Seeing Green: Exploring Envy in
Leader-Member Relationships
Taylor K. Odle (Vanderbilt U.)
Timothy P. Munyon, Ph.D. (U. of Tennessee-Knoxville)
Risks and Benefits of Workplace Affect
Leader-Member Exchange
• There is arguably no more important relationship for employees than their relationship with an immediate supervisor (Graen, 1976; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)
• LMX is distinguished from other leadership theories because of its dyadic orientation
• Social Identity Theory (Blau, 1964)
• Relationships: High- and Low-Quality • In- and Out-Group Memberships
• Predictive of individual, group, and organizational outcomes
• Group memberships form quickly, relatively enduring
Performance
• Followers within high-quality leader-member exchange relationships are nourished by mutual trust, respect, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) • As a result of the typically extraordinary contributions
to the organization by high-quality followers, many receive special privileges, workplace opportunities, and increased levels of job discretion from their supervisors (Wang et al., 2005)
• Employees value this personal relationship and feel the need to reciprocate this workplace exchange (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007) • Increased task performance serves a mode of
currency to fulfill these obligations
Relational Envy
• “Pain at another’s good fortune” (Tai,
Narayanan, & McAllister, 2012)
• Unfavorable social comparisons serve as
the foundation of envy’s development
(Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995)
• Differentiation in LMX quality
• Debate on the positive and negative
outcomes of envy in the workplace
Relational Instrumentality of
Performance • Relationship instrumentality reflects the gains
each partner receives from participation in the relationship itself (Ferris et al., 2009)
• Relationships represent goals in and of themselves, and behaviors that facilitate relationships can be viewed as instrumental • Some relationships may be more instrumental than
others
• To some subordinates, performance may be the key to developing or maintaining a high-quality supervisor relationship • Lack of performance could predict the onset of envy
emotions
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Relational instrumentality of performance beliefs moderate the relationship between leader task-performance evaluations and member reports of leader-member exchange (LMX), such that LMX is highest when performance is high and instrumentality beliefs are low, and lowest when performance is low and instrumentality beliefs are high.
Hypothesis 2: Leader-member exchange is negatively associated with relational envy.
Hypothesis 3: Relational instrumentality of performance beliefs moderate the indirect relationship of leader-member exchange (LMX) in the task performance evaluation – envy emotion relationship, such that LMX mediates the relationship between task performance evaluations and envy emotions when performance relational instrumentality beliefs are low.
Task Performance Relational Envy Leader-Member
Exchange
Relationship Performance
Instrumentality Beliefs
Theoretical Model
Methods
• Participants and Procedure
• Cross-sectional, online survey
• 112 supervisor-subordinate dyads
• Analyses
• Hierarchical multivariate regression (H1)
• Correlation (H2)
• Estimation of Conditional, Indirect Effects (H3) • Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes (2007)
• PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013)
Moderated Regression Predicting
Leader-Member Exchange Predictor β t p
Controls Subordinate Sex -.03 -.28 .78
Supervisor Sex .13 1.64 .11
Subordinate Age .08 .88 .38
Supervisor Age .14 1.69 .09
Subordinate Ethnicity -.03 -.35 .73
Supervisor Ethnicity .06 .81 .42
Subordinate Positive Affect .08 .77 .44
Supervisor Positive Affect .04 .44 .66
Supervisor Negative Affect .01 -.18 .86
Subordinate Affect -.11 -1.13 .26
Communication Frequency .05 .56 .58
Work Relationship Tenure -.02 -.25 .80
Subordinate Turnover Intentions -.05 -.53 .60
Main Effects Rating of Subordinate Task Performance .84 2.89 .00
Performance Relationship Instrumentality 1.05 3.68 .00
Interaction Task Performance Rating X Instrumentality Beliefs -.94 -2.12 .04
R2 in Leader-Member Exchange 51%
Moderating Role of Performance Relational
Instrumentality Beliefs on the Indirect Effect of Leader-
Member Exchange between Task Performance
Evaluations and Relational Envy
Moderator: Performance Relational Instrumentality Beliefs
Level Indirect Effect Bootstrap SE 95% CILL 95% CIUL
LMX (10th Moderator Percentile) -.05 .04 -.17 -0.01
LMX (25th Moderator Percentile) -.04 .03 -.13 .00
LMX (50th Moderator Percentile) -.03 .03 -.11 .00
LMX (75th Moderator Percentile) -.02 .03 -.09 .01
LMX (90th Moderator Percentile) -.01 .03 -.09 .03
Total Model R2 in Relational Envy 42%
SE = Standard Error; CILB = Confidence Interval Lower Limit; CIUL = Confidence Interval Upper Limit
Implications • Complex relationship between performance evaluations,
relational performance instrumentality beliefs, leader-
member exchange (LMX), and relational envy emotions
• Supervisor evaluations of task performance influence
subordinate assessments of LMX when subordinates
believe that performance has relational instrumentality
• Resultant levels of LMX then predict relational envy emotions in
subordinates
• Beliefs concerning the relational instrumentality of
performance are a critical boundary condition regarding
whether or not employees experience relational envy
emotions within a leader-member context
• Important extensions of literature for future empiric work
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
Taylor K. Odle (Vanderbilt U.)
@tkodle
Timothy P. Munyon, Ph.D. (U. of Tennessee-Knoxville)
@TimMunyon
#AOM2015
OB: “Risks and Benefits of Workplace Affect”
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Subordinate Sex 1.62 .49 1
2. Supervisor Sex 1.42 .50 .24* 1
3. Subordinate Age 44.87 12.90 -.14** -.30** 1
4. Supervisor Age 51.74 9.08 .10 -.05 .28** 1
5. Subordinate Ethnicity 1.26 .81 .12** .17 -.13* .00 1
6. Supervisor Ethnicity 1.1 .53 .11 -.07 -.05 -.03 -.06 1
7. Subordinate Positive Affect 4.1 .53 .03 -.14 .17** .25** .08 -.03 .82
8. Supervisor Positive Affect 4.09 .39 .17 .03 .16 .16 -.15 .05 .13 .73
9. Subordinate Negative Affect 1.87 .59 -.04 .09 -.18** -.30** .00 -.04 -.33** -.17 .82
10. Supervisor Negative Affect 1.95 .40 -.09 -.09 -.01 -.13 0.00 .03 -.14 -.31** .07 .75
11. Communication Frequency 6.2 1.24 .41** .22* -.09 -.08 .09 .00 -.05 .00 .00 -.07 1
12. Work Relationship Tenure 3.8 4.30 .04 -.12 .19* .26** -.09 -.07 .07 -.01 -.06 -.07 .12 1
13. Subordinate Turnover Intentions 2.01 1.06 -.03 .04 -.25** -.11 .12** -.02 -.32** .21* .40** .06 -.08 -.05 .91
14. Rating of Subordinate Task Performance 6.45 1.20 .09 -.19* -.01 -.05 -.03 .08 .17 .14 -.05 -.05 .01 .07 -.20* .98
15. Performance Relationship Instrumentality 3.74 .67 -.04 -.05 .09 .10 -.08 -.04 .22** .05 -.19** -.11 .02 .08 -.32** .18 .82
16. Leader-Member Exchange 4.07 .79 -.02 .00 .10* .23* -.10* .05 .29** .16 -.38** -.06 .03 .11 -.43** .32** .56** .92
17. Relationship Envy 1.67 .75 .00 .16 -.19** -.18 .08 -.12 -.23** -.16 .37** .04 .11 .01 .38** -.23* -.29** -.53** .92
n = 113 for supervisors, 518 for subordinates; * Correlation is significant at the p < 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at the p< 0.01 level (2-tailed); Internal consistency estimates are presented on the diagonal where appropriate.
Descriptive Statistics, Inter-Item
Correlations, and Reliability Estimates
LMX and Relational Envy: r = -.53, p < .01