In this study, we propose that the upward leader-leader exchange (LLX) relationship is an important moderating condition in predicting the consequences of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation within work groups. We assert that the structural and operating efficiencies created by LMX differentiation will depend on group members' appraisal of the legitimacy of the within-group LMX disparity. Drawing on relative deprivation theory, we argue that the level of perceived legitimacy of LMX differentiation varies with levels of LLX. Using data collected from 579 subordinates and 74 managers in 74 work groups over two time periods, we propose and test hypotheses that the quality of a leader's LLX relationship will moderate the mediated relationship between LMX differentiation, group-level teamwork, and team effectiveness. We find support for our moderated-mediation model and suggest implications for theory and practice.

What explains why high‐performance work systems (HPWSs) are not adopted more widely by firms that would appear to benefit economically by adopting them? We address this question by drawing on the upper‐echelons perspective to consider the role of the top managers’ beliefs concerning the financial payoffs from investments in HR (“HR cause‐effect belief”) as well as their employee‐centered value‐based beliefs (labeled “HPWS values”). We propose a conceptual model in which top management HPWS values moderate the relationship between HR cause‐effect beliefs and the intensity of HPWS programs reported by managers as well as the relationship between HPWS programs and employees’ perceptions of implemented HPWS practices. We test our model using a unique multisource data set collected from 120 hotel franchisees that includes survey responses from 648 managers and 1,293 employees. We find that firms’ ability to translate top managers’ cause‐effect beliefs about the economic value of HR investments into adoption of HPWS programs, as well as their ability to effectively implement these HPWS programs, is significantly affected by the value‐based HR beliefs held by top managers. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Abstract:The present study examines the association between team incivility climate and team members' perceived support for innovation. To extend findings on the negative effects of incivility (which are low intensity deviant behaviors, such as rudeness) in studies focusing on the individual level, the effects of organizational incivility are examined at the work team level. Drawing on the spiral model of incivility and the literature on teams, this study suggests that team incivility climate has a negative impact on perceived support for innovation through team members' teamwork behaviors. Using data collected from 411 subordinates on 62 work teams, the hypothesized mediation model is tested. The results show a negative effect of team incivility climate on teamwork and a positive effect of teamwork on perceived support for innovation, supporting the hypothesized negative indirect effect. Research and practical implications for organizational sustainability are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

AbstractIn this study, I propose supervisors’ upward leader–leader exchange relationships as an important boundary condition for the relationship between average leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships and a climate for innovation support at the group level. Specifically, I argue that the effect of resource spillover to poor-LMX subordinates within a work group is an important mechanism that leads to the development of a climate that supports innovation. I test the hypothesized moderated-mediation model by using multisource and multiwave data collected from 590 employees and 75 supervisors. The findings indicate that the indirect effect of team LMX relationships on team effectiveness via a climate for innovation support is more positive under high conditions of leader–leader exchange, whereas the effect is less positive under low conditions of leader–leader exchange. Implications and limitations relevant to developing research around LMX and innovation are addressed.

The authors examine variation in firm choices to invest in HR practices. They identify three approaches: investments in high-involvement programs (such as employee participation and teams); in high-commitment practices (such as internal promotions and job security); and in ability-enhancing selection and training programs. The authors test the performance effect of these choices in a sample of 165 small- and medium-sized hotel establishments (SMEs). They also consider how job-level differences in skill requirements and customer contact affect the relative effectiveness of these three groups of high-performance work practices. Consistent with the authors’ predictions, findings show that, on average, the group of high-commitment practices has the strongest relationship with SME performance. However, the performance effect of high-involvement practices is significantly stronger for front desk jobs compared to housekeeping jobs.

No abstract