Navigating uneven terrain: The roles of political skill and LMX differentiation in prediction of work relationship quality and work outcomes

• Author: Anastasia Ntotsi,Olga Epitropaki,Gerald R. Ferris,B. Parker Ellen,Ilias Kapoutsis,Konstantinos Drivas
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Date: 01 October 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2100

Navigating uneven terrain: The roles of political

skill and LMX differentiation in prediction of work

relationship quality and work outcomes

OLGA EPITROPAKI

1

*

,†

, ILIAS KAPOUTSIS

2†

, B. PARKER ELLEN III

3

,

GERALD R. FERRIS

4

, KONSTANTINOS DRIVAS

5

AND ANASTASIA NTOTSI

5

1

Durham University, U.K.

2

Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

3

Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

4

Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, U.S.A.

5

ALBA Graduate Business School, Athens, Greece

Summary Drawing from social/political influence, leader–member exchange (LMX), and social comparison theories,

the present two-study investigation examines three levels of LMX differentiation (i.e., individual-level,

meso-level, and group-level LMX differentiation) and further tests a model of the joint effects of political skill

and LMX differentiation on LMX, relative LMX, and employee work outcomes. In Study 1, we used data

from 231 employees and found support for the interactive effect of political skill and individual perceptions

of LMX differentiation on LMX quality. We also found partial support for the moderating role of individual-

level LMX differentiation on the indirect effects of political skill on self-rated task performance and job

satisfaction via LMX. In Study 2, we used data from 185 supervisor–subordinate dyads and examined both

meso-level and group-level LMX differentiation via a multilevel moderated mediation model. Results

supported the moderating role of group-level LMX differentiation and group mean LMX on the indirect

effects of political skill on supervisor-rated task performance and contextual performance/citizenship

behavior as well as job satisfaction via relative LMX.Overall, the results suggest that politically skilled employees

reap the benefits of LMX differentiation, as they enjoy higher absolute LMX and relative (i.e., to their peers) LMX

quality. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: political skill; LMX; LMX differentiation; social comparison theory

The study of work relationships is fundamental to understanding organizational behavior (Ferris et al., 2009), and

few work relationships have more impact than those between leaders and followers. As a result, researchers have

examined the quality of leader–follower dyadic relationships for more than four decades. Leader–member exchange

(LMX) theory has been at the center of this line of inquiry and has been shown to be a key predictor of focal

employee attitudes and performance outcomes (for recent reviews, see Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris,

2012; Erdogan & Bauer, 2014; Martin, Epitropaki, Thomas, & Topakas, 2010).

Leader–member exchange theory argues that supervisors form relationships of differing quality levels with

subordinates (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Mature and high-quality leader–follower

relationships have been described as partnerships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) characterized by increased levels of

trust, support, and mutual influence, while low-quality relationships have been said to be mainly transactional and

based on the hierarchical authority of the supervisor (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As such, within workgroups, a great

deal of variance in relationship quality is possible between the leader and each follower (Henderson, Wayne, Shore,

Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008).

*Correspondence to: Olga Epitropaki, Durham University Business School U.K. E-mail: olga.epitropaki2@durham.ac.uk

†

Shared first authorship.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 11 March 2014

Revised 04 February 2016, Accepted 09 February 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1078–1103 (2016)

Published online 22 March 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2100

Research Article

Although differentiation has been an inherent assumption of LMX theory since its inception, explicit examination

of LMX differentiation is a relatively recent development, making it one of the most important current and future

areas of inquiry for LMX research (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009; Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand,

Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010). According to Anand, Vidyarthi, and Park (2015), prior research has examined LMX

differentiation in three distinct ways: at the individual level with perceived LMX differentiation (e.g., Hooper &

Martin, 2008; Van Breukelen, Konst, & van der Vlist, 2002), at the meso level with relative LMX (e.g., Harris,

Li, & Kirkman, 2014; Henderson et al., 2008; Vidyarthi et al., 2010), and at the group level with objective LMX

difference calculations (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2010; Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012).

Perceived LMX differentiation (e.g., Hooper & Martin, 2008) is a perceptual measure residing at the individual

level of analysis. It captures perceived variability of LMX relationships within a group (i.e., employees’assessments

of whether their coworkers are close or distant from the leader, but it does not actually tap the individual’s perceived

standing within a work group). On the other hand, relative LMX and LMX differentiation directly incorporate

the team context. Relative LMX reflects the frog pond approach and captures the individual-within-group level

(i.e., a meso-level of analysis; Anand et al., 2015; Henderson et al., 2008). It represents the actual degree to which

an individual’s work relationship differs (i.e., better or worse) from the average LMX relationships in the group

(Vidyarthi et al., 2010). Finally, group-level LMX differentiation addresses actual within-group LMX variability

that creates a group-level context, which is meaningful to the experience and sensemaking of both leaders and

members (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2010; Henderson et al., 2009).

Within this segment of the literature, researchers have argued that LMX differentiation triggers social comparison

processes (Festinger, 1954; Hu & Liden, 2013; Vidyarthi et al., 2010). Social comparison theory suggests that one’s

relative standing influences attitudes, aspirations, and behaviors (Wood, 1989). It is, thus, likely that the recognition

of differing LMX quality within the workgroup influences a number of workplace outcomes (Vidyarthi et al., 2010).

A number of studies of both relative LMX and LMX differentiation have indicated that differentiation has

negative effects on attitudes, such as work unit commitment, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction

(Henderson et al., 2009; Hooper & Martin, 2008). However, researchers have also argued that variability is not

necessarily a bad thing and found support for the positive role of differentiation (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2010;

Henderson et al., 2008; Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012; Ma & Qu, 2010). Thus, a low degree of differentiation

may not always be a desired or optimal situation. To date, the overall evidence regarding the role of differentiation

for employee outcomes remains inconclusive (e.g., Harris et al., 2014). Henderson et al. (2008) speculated that while

certain employees might respond negatively to differentiation, other employees might respond positively. Thus, it is

possible that groups with a low degree of LMX differentiation are likely to be constraining and frustrating for

ambitious and achievement-oriented individuals (Erdogan & Liden, 2002).

Interestingly, LMX differentiation research has yet to investigate personal characteristics that may shed light

on whether and why some individuals may or may not thrive in environments of high LMX differentiation.

Thus, we extend the LMX differentiation literature by examining its joint effect with political skill—a personal

characteristic that helps employees successfully navigate social situations at work (Ferris et al., 2007) to achieve

desired work outcomes.

Additionally, research on LMX differentiation indicates that it operates at multiple levels of theory (Henderson

et al., 2008). However, most studies have explored only one or two of the three theoretical levels, leaving gaps in

our understanding of the relationships between LMX differentiation and studied constructs. Thus, by employing a

two-study research design that examines all three theoretical levels of LMX differentiation, we provide a more

comprehensive test of the interactive effects of political skill and LMX differentiation on work outcomes (i.e., as

they operate through LMX and relative LMX quality). In the process, we contribute to theory by providing

additional evidence of political skill’s ability to help employees manage potentially difficult situations (i.e., high

LMX differentiation workgroups) with potentially deleterious consequences on job performance and job satisfaction.

More specifically, we use social/political influence (Ferris et al., 2007), LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and

social comparison (Festinger, 1954) theories to argue that politically skilled employees are aware of LMX differen-

tiation within the workgroup (Vidyarthi et al., 2010) and use their social savvy to help them decode social cues,

LMX DIFFERENTIATION AND POLITICAL SKILL 1079

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1078–1103 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job