Editorial summary. This is our text summary of an article. Charts, figures, and the author’s full voice are at the original — read it there .
Licence. The original is licensed under CC BY 4.0. This page adapts it: the summary and analysis are ours, not the authors’.
Peoplense's own analysis of this source, not the publisher's text. It was generated by machine from the source article and has not yet been read by one of our editors. Treat it as a starting point and check the original.
Editorial verdict
Methodologically sound academic study with meaningful findings on supervisor social dominance orientation and team dysfunction — the mediation chain is partially supported, and the conservative sample context limits generalisability, but the core LMX differentiation findings are credible and practically relevant for diverse-workforce management.
Executive summary
This study investigates how supervisors' social dominance orientation (SDO) — the tendency to support arbitrary group-based hierarchies — contributes to dysfunctional team outcomes in nationally diverse workgroups. The authors argue that high-SDO supervisors create nation-based leader-member exchange differentiation (LMXD), favouring native-born over immigrant subordinates in the quality of exchange relationships, which in turn activates a nationality faultline, escalates within-team relationship conflict, and ultimately reduces collective team commitment. Drawing on social dominance theory, LMX theory, and faultline theory, the study tested a five-hypothesis mediation model using two-wave data from 931 employees across 108 work teams in eight Canadian governmental organisations. Structural equation modelling confirmed that supervisor SDO positively predicted nation-based LMXD (β = 0.34), that nation-based LMXD positively predicted relationship conflict (β = 0.29), and that relationship conflict negatively predicted team commitment (β = −0.54). The full indirect path from SDO to relationship conflict via nation-based LMXD was non-significant, which the authors suggest may reflect a lack of power or the stringency of controlling for baseline levels. The study introduces nation-based LMXD as a novel construct and highlights supervisor SDO as an underexplored risk factor in diverse team management.
Key insights
- 1Supervisors higher in social dominance orientation are significantly more likely to form differentiated exchange relationships with subordinates based on national origin, favouring native-born employees over immigrants.
- 2Nation-based LMX differentiation activates a nationality faultline within teams, increasing within-team relationship conflict — an effect that holds when controlling for general LMX dispersion and baseline conflict levels.
- 3Within-team relationship conflict is a strong negative predictor of collective team commitment (β = −0.54), suggesting that supervisor-driven inequality in exchange relationships has downstream consequences for team cohesion and attachment.
- 4The study's sample showed a very low mean SDO score (1.64/5), consistent with Canada's inclusive immigration context, meaning findings likely underestimate the effect in higher-inequality or higher-competition national contexts.
- 5Diversity magnitude alone did not predict group dysfunction in post-hoc analyses; it was the supervisor's individual SDO — a measure of intergroup prejudice orientation — that drove negative outcomes, supporting the view that bias rather than categorisation per se disrupts team functioning.
Practical takeaways
- Assessment of SDO-related attitudes during leadership selection processes in diverse or multinational environments may help identify candidates whose interpersonal orientations are likely to generate differential treatment of immigrant versus native-born employees.
- Organisational inclusion climates and anti-discrimination policies may serve as contextual moderators that reduce the expression of high-SDO supervisors' biases in LMX relationship formation, pointing to structural interventions alongside individual-level screening.
Frameworks mentioned
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
A leadership framework proposing that supervisors develop differentiated exchange relationships with individual subordinates, ranging from high-quality in-group relationships to lower-quality out-group relationships.
Social Dominance Theory
A socio-psychological theory examining group-based hierarchies in human societies and introducing social dominance orientation (SDO) as an individual difference variable reflecting the degree to which a person supports inequality between social groups.
Faultline Theory
A group dynamics framework defining faultlines as hypothetical dividing lines that split workgroups into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on shared demographic or other attributes, with activated faultlines associated with increased intergroup conflict.
References
- Ayub and Jehn (2018).Intergroup conflict and intragroup conflict: Examining the differential effects of deep- and surface-level diversity on group outcomes.
- De Dreu and Weingart (2003).Meta-analytic review of conflict and team performance.
- Cox and Blake (1991).A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.
- Jehn (1995).A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
- Lau and Murnighan (1998).The dynamics of group faultlines.
- Sidanius and Pratto (2012).Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
- Pratto et al. (1994).Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
- Jehn and Mannix (2001).Relationship conflict and team performance: The mediating role of team efficacy.
- Klein et al. (2012).Beyond employment: Measurement of commitment.
- Klein et al. (2014).Reconceptualizing workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting assumptions and removing confounds.
- Choi et al. (2020).LMX differentiation and affective team outcomes.
- Chen et al. (2018).Bases of LMX differentiation.
- Kearney and Gebert (2009).Transformational leadership and nationality-diverse groups.
- Umphress et al. (2007).Social dominance orientation and workplace diversity attitudes.
- Umphress et al. (2008).SDO and discrimination in hiring decisions.
- Khan et al. (2018).SDO and abusive supervision.
- Rosenauer et al. (2016).Nationality diversity and team outcomes.
- Kniffin et al. (2021).Work in the time of COVID-19.
- van Knippenberg et al. (2004).A diversity perspective on organizations.
Source & Provenance
Not specified
Pegah Sajadi, Christian Vandenberghe
October 26, 2022
Research Study
Multi-Region
Original source metadata is preserved. AI analysis is generated separately.
Like this? Get the Monday Decision Brief — free, every week.
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Rate this article
Want the full article? Read it at the original source — free, no paywall.
Read original article