee’s pay is determined by their performance or output (Maltarich, Nyberg, Reilly, Abdulsalam, & Martin, 2017). A broad group of literature has shown that there is an incentive effect in organizations that utilize PFP (Cadsby, Song, & Tapon, 2007), as exemplified by multiple studies that show a positive relationship between PFP and in-role task performance (He, Li, Feng, Zhang, & Sturman, 2021). In other words, employees in PFP organizations are likely to increase their performance in order to increase their pay.

Hence, we believe that organizations utilizing a PFP compensation system (i.e., He et al., 2021; Maltarich et al., 2017) will exacerbate the influence of social capital in our model. If the pay for a leader in an organization is dependent upon their performance, they will want to maximize their productivity. In order to maximize output under a high PFP system, the leaders will likely want to work more closely with higher status team members that perceivably have higher social capital, because these followers are most likely to have the resources and information available to help increase the leader’s output, and ultimately, pay. Overall, PFP will lead to leaders prioritizing higher quality follower relationships over lower quality follower relationships, which influences the LMXD of the team.

Proposition 13: The extent to which an organization utilizes a PFP compensation system influences the indirect relationship between follower’s social networks and LMXD, such that more PFP leads to more LMXD.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

By exploring the relationship between social networks and LMXD, our study provides several contributions to theory. First, we extend current literature on LMXD by providing a potential antecedent of LMXD: follower social networks. Prior research on LMXD focused primarily on the outcomes of LMXD and has largely overlooked its antecedents (Chen, He, & Weng, 2018; Henderson et al., 2009; Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012; Lee et al., 2016; Ma & Qu, 2010; Wang, Xu, Liu, & Jiang, 2015). By identifying potential origins of LMXD, we extend the construct’s nomological network and provide a basis for understanding a leader’s subjectivity in the differentiation process within a team. In doing so, we offer a conceptual framework to better understand why a leader may differentiate amongst followers on a team.

Second, by utilizing social capital theory, we apply a novel theoretical lens to the LMXD literature. Various scholars have called for an integration of LMXD and social networks (Buengeler et al., 2021; Goodwin et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2018), which makes sense because less research has focused on antecedents of LMXD than its consequences, and what little work that has been done focuses on human capital variables. Surprisingly, we found no research investigating the impact of social networks on a leader’s differentiation amongst follower relationships at the team level. Hence, our model adds important understanding to the emergence of LMXD on a work team and provides a framework upon which future research can build.

Finally, by examining this relationship at multiple levels, we answer prior calls for multilevel approaches in both the social networks and LMXD literatures (e.g., Carter et al., 2015; Matta & Van Dyne, 2020). For instance, in a recent review Matta and Van Dyne (2020) argue that “it is critically important to consider the effects of LMX and LMX differentiation across multiple levels of analysis” (p. 175). Thus, our multilevel analysis contributes to this literature by deepening our understanding of how individual-level characteristics may drive team-level LMXD, while being influenced by moderating factors at the follower, leader, team, and organizational levels.

Practical Implications

This paper also provides several practical implications for organizations. Employees are spending more time at work in teams (Cooper, Rockmann, Moteabbed, & Thatcher, 2021; Li, Kristof-Brown, & Nielsen, 2019). There is thus a growing need to better understand team-level phenomena such as LMXD. By identifying social networks as a potential antecedent of LMXD, this model provides insight to employees who wish to stand out in their work teams. Specifically, employees should attempt to gain more notable positions in prominent social networks, and those employees who strive for higher quality relationships with their leaders should be strategic in communicating their social capital to their leader.

Our paper also illuminates an inherent downside for certain team members: what happens to the followers with low status due to their social networks? By proposing that leaders are more interested in followers who provide crucial social capital resources, we acknowledge that leaders may exclude some followers due to their low status. This dynamic could be particularly detrimental to under-represented minorities and women by reinforcing the “in-group” and further excluding the “out-group.” These decisions may not only cause division within the team, but may also lead to certain employees being overlooked because they do not offer the leader enough social resources. Thus, organizations should evaluate their support of under-represented minority groups and ensure they have opportunities to network and build social capital.

In addition, leaders should be cognizant of the ways that differentiating LMX among team members may lead to divergent outcomes. Though our model focuses on the antecedents of LMXD, prior research demonstrates that perceptions of justice moderate the relationship between LMXD and important outcomes such as team proactivity and performance (Chen et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015). Thus, leaders who differentiate LMX on the basis of social networks should be strategic in the ways that they maintain perceptions of justice. In other words, although a manager may desire to maximize their careers by prioritizing followers based on social capital, they must do so in a balanced way for the team.

Future Research

Our model provides several avenues for future research. First and foremost, our model should be tested to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between social networks and LMXD. Longitudinal studies would be particularly useful in this endeavor as they would provide evidence for causal relationships among social networks, status, and LMXD. Longitudinal studies may also help uncover temporal effects of social networks on LMXD. That is, do social network characteristics have more influence on status during the interview process than midway through a team’s life cycle? Evaluating the temporal nature of status attributions and LMXD would help scholars understand how previous attributions of status might change in light of new information regarding a follower’s social network.

Empirical testing also provides a way to understand the nuanced impact of a follower’s social network on leader attributions of status. In the present paper, we posit that an individual’s centrality within a social network and network’s structural characteristics influence a leader’s status attributions of their followers. We encourage future research to explore additional facets of a follower’s social network, such as homophily (the tendency for people to seek out others who are similar to themselves) or tie multiplexity (the overlap of roles, affiliations, or exchanges; Park et al., 2020), that may also influence this relationship. Further, it is possible that some network factors are more influential than others in a leader’s perception of follower social capital. By using social network analysis in teams (e.g., Wölfer, Faber, & Hewstone, 2015), researchers could evaluate which social network factors influence leader perceptions of social capital more than others.

Qualitative research may also be helpful in this endeavor, as it provides thick descriptions regarding individuals’ lived experiences (Tracy, 2019). Thus, qualitative research could be used to interview leaders about the cues that indicate a follower has particularly rich social capital and how their decisions to invest in relationships with certain followers are strategic (and controlled) or automatic (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). Qualitative research may be also helpful in determining how a leader’s own biases regarding an ideal follower influences their perception of social capital. If leaders hold implicit theories regarding prototypical social networks, this could influence their decision to attribute status. Thus, qualitative research could unpack some of these nuanced biases.

Second, we echo the call of previous scholars to continue to integrate novel theoretical frameworks into the LMXD literature (Martin et al., 2018). For instance, scholars could use affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) to investigate the ways in which attributing status may trigger emotions for followers and their teammates. Future research could also use signaling theory (Spence, 2002) to explore the various ways that followers signal information regarding their social networks to their leader. Our model does not distinguish between active or passive ways that a leader learns about a follower’s social network. However, this perspective may illuminate how followers actively signal this information to their leaders. Thus, future research could explore the processes followers use to actively send social network cues to their leaders.

Lastly, we encourage scholars to examine other factors that may serve as boundary conditions that would influence the relationships in this model. Certain personality characteristics of both leader and follower may be particularly interesting to investigate in this context. For instance, we know that Machiavellian individuals are prone to manipulating situations for their own gain (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), so Machiavellian leaders may be more likely to assess followers’ social networks as opportunities to manipulate for self-gain. In addition, a follower’s level of extroversion may impact the likelihood of communicating their social network to their leader, thus impacting LMXD. Overall, our proposed model serves as a catalyst for these and other avenues of future research.

Conclusion

In sum, in this paper, we draw on social capital theory to propose a link between followers’ social networks and LMXD. In doing so, we offer a multilevel framework that explains why leaders may differentiate among followers. Specifically, we propose that as leaders assess each follower’s social network and inherent social capital, they attribute various levels of status within the team, which influences the leader’s decision to develop higher quality relationships with members of high status. This decision should ultimately impact team-level LMXD. This paper contributes to our understanding of the individual-level factors that impact team-level LMXD and identifies one potential antecedent of LMXD. By offering this theoretical account of the origins of LMXD, we hope to advance theory by providing a conceptual model that offers several opportunities for future research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jacob Whitney

Author Biographies

Jacob M. Whitney is a second-year Ph.D. student in Management and International Business at the University of Oklahoma, where he studies organizational behavior. His research interests include leadership, teams, and impression management.

Sarah E. Henry is a third-year Ph.D. candidate in Management and International Business at the University of Oklahoma, with a focus on organizational behavior. Her research interests include international management, prosocial behavior, and impression management.

Bret Bradley is an Associate Professor in Management and International Business at the University of Oklahoma. His research intersects the areas of small group dynamics, team effectiveness, individual differences, and leadership processes. He studies workplace issues such as beneficial conflict, entrepreneurial teams, workplace deviance, and emotion regulation.

References

Balkundi

Harrison

D. A.

(2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785500.

Barrick

M. R.

Stewart

G. L.

Neubert

M. J.

Mount

M. K.

(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377.

Bauer

T. N.

Erdogan

(Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Belliveau

M. A.

O'Reilly

C. A.

III Wade

J. B.

(1996). Social capital at the top: Effects of social similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1568–1593. https://doi.org/10.2307/257069.

Bernerth

J. B.

Hirschfeld

R. R.

(2016). The subjective well-being of group leaders as explained by the quality of leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.04.003.

Blickle

Diekmann

Schneider

P. B.

Kalthöfer

Summers

J. K.

(2012). When modesty wins: Impression management through modesty, political skill, and career success—a two-study investigation. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 21(6), 899–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2011.603900.

Bono

J. E.

Anderson

M. H.

(2005). The advice and influence networks of transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1306–1314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1306.

Bradley

B. H.

Anderson

H. J.

Baur

J. E.

Klotz

A. C.

(2015). When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(4), 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000033.

Bradley

B. H.

Postlethwaite

B. E.

Klotz

A. C.

Hamdani

M. R.

Brown

K. G.

(2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024200.

10.

Brands

R. A.

(2013). Cognitive social structures in social network research: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S82–S103. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1890.

11.

Brass

D. J.

Burkhardt

M. E.

(1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/256588.

12.

Buengeler

Piccolo

R. F.

Locklear

L. R.

(2021). LMX differentiation and group outcomes: A framework and review drawing on group diversity insights. Journal of Management, 47(1), 260–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320930813.

13.

Bunderson

J. S.

Boumgarden

(2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0483.

14.

Burt

R. S.

(1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Burt

R. S.

(1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10(1), 5–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/104346398010001001.

16.

Burt

R. S.

(2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(00)22009-1.

17.

Cadsby

C. B.

Song

Tapon

(2007). Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634448.

18.

Cao

Smith

E. B.

(2021). Why do high-status people have larger social networks? Belief in status-quality coupling as a driver of network-broadening behavior and social network size. Organization Science, 32(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1381.

19.

Carter

D. R.

DeChurch

L. A.

Braun

M. T.

Contractor

N. S.

(2015). Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 597–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038922.

20.

Chang

C.-H.

Rosen

C. C.

Levy

P. E.

(2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670894.

21.

Chen

S. X.

Bond

M. H.

Chan

Tang

Buchtel

E. E.

(2009). Behavioral manifestations of modesty. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(4), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108330992.

22.

Chen

X.-P.

Weng

L.-C.

(2018). What is wrong with treating followers differently? The basis of leader–member exchange differentiation matters. Journal of Management, 44(3), 946–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315598372.

23.

Chen

Zhang

(2021). What happens to a black sheep? Exploring how multilevel leader–member exchange differentiation shapes the organizational altruism behaviors of low leader–member exchange minority. Group & Organization Management, 46(6), 1073–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121998584.

24.

Chiniara

Bentein

(2018). The servant leadership advantage: When perceiving low differentiation in leader-member relationship quality influences team cohesion, team task performance and service OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.002.

25.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Balkundi

Weinberg

F. J.

(2017). When managers become leaders: The role of manager network centralities, social power, and followers’ perception of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.004.

26.

Choi

Kraimer

M. L.

Seibert

S. E.

(2020). Conflict, justice, and inequality: Why perceptions of leader–member exchange differentiation hurt performance in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2451.

27.

Cole

B. M.

(2019, March 20). 10 Reasons why networking is essential for your career. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/biancamillercole/2019/03/20/why-networking-should-be-at-the-core-of-your-career/?sh=441c86481300

28.

Coleman

J. S.

(1994). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

29.

Collins

C. J.

Clark

K. D.

(2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740–751. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040665.

30.

Cooper

Rockmann

K. W.

Moteabbed

Thatcher

S. M. B.

(2021). Integrator or gremlin? Identity partnerships and team newcomer socialization. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0014.

31.

Cropanzano

Dasborough

M. T.

Weiss

H. M.

(2017). Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0384.

32.

Cross

Borgatti

S. P.

Parker

(2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8733(01)00041-7.

33.

de Wit

F. R. C.

Greer

L. L.

Jehn

K. A.

(2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844.

34.

Densereau

Graen

G. B.

Haga

(1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78.

35.

DeRue

D. S.

Nahrgang

J. D.

Ashford

S. J.

(2015). Interpersonal perceptions and the emergence of leadership structures in groups: A network perspective. Organization Science, 26(4), 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0963.

36.

Diekmann

Blickle

Hafner

Peters

(2015). Trick or trait? The combined effects of employee impression management modesty and trait modesty on supervisor evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.05.002.

37.

Driskell

J. E.

Mullen

(1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290163012.

38.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.

39.

Edmondson

A. C.

Lei

(2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305.

40.

Emery

Booth

J. E.

Michaelides

Swaab

A. J.

(2019). The importance of being psychologically empowered: Buffering the negative effects of employee perceptions of leader–member exchange differentiation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(3), 566–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12266.

41.

Epitropaki

Kapoutsis

Ellen

B. P.

III Ferris

G. R.

Drivas

Ntotsi

(2016). Navigating uneven terrain: The roles of political skill and LMX differentiation in prediction of work relationship quality and work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 1078–1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2100.

42.

Erdogan

Bauer

T. N.

(2010). Differentiated leader–member exchanges: the buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020578.

43.

Fleischman

(2015, August 4). The dangers of playing favorites at work. Fortune. Retrieved from: https://fortune.com/2015/08/04/favoritism-careers-leadership/

44.

Frazier

M. L.

Fainshmidt

Klinger

R. L.

Pezeshkan

Vracheva

(2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183.

45.

Gabbay

S. M.

Zuckerman

E. W.

(1998). Social capital and opportunity in corporate R&D: The contingent effect of contact density on mobility expectations. Social Science Research, 27(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1998.0620.

46.

Gardner

W. L.

Avolio

B. J.

Luthans

May

D. R.

Walumbwa

(2005). Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003.

47.

Goodwin

V. L.

Bowler

W. M.

Whittington

J. L.

(2009). A social network perspective on LMX relationships: Accounting for the instrumental value of leader and follower networks. Journal of Management, 35(4), 954–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321555.

48.

Gooty

Yammarino

F. J.

(2016). The leader–member exchange relationship: A multisource, cross-level investigation. Journal of Management, 42(4), 915–935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503009.

49.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.

50.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.

51.

Gürlek

(2021). Shedding light on the relationships between Machiavellianism, career ambition, and unethical behavior intention. Ethics & Behavior, 31(1), 38–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1764846.

52.

Han

J. H.

Liao

Han

A. N.

(2021). When leader–member exchange differentiation improves work group functioning: The combined roles of differentiation bases and reward interdependence. Personnel Psychology, 74(1), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12415.

53.

Harris

T. B.

Kirkman

B. L.

(2014). Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX’s influence on OCB and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.001.

54.

Haynie

J. J.

Cullen

K. L.

Lester

H. F.

Winter

Svyantek

D. J.

(2014). Differentiated leader–member exchange, justice climate, and performance: Main and interactive effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.007.

55.

Hayton

J. C.

Carnabuci

Eisenberger

(2012). With a little help from my colleagues: A social embeddedness approach to perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.755.

56.

S.-L.

Feng

Zhang

Sturman

M. C.

(2021). When does pay for performance motivate employee helping behavior? The contextual influence of performance subjectivity. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 293–326. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1408.

57.

Henderson

D. J.

Liden

R. C.

Glibkowski

B. C.

Chaudhry

(2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.003.

58.

Henderson

D. J.

Wayne

S. J.

Shore

L. M.

Bommer

W. H.

Tetrick

L. E.

(2008). Leader--member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208–1219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012678.

59.

Herdman

A. O.

Yang

Arthur

J. B.

(2017). How does leader-member exchange disparity affect teamwork behavior and effectiveness in work groups? The moderating role of leader-leader exchange. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1498–1523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314556315.

60.

Hirst

Van Knippenberg

Zhou

Quintane

Zhu

(2015). Heard it through the grapevine: Indirect networks and employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038333.

61.

Hogan

Holland

(2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100.

62.

Hooper

D. T.

Martin

(2008). Beyond personal leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.002.

63.

Huang

Krasikova

D. V.

Harms

P. D.

(2020). Avoiding or embracing social relationships? A conservation of resources perspective of leader narcissism, leader–member exchange differentiation, and follower voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2423.

64.

Jehn

K. A.

(1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638.

65.

Jones

A. B.

Sherman

R. A.

Hogan

R. T.

(2017). Where is ambition in factor models of personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 106(5), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.057.

66.

Judge

T. A.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

(2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes and consequences of ambition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 758–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028084.

67.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287.

68.

Kauppila

O.-P.

(2016). When and how does LMX differentiation influence followers’ work outcomes? The interactive roles of one’s own LMX status and organizational context. Personnel Psychology, 69(2), 357–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12110.

69.

Kilduff

Brass

D. J.

(2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 317–357. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2010.494827.

70.

Kilduff

Krackhardt

(1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.5465/256771.

71.

Le Blanc

P. M.

González-Romá

(2012). A team level investigation of the relationship between Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 534–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.006.

72.

Lee

Chae

Y. J.

Shin

(2016). Motivational antecedents of leader-member exchange differentiation: Evidence from South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9454-8.

73.

Lee

S. H.

Qureshi

Konrad

A. M.

Bhardwaj

(2014). Proactive personality heterophily and the moderating role of proactive personality on network centrality and psychological outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9320-y.

74.

Liao

Liu

Loi

(2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1090–1109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533207.

75.

Liao

Wayne

S. J.

Liden

R. C.

Meuser

J. D.

(2017). Idiosyncratic deals and individual effectiveness: The moderating role of leader-member exchange differentiation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.014.

76.

Liden

R. C.

Erdogan

Wayne

S. J.

Sparrowe

R. T.

(2006). Leader‐member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.409.

77.

C. S.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Nielsen

J. D.

(2019). Fitting in a group: Theoretical development and validation of the multidimensional perceived person–group fit scale. Personnel Psychology, 72(1), 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12295.

78.

Liao

(2014). How do leader–member exchange quality and differentiation affect performance in teams? An integrated multilevel dual process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037233.

79.

Lin

(1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467.

80.

Lin

Ensel

W. M.

Vaughn

J. C.

(1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46(4), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095260.

81.

Zhang

Zhu

(2021). Does employee humility foster performance and promotability? Exploring the mechanisms of LMX and peer network centrality in China. Human Resource Management, 60(3), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22025.

82.

Luthans

Norman

S. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Avey

J. B.

(2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.507.

83.

Mackey

J. D.

Huang

(2020). You abuse and I criticize: An ego depletion and leader–member exchange examination of abusive supervision and destructive voice. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4024-x.

84.

Maltarich

M. A.

Nyberg

A. J.

Reilly

Abdulsalam

D. D.

Martin

(2017). Pay-for-performance, sometimes: An interdisciplinary approach to integrating economic rationality with psychological emotion to predict individual performance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2155–2174. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0737.

85.

(2010). Differentiation in leader–member exchange: A hierarchical linear modeling approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 733–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.004.

86.

Martin

Guillaume

Thomas

Lee

Epitropaki

(2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100.

87.

Martin

Thomas

Legood

Dello Russo

(2018). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2202.

88.

Matta

F. K.

Van Dyne

(2020). Understanding the disparate behavioral consequences of LMX differentiation: The role of social comparison emotions. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 154–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0264.

89.

Mehra

Dixon

A. L.

Brass

D. J.

Robertson

(2006). The social network ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0158.

90.

Mehra

Kilduff

Brass

D. J.

(2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667127.

91.

Miller

B. K.

Rutherford

M. A.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

(2008). Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9061-5.

92.

Naidoo

L. J.

Scherbaum

C. A.

Goldstein

H. W.

Graen

G. B.

(2011). A longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on team performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9193-2.

93.

Newman

Donohue

Eva

(2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001.

94.

Nishii

L. H.

Mayer

D. M.

(2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017190.

95.

Chung

M.-H.

Labianca

(2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860–875. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159627.

96.

Labianca

Chung

M.-H.

(2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318918.

97.

Park

Grosser

T. J.

Roebuck

A. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2020). Understanding work teams from a network perspective: A review and future research directions. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1002–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901573.

98.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00505-6.

99.

Perry-Smith

J. E.

(2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785503.

100.

Pettigrove

(2007). Ambitions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 10(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-006-9044-4.

101.

Preller

Patzelt

Breugst

(2020). Entrepreneurial visions in founding teams: Conceptualization, emergence, and effects on opportunity development. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2), 105914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.11.004.

102.

Regts

Molleman

van de Brake

H. J.

(2019). The impact of leader–member exchange on follower performance in light of the larger social network. Human Relations, 72(8), 1265–1291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718806351.

103.

Ridge

J. W.

Ingram

(2017). Modesty in the top management team: Investor reaction and performance implications. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1283–1306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314551796.

104.

Rosen

C. C.

Ferris

D. L.

Brown

D. J.

Chen

Yan

(2014). Perceptions of organizational politics: A need satisfaction paradigm. Organization Science, 25(4), 1026–1055. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0857.

105.

Schneider

Ehrhart

M. G.

Macey

W. H.

(2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809.

106.

Schneider

Shiffrin

R. M.

(1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1.

107.

Schreurs

Hamstra

M. R. W.

Jawahar

I. M.

Akkermans

(2020). Perceived over qualification and counterproductive work behavior: Testing the mediating role of relative deprivation and the moderating role of ambition. Personnel Review, 50(3), 1038–1055. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-05-2019-0237.

108.

Schriesheim

C. A.

Castro

S. L.

Cogliser

C. C.

(1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(99)80009-5.

109.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Liden

R. C.

(2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069452.

110.

Seo

J. J.

Nahrgang

J. D.

Carter

M. Z.

Hom

P. W.

(2018). Not all differentiation is the same: Examining the moderating effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) configurations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000262.

111.

Serban

Yammarino

F. J.

Dionne

S. D.

Kahai

S. S.

Hao

McHugh

K. A.

Sotak

K. L.

Mushore

A. B. R.

Friedrich

T. L.

Peterson

D. R.

(2015). Leadership emergence in face-to-face and virtual teams: A multi-level model with agent-based simulations, quasi-experimental and experimental tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.006.

112.

Sparrowe

R. T.

(2020). LMX and welfare trade-off ratios: An evolutionary perspective on leader-member relations. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 101271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.001.

113.

Sparrowe

R. T.

Liden

R. C.

(1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522–552. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707154068.

114.

Sparrowe

R. T.

Liden

R. C.

(2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 505–535. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.50.4.505.

115.

Sparrowe

R. T.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Kraimer

M. L.

(2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069458.

116.

Spence

(2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434–459. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136200.

117.

Steffens

N. K.

Fonseca

M. A.

Ryan

M. K.

Rink

F. A.

Stoker

J. I.

Nederveen Pieterse

(2018). How feedback about leadership potential impacts ambition, organizational commitment, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.06.001.

118.

Stewart

M. M.

Johnson

O. E.

(2009). Leader—Member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 507–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331220.

119.

Sui

Wang

Kirkman

B. L.

(2016). Understanding the curvilinear relationships between LMX differentiation and team coordination and performance. Personnel Psychology, 69(3), 559–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12115.

120.

Tasselli

Kilduff

Menges

J. I.

(2015). The microfoundations of organizational social networks: A review and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1361–1387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573996.

121.

Thiel

C. E.

Harvey

Courtright

Bradley

(2019). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger: How teams rebound from early-stage relationship conflict. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1623–1659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729026.

122.

Tracy

S. J.

(2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

123.

Wang

Liu

Jiang

(2015). The antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange differentiation: A resource perspective. In: Academy of management proceedings (2015(1), p. 17424). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.17424abstract.

124.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

125.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (18, pp. 1–74). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

126.

Wellman

Berkowitz

S. D.

(1988). Social structures: A network approach (2). Cambridge, UK: CUP Archive.

127.

Wölfer

Faber

N. S.

Hewstone

(2015). Social network analysis in the science of groups: Cross-sectional and longitudinal applications for studying intra- and intergroup behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000021.

128.

Yammarino

F. J.

Dionne

S. D.

Chun

J. U.

Dansereau

(2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 879–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.09.002.

129.

Matta

F. K.

Cornfield

(2018). Is leader–member exchange differentiation beneficial or detrimental for group effectiveness? A meta-analytic investigation and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1158–1188. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1212.

130.

Zohar

Luria

(2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.616.

Maybe It Is Who You Know: Social Networks and Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Abstract

Keywords

Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation and Social Networks

Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Social Networks

Social Networks, Social Capital, and Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Theoretical Model

Leader Assessments of Social Capital

Position Within Social Network

Social Network Characteristics

Attributed Status and Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Multilevel Influences on Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Follower Moderators

Leader Moderators

Team Moderators

Organization Moderators

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References