Shared Team Leadership
- LAST REVIEWED: 03 June 2019
- LAST MODIFIED: 27 September 2017
- DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0131
- LAST REVIEWED: 03 June 2019
- LAST MODIFIED: 27 September 2017
- DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0131
Introduction
The notion of team members sharing leadership responsibilities is not a novel one, with researchers as early as the 1950s proposing the value of looking toward multiple leaders as a way to enhance group and team outcomes. However, there has been a recent revitalization of the topic, in large part driven by not simply a desire for leadership to be shared as a way to better empower and engage teams, but more so by the changing nature of work that has increased the responsibilities of leadership beyond the capacities of a single individual. Though the research on singular (i.e., vertical) leadership is thorough and extensive, the sharing of leadership as a collective, distributed, and/or networked construct has emerged as a critical component in the modern organizational world. While numerous terms have been used to define leadership involving multiple individuals, we utilize the term shared team leadership to encapsulate the most common terminology in management literature. The ever-changing environmental conditions of teams and organizations make the sharing of leadership critical for survival, especially when tasks are interdependent and complex. Moreover, team members actively involved in accomplishing team tasks and goals may best understand the complexity of the modern organizational setting. Thus, those individuals are often in the best position to recognize and address needs of leadership. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the concept of shared leadership. Specifically, we offer summaries and resources regarding the history and trends in this area, with a particular focus on the numerous ways to define this form of leadership. Further, we provide guidance regarding the particular factors and associated resources that may serve to highlight relationships that have been studied regarding the inputs, processes/emergent states, and outcomes of shared leadership, as well as contextual factors that may serve to moderate its role in organizations. Further, we offer resources that provide guidance regarding the methodological issues surrounding the many operationalizations of shared team leadership. As the empirical work in the area of shared team leadership is still growing and relatively new, yet at the same time rather complex, we have included some references at multiple points within the article, but with different annotations regarding the reference’s relevance for that particular topic or subtopic.
Key Reference Sources: Journals, Books, Major Reviews
As the construct of shared leadership continues to grow and be refined, this section contains respected high-impact journals, books, and major reviews that can be used when identifying new research in this area.
Journals
Journals in a range of disciplines have published empirical research and theoretical frameworks regarding shared team leadership, including more specialized journals that are solely focused upon leadership as well as top-tier publications in psychology and management. Leadership Quarterly is a quarterly journal that focuses on multidisciplinary leadership research, which also had a special issue focused on shared leadership in 2016. The Journal of Applied Psychology, published monthly, focuses on psychological research with real-life applications. The Journal of Management and the Academy of Management Journal emphasize research that has a high impact on management practices and are both published bimonthly.
Academy of Management Journal. 1958–.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Published bimonthly, the Academy of Management Journal is a high-impact journal that emphasizes research that tests, extends, or builds theoretical understanding of management practices and contributes to practice using a range of empirical methods, and it has regularly been cited in major business media outlets (e.g., The New York Times, The Washington Post).
Find this resource:
Cullen-Lester, K. L., and F. J. Yammarino, eds. Special Issue: Collective and Network Approaches to Leadership. Leadership Quarterly 27.3 (2016).
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Cullen-Lester and Yammarino coedited this special issue of the Leadership Quarterly journal that focuses on collective and network approaches and includes articles related to antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of shared leadership. Articles consider the effects of formal or informal leadership and task and team characteristics, using quantitative and qualitative methodologies across both student and field samples. It also includes multiple articles that use networks to assess and understand shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Journal of Applied Psychology. 1917–.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Published monthly under the guidance of the American Psychological Association, the Journal of Applied Psychology is a well-respected journal that emphasizes empirical or theoretical contributions that provide new knowledge or understanding to the fields in applied psychology, particularly in work and organizational settings.
Find this resource:
Journal of Management. 1975–.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Published bi-monthly under the guidance of the Southern Management Association, the Journal of Management is a high-impact journal that emphasizes empirical or theoretical work that impact the field of management as a whole by providing new ideas or perspectives on existing research.
Find this resource:
Leadership Quarterly. 1990–.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A respected quarterly journal that focuses on multidisciplinary research and advances our understanding of leadership as a phenomenon, how to study it, and its practical implications.
Find this resource:
Books
This subsection presents books that discuss shared leadership in detail, covering such topics as the history of the construct of shared leadership, models of how it occurs, and what it looks like in applied settings.
Pearce, C. L., and J. A. Conger, eds. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2003.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Pearce and Conger’s book provides details on the history of the construct of shared leadership and discusses various conceptual models, methodological issues, it’s study in applied settings, and critiques of the construct.
Find this resource:
Spillane, J. P. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Spillane’s book focuses on a perspective of shared leadership, specifically distributed, in a school setting, discussing “the nature of the beast,” what leadership looks like in distributed settings, and how it is practiced.
Find this resource:
Major Reviews
There are a variety of theoretical and empirical reviews of the construct of shared leadership. The Theoretical Reviews consider shared leadership from different perspectives and discuss the history and past work, whereas the Empirical Reviews include three major meta-analyses relating shared leadership to a number of different variables.
Theoretical Reviews
This subsection presents major theoretical review pieces that include or emphasize shared leadership in their text. They include clarification of the construct and its history, theory, and research, while also addressing the multiple conceptualizations of shared leadership.
Bolden, R. “Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research.” International Journal of Management Reviews 13.3 (2011): 251–269.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Bolden focuses on distributive leadership and its theoretical origins, how it is distinct from similar types of leadership, its patterns and outcomes, and future directions.
Find this resource:
Dust, S. B., and J. C. Ziegert. “Multi-Leader Teams in Review: A Contingent-Configuration Perspective of Effectiveness.” International Journal of Management Reviews 18 (2015): 518–541.
DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12073Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Dust and Ziegert discuss the configuration of multiple leaders in teams and how it impacts important outcomes in different contexts, and they emphasize the proportion of leaders within the team and the dispersion of leadership.
Find this resource:
Pearce, C. L. “All Those Years Ago: The Historical Underpinnings of Shared Leadership.” In Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Edited by C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, 1–18. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2003.
DOI: 10.4135/9781452229539.n1Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Pearce focuses on how the construct of shared leadership has developed over time, including its emergence as a construct of interest and how it relates to a variety of other constructs, breaking down its evolution over time.
Find this resource:
Empirical Reviews
The articles in this subsection are major empirical reviews of shared leadership that consider its relationship to multiple variables, emphasizing how it’s tied to performance and effectiveness. The different articles consider different conceptualizations and measurements of shared leadership as well as a multitude of moderators.
D’Innocenzo, L., J. E. Mathieu, and M. R. Kukenberger. “A Meta-analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations.” Journal of Management 42.7 (2014): 1964–1991.
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314525205Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
D’Innocenzo et al. determined there was a significant relationship between shared leadership and performance, which varied based upon the theoretical foundation of shared leadership and the way in which it was measured.
Find this resource:
Nicolaides, V. C., K. A. LaPort, T. R. Chen, et al. “The Shared Leadership of Teams: A Meta-analysis of Proximal, Distal, and Moderating Relationships.” Leadership Quarterly 25.5 (2014): 923–942.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Nicolaides et al. also identified a relationship between shared leadership and performance but found it was partially mediated by team confidence. They also found that shared leadership predicts additional variance in performance above that which is attributed to vertical leadership and considered a variety of moderators of these relationships.
Find this resource:
Wang, D., D. A. Waldman, and Z. Zhang. “A Meta-analysis of Shared Leadership and Team Effectiveness.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99.2 (2014): 181–198.
DOI: 10.1037/a0034531Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Wang et al. found a significant relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness and further assessed the type of leadership that was shared compared to attitudinal, behavioral, and emergent team states as well as team performance.
Find this resource:
History and Trends
In the development of the construct of shared leadership, there has been a need to distinguish what is meant by “shared leadership” and to make distinctions between it and similar constructs. Additionally, it is important to identify how shared leadership occurs and what variables influence it and what variables are influenced by it. These sections discuss the definitions of shared leadership and provide some models of how shared leadership works.
Definitions of Shared Leadership
The definition of shared leadership has been confounded by its use in a variety of distinct circumstances and often used interchangeably with other terms such as collective, distributed, and networked leadership. This section provides references related to the conceptualization of “shared leadership,” including the oldest reference and distinguishing between vertical and shared leadership and collective, distributed, and networked leadership.
Gibb, C. A. “Leadership.” In Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. 2. Edited by G. Lindzey, 877–917. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Gibb’s chapter is one of the most commonly cited historical references to the concept of leadership as a shared entity, giving context to further development of the idea of shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Vertical vs. Shared Leadership in Teams
As leadership is often considered from a hierarchical view (i.e., vertical leadership), it is beneficial to distinguish it from shared leadership. The articles in this subsection discuss the differences between the two conceptualizations.
Ensley, M. D., K. M. Hmieleski, and C. L. Pearce. “The Importance of Vertical and Shared Leadership within New Venture Top Management Teams: Implications for the Performance of Startups.” Leadership Quarterly 17.3 (2006): 217–231.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Ensley et al. discuss the differences in vertical and shared leadership for new venture top management teams and their effects on performance (i.e., revenue growth and employee growth), finding that both are important, but shared leadership predicts significant performance variance over vertical leadership in these teams.
Find this resource:
Pearce, C. L. “The Future of Leadership: Combining Vertical and Shared Leadership to Transform Knowledge Work.” Academy of Management Executive 18.1 (2004): 47−57.
DOI: 10.5465/AME.2004.12690298Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Pearce considers when shared leadership is more appropriate or beneficial than vertical leadership, how best to develop it, and how an organization may be able to use both vertical and shared leadership to leverage the abilities of knowledge workers best.
Find this resource:
Pearce, C. L., and H. P. Sims. “Vertical versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6.2 (2002): 172–197.
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Pearce and Sims tested the relative effectiveness of vertical versus shared leadership in change management teams, determining that shared leadership was a more useful predictor of team effectiveness than vertical leadership.
Find this resource:
Collective, Distributed, Networked Leadership, and Shared Team Leadership
With the emphasis on shared leadership here, it is important to distinguish between similar terms and conceptualizations. The articles in this subsection discuss collective, distributed, and networked leadership.
Balkundi, P., and M. Kilduff. “The Ties That Lead: A Social Network Approach to Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly 17.4 (2006): 419–439.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Balkundi and Kilduff focus on leadership from a networked perspective, accounting for the importance of the relationships, the centrality of the individual(s), the utility of maintaining connections, and the pattern of social ties, providing a theoretical model of networks that affect the direct ties, the pattern of ties, and the interorganizational linkages around the leader.
Find this resource:
Contractor, N. S., L. A. DeChurch, J. Carson, D. R. Carter, and B. Keegan. “The Topology of Collective Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly 23.6 (2012): 994–1011.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.010Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Contractor et al. detail the nuances that exist in collective leadership and provide a bridging framework such that it can be effectively examined using social networking analyses, subsequently providing metrics and analytic approaches to study the core components of collective leadership.
Find this resource:
Gronn, P. “Distributed Leadership as a Unit of Analysis.” Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002): 423–451.
DOI: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Gronn discusses the limitations of conventional constructs of leadership and their inability to adapt to changes in the workplace, providing a taxonomy of distributed leadership and examples from the literature. He also offers potential implications of using distributed leadership for levels of analysis work and future research on leadership.
Find this resource:
Yammarino, F. J., E. Salas, A. Serban, K. Shirreffs, and M. L. Shuffler. “Collectivistic Leadership Approaches: Putting the ‘We’ in Leadership Science and Practice.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 5.4 (2012): 382–402.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01467.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Yammarino et al. outline and differentiate between five collectivistic leadership constructs, discussing key constructs, levels of analysis, the role of the focal leader, operationalizations, empirical results, and implications for each. They also summarize common themes, and future directions are provided.
Find this resource:
Models and Frameworks of Shared Team Leadership
The articles in this section discuss a few of the models used to describe shared leadership and the constructs related to it. By reviewing the literature, these works provide frameworks for understanding shared leadership.
Ensley, M. D., A. Pearson, and C. L. Pearce. “Top Management Team Process, Shared Leadership, and New Venture Performance: A Theoretical Model and Research Agenda.” Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003): 329–346.
DOI: 10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00020-2Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Ensley et al. provide a theoretical model outlining the effect of shared leadership on the effectiveness of novel venture top management teams, while accounting for situational variables, team cohesion, and the shared vision within the team.
Find this resource:
Friedrich, T. L., W. B. Vessey, M. J. Schuelke, G. A. Ruark, and M. D. Mumford. “A Framework for Understanding Collective Leadership: The Selective Utilization of Leader and Team Expertise within Networks.” Leadership Quarterly 20.6 (2009): 933–958.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.008Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Friedrich et al. provide a comprehensive framework for how collective leadership occurs and its effect on team and organizational outcomes. They also provide many directions for future research on collective leadership.
Find this resource:
Morgeson, F. P., D. S. DeRue, and E. P. Karam. “Leadership in Teams: A Functional Approach to Understanding Leadership Structures and Processes.” Journal of Management 36.1 (2009): 5–39.
DOI: 10.1177/0149206309347376Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Morgeson et al. outline specific leadership behaviors that may occur in teams with formal and informal leaders who are either internal or external to the team, particularly in context of transition and action phases. They also provide a questionnaire reflecting the behaviors identified in their paper.
Find this resource:
Inputs: Team Composition and Individual Differences Influencing Shared Team Leadership
Team composition and individual differences examine the characteristics of the team and team members and shape how teams share leadership. Team composition encompasses both individual- and team-level factors, and the role of team composition within a given team will shift as team members are added, removed, or changed within a group.
Individual Factors
Teams are comprised of individuals who possess varying attributes that influence shared leadership processes and outcomes. Individual factors such as the personality of each team member and their leadership characteristics are notable for influencing how teams may share leadership. Within a team that aims to share leadership, each team member’s personality may play a pivotal role. Personality may be described in terms of the Big Five (i.e., openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability), in addition to other individual differences. Within teams that share leadership, it is important to consider not only the role of personality traits in isolation but also the interaction of numerous personality traits.
Chiu, C. Y. C., B. P. Owens, and P. E. Tesluk. “Initiating and Utilizing Shared Leadership in Teams: The Role of Leader Humility, Team Proactive Personality, and Team Performance Capability.” Journal of Applied Psychology 101.12 (2016): 1705–1720.
DOI: 10.1037/apl0000159Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Chiu et al. assess several Taiwan organizations to evaluate the role of leader humility and personality and found that leader humility is positively related to shared leadership. Further, this relationship is strengthened by team proactive personality, where team members are more likely to take initiative.
Find this resource:
Friedrich, T. L., W. B. Vessey, M. J. Schuelke, G. A. Ruark, and M. D. Mumford. “A Framework for Understanding Collective Leadership: The Selective Utilization of Leader and Team Expertise within Networks.” Leadership Quarterly 20.6 (2009): 933–958.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.008Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Friedrich et al. provide an integrative review on collective leadership that outlines various leader qualities that are important for both formal leaders and those sharing leadership within a team, and they highlight that various leader skills including conceptual, interpersonal, and technical skills all play key roles in team effectiveness where interpersonal skills may be the most critical for sharing leadership responsibilities by facilitating information exchanging.
Find this resource:
Hoch, J. E., and J. H. Dulebohn. “Team Personality Composition, Emergent Leadership and Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams: A Theoretical Framework.” Human Resource Management Review (2017).
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Hoch and Dulebohn outline a new theoretical framework that discusses the role of team personality composition in influencing shared leadership in virtual teams with a focus on the five factor model leading to more shared leadership within virtual teams.
Find this resource:
Team Factors
When considering the composition of the team, it is also important to consider the role that various characteristics of the team may play in shaping how individuals share leadership within a team. Several team level factors, such as diversity within the team, team tenure, and team size, may influence team-shared leadership.
Team Cultural Diversity
As the workforce becomes more globalized, teams spanning across geographic bounds has become a commonality, resulting in culturally diverse team composition. However, cultural values within a team may vary not only due to geographic dispersion, but also due to varying values within the same culture. While few studies have considered cultural diversity and shared leadership, those that have tend to focus on the distinction between individualism and collectivism, with collective cultures tending to share leadership.
Herbert, K., A. I. Mockaitis, and L. Zander. “An Opportunity for East and West to Share Leadership: A Multicultural Analysis of Shared Leadership Preferences in Global Teams.” Asian Business & Management 13.3 (2014): 257–282.
DOI: 10.1057/abm.2014.10Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Herbert et al. assessed globally dispersed team members on their cultural values and perceptions of participating in shared leadership prior to the project and found that Asian, Anglo, and European participants did not differ in their shared leadership preferences, while Latin American groups and African respondents preferred shared leadership more. Further, horizontal collectivism and horizontal individualism cultural values were both strongly related to shared leadership preferences.
Find this resource:
Hiller, N. J., D. V. Day, and R. J. Vance. “Collective Enactment of Leadership Roles and Team Effectiveness: A Field Study.” Leadership Quarterly 17.4 (2006): 387–397.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.004Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Hiller et al. examined individualism/collectivism and power distance within a state department of transportation in the United States and found that collectivism is positively related to collective leadership enactment within teams while power distance was not.
Find this resource:
Muethel, M., S. Gehrlein, and M. Hoegl. “Socio‐demographic Factors and Shared Leadership Behaviors in Dispersed Teams: Implications for Human Resource Management.” Human Resource Management 51.4 (2012): 525–548.
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21488Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Muethel et al. used a sample that spanned across numerous Fortune 500 software companies to assess software development teams composed of various nationalities to examine how teams comprised of different nationalities may function. They found that national diversity drives shared leadership, which improves team performance, in virtual teams where national diversity was computed using Blau’s indices. However, the nationalities included and the respective team composition of these nationalities were not specified in the study due to the large number of unique nations represented.
Find this resource:
Team Tenure
Meta-analytic results reveal that team tenure moderates the relationship between shared leadership and team performance, such that as team tenure increases, the relationship between shared leadership and performance becomes weaker, as discussed in Nicolaides, et al. 2014. These results indicate that it may be difficult to sustain the positive effects of shared leadership over time. However, current studies that include team tenure in their analyses have only used them as a control variable, highlighting the need for additional research in this area.
Chiu, C. Y. C., B. P. Owens, and P. E. Tesluk. “Initiating and Utilizing Shared Leadership in Teams: The Role of Leader Humility, Team Proactive Personality, and Team Performance Capability.” Journal of Applied Psychology 101.12 (2016): 1705–1720.
DOI: 10.1037/apl0000159Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Chiu et al. conducted this study in Taiwan using numerous different organizations (e.g., university, semiconductor solution provider, and public relations firms) where they controlled for team tenure in their analyses and found that team tenure was not significantly related to shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Friedrich, T. L., W. B. Vessey, M. J. Schuelke, G. A. Ruark, and M. D. Mumford. “A Framework for Understanding Collective Leadership: The Selective Utilization of Leader and Team Expertise within Networks.” Leadership Quarterly 20.6 (2009): 933–958.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.008Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Friedrich et al.’s theoretical framework reviews that structural variables of the team, such as team tenure and team tenure stability, will shape how teams share leadership. Therefore, considerations should be made in terms of team tenure and team stability when studying the effects of shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Nicolaides, V. C., K. A. LaPort, T. R. Chen, et al. “The Shared Leadership of Teams: A Meta-analysis of Proximal, Distal, and Moderating Relationships.” Leadership Quarterly 25.5 (2014): 923–942.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Nicolaides et al.’s meta-analytic investigation notes that few studies have considered the role team tenure plays on shared leadership within formal hypotheses, but that many studies tend to control for it. However, team tenure appears to mitigate the effects of shared leadership, with teams that have been intact longer having lower shared leadership and performance relationships, highlighting that this variable needs to be further investigated in regard to shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Team Size
Meta-analytic results reveal that team size is unrelated to shared leadership directly, but it was not assessed as a moderator of the shared leadership and performance relationship due to a lack of primary sources reporting team size statistics (e.g., mean, variance; Nicolaides, et al. 2014). Further, the shared leadership studies that do include team size tend to only use it as a control variable. Therefore, future research should take a closer look at this phenomenon to understand the impact that team size may have on shared leadership and performance.
Hiller, N. J., D. V. Day, and R. J. Vance. “Collective Enactment of Leadership Roles and Team Effectiveness: A Field Study.” Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006): 387–397.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.004Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Hiller et al.’s study was conducted on road teams in a state department of transportation, as described in section on Team Cultural Diversity, and applied team size as a control variable, where there was no significant relationship between team size and shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Nicolaides, V. C., K. A. LaPort, T. R. Chen, et al. “The Shared Leadership of Teams: A Meta-analysis of Proximal, Distal, and Moderating Relationships.” Leadership Quarterly 25.5 (2014): 923–942.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Nicolaides et al.’s meta-analysis aimed to assess the moderating effects of team size on the relationship between shared leadership and performance, but was unable to test this relationship due to incomplete reporting of team size statistics, such as the mean and variance of team size, in the primary studies. In addition, they found that team size was not related to shared leadership through linear or curvilinear relationships, but that moderating effects should be tested in future studies.
Find this resource:
Team Processes and Emergent States Associated with Shared Team Leadership
Team processes and emergent states are potential mediating variables in the input-process-output (IPO) model. In comparison, emergent states serve to provide insight toward member attitudes, values, and motivations. Shared leadership emerges in team processes by rotating leadership among members in order to capitalize on the individual knowledge and skill needed to accomplish a goal, as explained in Fausing, et al. 2015. Both influences are demonstrated to be essential antecedents for shared leadership behaviors.
Team Emergent States
Emergent states are cognitive, motivational, and affective states of teams, which are considered both team inputs and subsequent outcomes. These represent distinct constructs comparative to team interactions or actions that likewise lead to various important outcomes. Emergent states are those factors that result from team interactions (including team processes) and, in turn, function as inputs to proximal processes and outcomes. Shared leadership behaviors become a function of the cyclical nature underlying team dynamics. These sections will discuss the research associated with the impact of various emergent states in shared leadership environments.
Team Attitudes/Affect
Shared leadership describes a relational process among individuals and influences member perceptions to share responsibilities and roles within the team, thus playing an important role in shaping overall team attitudes, as discussed in Liu, et al. 2014. Psychological empowerment is characterized by being feeling more motivated at work, and therefore more willing to take action, as documented in Grille, et al. 2015. Further, in regard to other team affective states, shared leadership has been studied in relation to the psychological safety of learning environments in traditional organizational teams, as well as the degree to which cohesion may show differential effects in relation to shared leadership. Finally, by engaging in shared leadership activities, trust has been shown to increase, as has the efficacy of the team as members put aside their own personal goals for the greater good of the team.
Avolio, B. J., D. I. Jung, W. Murry, and N. Sivasbramaniam. “Building Highly Developed Teams: Focusing on Shared Leadership Process, Efficacy, Trust, and Performance.” In Team Leadership. Vol. 3 of Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Edited by M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, and S. T. Beyerlein, 173–209. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Avolio et al. provide a conceptual framework and measurement approach regarding team development processes. Implications of the study suggest that in shared leadership, it is necessary that individual members go beyond a self-interested, narrow view of their role in order to enhance their overall commitment to the team’s purpose. Consequently, members may increasingly engage in leadership behaviors and transfer functions among the team to achieve the shared goal.
Find this resource:
Boies, K., E. Lvina, and M. L. Martens. “Shared Leadership and Team Performance in a Business Strategy Simulation.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9 (2010): 195–202.
DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000021Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Boies et al.’s findings show that team trust is positively related to shared leadership. As team members share responsibility for work and influence one another in pursuit of team goals, it creates a foundation for trust.
Find this resource:
Daspit, J., C. J. Tillman, N. G. Boyd, and V. Mckee. “Cross-Functional Team Effectiveness: An Examination of Internal Team Environment, Shared Leadership, and Cohesion Influences.” Team Performance Management: An International Journal 19.1–2 (2013): 34–56.
DOI: 10.1108/13527591311312088Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Daspit et al. examine the internal factors underlying cross-functional team (CFT) effectiveness, where team members belong to different operative areas within a system. The findings suggest that the internal team environment encourages members to partake in shared leadership, but there is no direct relationship among shared leadership and cohesion, dissimilar to traditional team research. The lack of support for this relationship may be due to leader’s unique expertise of their role.
Find this resource:
Drescher, M. A., M. A. Korsgaard, I. M. Welpe, A. Picot, and R. T. Wigand. “The Dynamics of Shared Leadership: Building Trust and Enhancing Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99.5 (2014): 771–783.
DOI: 10.1037/a0036474Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Drescher et al. conducted a longitudinal study examining the dynamics of shared leadership in relation to performance and revealed that the expansion of shared leadership over time was influenced by the increase in group trust. Findings support a positive relationship between shared leadership and performance, with positive changes in trust acting as a mediator.
Find this resource:
Fausing, M. S., T. S. Joensson, J. Lewandowski, and M. Bligh. “Antecedents of Shared Leadership: Empowering Leadership and Interdependence.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 36.3 (2015): 271–291.
DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0075Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Fausing et al. emphasize the importance of external empowering leadership and task/goal interdependence for shared leadership. An external empowering team leader was found to significantly predict the extent of team leadership by encouraging members to lead themselves and each other, subsequently creating the rotation of leadership within the team.
Find this resource:
Grille, A., E. Schulte, and S. Kauffeld. “Promoting Shared Leadership: A Multilevel Analysis Investigating the Role of Prototypical Team Leader Behavior, Psychological Empowerment, and Fair Rewards.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 22.3 (2015): 324–339.
DOI: 10.1177/1548051815570039Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Grille et al. evaluated empowerment as an intrinsic component of team members’ likeliness to engage in shared leadership behavior. The study found that shared leadership can be encouraged by flattening organizational hierarchies and giving team members a voice in decision making, thereby helping individuals feel personally empowered.
Find this resource:
Liu, S., J. Hu, Y. Li, Z. Wang, and X. Lin. “Examining the Cross-Level Relationship between Shared Leadership and Learning in Teams: Evidence from China.” Leadership Quarterly 25.2 (2014): 282–295.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Liu et al. propose that shared leadership will positively impact team and individual learning through team psychological safety. However, the findings show that psychological safety is not sufficient for creating the learning effects of shared leadership, thus the authors propose job variety as a critical contingency for the relationship. The perception of high job variety fosters a safe environment where members feel encouraged to take risks using various knowledge and skills on the job.
Find this resource:
Mathieu, J. E., M. R. Kukenberger, L. D’Innocenzo, and G. Reilly. “Modeling Reciprocal Team Cohesion–Performance Relationships, as Impacted by Shared Leadership and Members’ Competence.” Journal of Applied Psychology 100.3 (2015): 713–734.
DOI: 10.1037/a0038898Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Mathieu et al.’s meta-analysis explores the temporal properties of shared leadership within the team cohesion–performance literature and suggests a reciprocal relationship over time. This study assessed shared leadership on cohesion as a time-variant covariate through replication studies using fifty-seven student teams and found that shared leadership evolves over time while remaining a positive influence on team cohesion for the team duration.
Find this resource:
Small, E. E., and J. R. Rentsch. “Shared Leadership in Teams: A Matter of Distribution.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9.4 (2010): 203–211.
DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000017Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Small and Rentsch’s study contributes to the shared leadership literature by demonstrating trust, an emergent state, as significantly predicting shared leadership. The authors suggest that engaging in shared leadership is an interpersonally risky behavior and can be facilitated through high levels of intergroup trust.
Find this resource:
Wang, L., J. Han, C. M. Fisher, and Y. Pan. “Learning to Share: Exploring Temporality in Shared Leadership and Team Learning.” Small Group Research 48.2 (2017): 165–189.
DOI: 10.1177/1046496417690027Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Wang et al. address temporal factors among shared leadership and team learning behaviors. The authors explore psychological safety as a factor in this relationship and suggest that this state takes time to develop; therefore, team learning behaviors occur later in the task. Teams may inherently engage in learning behaviors early in the task, but members will be less likely to take necessary interpersonal risks due to lack of familiarity of others.
Find this resource:
Team Cognition
Team cognition is a necessary function in shared leadership where members should have congruent conceptions of the knowledge and procedural skills comprising their team. In the team literature, shared mental models are formally defined as the degree to which long-term memory structures held by team members are aligned, such that there is substantial agreement that, in turn, guide the coordinated actions involved in transferring leadership functions, as seen in Burke, et al. 2003. The emergent nature of team cognition requires the prerequisite of team members having awareness of the shared expectations gathered from mental models before these expectations can be acted upon, as explained. In addition, these models must be flexible in a way that members do not conform to rigid social norms, which could restrict strategy formulating or updates in mental models.
Burke, C. S., S. M. Fiore, and E. Salas. “The Role of Shared Cognition in Enabling Shared Leadership and Team Adaptability.” In Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Edited by C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, 103–122. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2003.
DOI: 10.4135/9781452229539.n5Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Burke et al. contribute an essential book chapter to the literature that presents a theoretical framework to understand the role of shared cognition in shared leadership. Building upon their framework, the authors outline a set of research propositions to guide the foundation for future research avenues concerning shared leadership within the team effectiveness literature.
Find this resource:
Day, D. V., P. Gronn, and E. Salas. “Leadership Capacity in Teams.” Leadership Quarterly 15.6 (2004): 857–880.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Day et al. provide a comprehensive discussion of how team leadership capacity develops by considering the cyclic and continuous dynamics characteristic of teams. The focus of this review article explores team leadership capacity as an emergent state, conceptualized as a resource stemming from the knowledge, skills, and abilities of leaders, teamwork, and team learning. Team leadership capacity is critical for teams in adaptive states where problem solving is beyond the capability of a single leader.
Find this resource:
Team Processes
Team processes are the means through which taskworks are directed and monitored in pursuit of team goals. Shared leadership emerges in team processes and involves the rotation of leadership to the team member who possesses the necessary resources and skills to solve a given task.
Action- and Transition-Focused Behavioral Processes
Shared leadership theory suggests that formal leadership functions are replaced by a team’s more informal approach of self-managing behaviors. Such behaviors encourage team members to resolve task- and teamwork-related problems through resources internal and external to the team environment, as discussed in Morgeson, et al. 2010.
Morgeson, F. P., D. S. DeRue, and E. P. Karam. “Leadership in Teams: A Functional Approach to Understanding Leadership Structures and Processes.” Journal of Management 36.1 (2010): 5–39.
DOI: 10.1177/0149206309347376Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Morgeson et al. produce a comprehensive review of past research related to within-team leadership processes and sources of leadership emergence, internal and external to the team. Through a team-centric view of leadership, the authors identify fifteen leadership functions that satisfy team needs and influence behaviors toward goal accomplishment. Subsequently, the authors develop a measurement tool for assessing the leadership functions to encourage future research avenues to focus on leadership processes within teams.
Find this resource:
Shuffler, M. L., C. W. Wiese, E. Salas, and C. S. Burke. “Leading One Another across Time and Space: Exploring Shared Leadership Functions in Virtual Teams.” Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 26.1 (2010): 3–17.
DOI: 10.5093/tr2010v26n1a1Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Shuffler et al. address the lack of research concerning the manifestation of shared leadership in virtual and distributed environments. This article generates a comprehensive framework by outlining propositions and research needs that serve to guide researchers when exploring the specific leader functions that may be shared by members of virtual and distributed teams.
Find this resource:
Interpersonal and Conflict Processes
Intra-team conflict may have detrimental consequences for team task functioning and relationship functioning. Conflict may create tension, discord, and dissonance among team members with negative effects on team viability; thus, it is critical to address team conflict in shared leadership, particularly to understand its origin and possible approaches to remedial techniques.
Balkundi, P., Z. Barsness, and J. H. Michael. “Unlocking the Influence of Leadership Network Structures on Team Conflict and Viability.” Small Group Research 40.3 (2009): 301–322.
DOI: 10.1177/1046496409333404Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Balkundi et al. investigate whether a leader’s position within a team’s informal network will strengthen or weaken the team. Teams with formal leaders experienced lower levels of team conflict and higher levels of team viability compared to a more informal leader.
Find this resource:
Carson, J. B., P. E. Tesluk, and J. A. Marrone. “Shared Leadership in Teams: An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 50.5 (2007): 1217–1234.
DOI: 10.2307/20159921Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Carson et al. identify internal and external leadership patterns conducive to shared leadership development. Internal environmental factors such as a shared purpose, social support, voice, and external team coaching were all found to be important predictors of shared leadership emergence. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed for cultivating these antecedents.
Find this resource:
DeRue, D. S., and S. J. Ashford. “Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Construction in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 35.4 (2010): 627–647.
DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2010.53503267Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
DeRue and Ashford suggest that organizations with an established leadership structure schema widely share a norm of the reciprocal leader-follower relationship. The dynamic process of claiming and granting leader-follower identities allows individuals to internalize their socially recognized role. In comparison, organizations without such norms may experience greater conflict over leadership and within-follower relationships.
Find this resource:
Outcomes of Shared Leadership
Just as shared leadership has many antecedents and processes associated with its full conceptualization, there are many outcomes that can result from engaging in shared leadership. These outcomes can be separated based on their level of analysis. The first level includes aggregated team/organizational outcomes, while the second level includes individual outcomes. Each level of analysis may be useful in the pursuit of answering a diverse set of research questions.
Team/Organizational Outcomes
One level where shared leadership has an impact is in teams and the organizations made up of those teams. Through an understanding of how shared leadership impacts such higher-order units, the influence of these leadership behaviors can be generalized and understood in a broader context. These diverse outcomes at the team and organizational level include performance/effectiveness, learning, satisfaction, problem-solving, and creativity/innovation.
Team Performance and Effectiveness
The performance and effectiveness of a team are vital to ensuring the accomplishment of the goals that the team is tasked with completing. Shared leadership may be one way in which these two related team outcomes can be more successfully achieved. It is through sharing leadership that goals become more relevant to employees, allowing workers to more closely identify with their goals and perform at their best.
Barnett, R. C., and N. K. Weidenfeller. “Shared Leadership and Team Performance.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 18.3 (2016): 334–351.
DOI: 10.1177/1523422316645885Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Barnett and Weidenfeller provide a review of published literature on shared leadership in teams, particularly publications with empirical data, to summarize what is known about the construct and its effectiveness of what can be shared, under what conditions, with whom, and how. This research elucidated the relationship between shared leadership and successful team performance and effectiveness, among other positive outcomes such as team proactivity and innovation behaviors.
Find this resource:
Drescher, M. A., M. A. Korsgaard, I. M. Welpe, A. Picot, and R. T. Wigand. “The Dynamics of Shared Leadership: Building Trust and Enhancing Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99.5 (2014): 771–783.
DOI: 10.1037/a0036474Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Drescher et al. conducted a study that looked at how, over time, the expansion of shared leadership within groups is related to growth in group trust. This growth in trust is then related to performance improvement.
Find this resource:
McIntyre, H. H., and R. J. Foti. “The Impact of Shared Leadership on Teamwork Mental Models and Performance in Self-Directed Teams.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16.1 (2013): 46–57.
DOI: 10.1177/1368430211422923Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
McIntyre and Foti sought to clarify the role of shared leadership in self-directed teams by testing its relationship with teamwork mental models and team performance. The accuracy of team mental models contributes more to team performance than the similarity of team mental models.
Find this resource:
Wang, D., D. A. Waldman, Z. Zhang. “A Meta-analysis of Shared Leadership and Team Effectiveness.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99.2 (2014): 181–198.
DOI: 10.1037/a0034531Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Wang et al. provide a meta-analysis that looked at the relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness, which revealed an overall positive relationship. Shared leadership was also found to be more strongly related to team attitudinal outcomes and behavioral processes and emergent team states, compared with team performance.
Find this resource:
Team Learning
Learning is critical for improving work processes and enhancing performance outcomes. Shared leadership may provide for a shared learning pattern at the team level to promote frequent interactions and knowledge exchange among team members.
Liu, S., J. Hu, Y. Li, Z. Wang, and X. Lin. “Examining the Cross-Level Relationship between Shared Leadership and Learning in Teams: Evidence from China.” Leadership Quarterly 25.2 (2014): 282–295.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Liu et al. explored the questions of whether, how, and when shared leadership impacts team and individual learning behaviors. This study links shared leadership with learning behaviors within the team. It also supports psychological safety as a mediating mechanism between shared leadership and learning behaviors within the team and job variety as a moderator between psychological safety and team learning.
Find this resource:
Team Satisfaction
Team satisfaction is an affective evaluation of the team experience and serves as a facet of team effectiveness in models of team functioning. Few studies have attempted to establish a relationship between shared leadership and team satisfaction.
Drescher, G., and Y. Garbers. “Shared Leadership and Commonality: A Policy-Capturing Study.” Leadership Quarterly 27.2 (2016): 200–217.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.002Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Drescher and Garbers examined the effects of shared leadership, commonality, and communication mode on work performance and satisfaction. Students and employees served as two samples that evaluated their performance and satisfaction. It was found that shared leadership and high commonality had positive effects on team members’ intended performance and predicted satisfaction. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Serban, A., and A. Roberts. “Exploring Antecedents and Outcomes of Shared Leadership in a Creative Context: A Mixed-Methods Approach.” Leadership Quarterly 27.2 (2016): 181–199.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.009Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Serban and Roberts explored how the internal team environment, task cohesion, and task ambiguity may predict shared leadership, which in turn determines task satisfaction, team satisfaction, and team performance. Teams reported high satisfaction due to the internal team environment and social support they received. Even under time pressures, sharing leadership produced high levels of team satisfaction if the task was straightforward and the instructions were clear.
Find this resource:
Team Problem Solving
When problem-solving groups perform their tasks, member roles become highly interdependent. This means that team interactions must be well orchestrated for successful outcomes to be achieved. Shared leadership can allow for better orchestration of such teams within the problem-solving context.
Balthazard, P., D. Waldman, J. Howell, and L. Atwater. “Shared Leadership and Group Interaction Styles in Problem-Solving Virtual Teams.” Paper presented at Big Island, HI, 5–8 January 2004. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Edited by R. Sprague. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2004.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Balthazard et al. looked at the effectiveness of virtual teams compared with that of face-to-face teams in the problem-solving context. Face-to-face teams were more likely to demonstrate higher levels of shared leadership compared to virtual teams, which positively predicted cohesion and subsequent task performance.
Find this resource:
Team Creativity and Innovation
In response to increased global competition, creativity is an important factor that can contribute to organizational innovation. One way in which such creativity may be fostered in the workplace is through the use of shared leadership. Shared leadership allows a diverse team to use each individual’s strengths, share unique pieces of knowledge, and integrate ideas into more creative outputs.
Hoch, J. E. “Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee Integrity.” Journal of Business and Psychology 28.2 (2013): 159–174.
DOI: 10.1007/s10869-012-9273-6Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Hoch sought to investigate the relationship between shared leadership and innovative behavior. Shared leadership was positively associated with the teams’ level of innovative behavior.
Find this resource:
Lee, D. S., K. C. Lee, Y. W. Seo, and D. Y. Choi. “An Analysis of Shared Leadership, Diversity, and Team Creativity in an E-Learning Environment.” Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015): 47–56.
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.064Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Lee et al. looked to examine the influence of shared leadership and diversity on knowledge sharing and the effects on team creativity. Results indicated that role diversity influenced team creativity, with shared leadership and knowledge sharing positively contributing to team creativity.
Find this resource:
Individual Outcomes
A second level that can be studied to understand the outcomes of shared leadership is that of individuals. While team and organizational outcomes depict the big picture of shared leadership outcomes and influences, individual outcomes can give researchers a more nuanced idea of how those aggregated relationships came to be. Individual outcomes that have been studied in the context of shared leadership include emergence and satisfaction.
Individuals’ Emergence as Leader(s)
Emergence is a process that results in group members having peer recognition of leadership status. Leadership emergence does not necessarily imply the emergence of a single leader, however. In groups characterized by shared leadership, such leadership inherently emerges for multiple different people at different times.
Paunova, M. “The Emergence of Individual and Collective Leadership in Task Groups: A Matter of Achievement and Ascription.” Leadership Quarterly 26.6 (2015): 935–957.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.002Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Paunova advanced the study of shared leadership emergence through the review of research on individual leader emergence, structured around leadership achievement and leadership ascription.
Find this resource:
Ramthun, A. J., and G. S. Matkin. “Leading Dangerously: A Case Study of Military Teams and Shared Leadership in Dangerous Environments.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21.3 (2014): 244–256.
DOI: 10.1177/1548051814529827Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Ramthun and Matkin qualitatively described and explained shared leadership in dangerous contexts for military teams. The themes of mutual influence; leadership emergence; dangerous dynamism; and distributed knowledge, skills, and abilities provided a description of the relationship between shared leadership and team performance in the presence of danger. Leadership emergence and mutual influence are catalysts of effective performance.
Find this resource:
Zhang, Z., D. A. Walkdman, and Z. Wang. “A Multilevel Investigation of Leader-Member Exchange, Informal Leader Emergence, and Individual and Team Performance.” Personnel Psychology 65 (2012): 49–78.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01238.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Zhang et al. looked at the relationship between leader-member exchange quality and employees’ emergence as informal leaders, moderated by team-shared vision. Informal leader emergence related to higher individual and team performance. This highlights the role played both by formal leaders and a team-shared vision in promoting informal leader emergence and individual performance.
Find this resource:
Individual Member Satisfaction
Individual satisfaction is also similar to team satisfaction in that it is an affective evaluation of their job and the overall team experience. While there have been few studies to attempt to establish a relationship between shared leadership and team satisfaction, there have been even fewer that sought to establish a relationship between shared leadership and individual satisfaction.
Wood, M. S., and D. Fields. “Exploring the Impact of Shared Leadership on Management Team Member Job Outcomes.” Baltic Journal of Management 2.3 (2007): 251–272.
DOI: 10.1108/17465260710817474Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Wood and Fields explored the extent to which shared leadership impacted role clarity, job overload, stress, and job satisfaction of team members. The best model for the data was one in which role conflict and ambiguity mediated the relationship between shared leadership and stress and job satisfaction. Overall, shared leadership was positively related to job satisfaction of team members.
Find this resource:
Moderators of the Shared Leadership and Outcomes Relationship
As seen in the section on Individual Outcomes, knowing how shared leadership influences outcome variables of interest is of great organizational importance. However, this relationship is rarely straightforward. Moderators of the relationship between shared leadership and its outcomes can provide a greater comprehension of when such leadership is most effective and how it can be tailored to increase its efficacy. Moderators include the environmental context, team context, and individual context.
Environmental Context
Shared leadership does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it is influenced by a variety of situations and contexts. Moderators that fall into the environmental context are those that are influenced by the organization as a whole. These include organizational culture and organizational structure.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture refers to shared values, norms, and practices of behavior and has been shown to affect the success of shared leadership in business. For shared leadership to be successful in an organizational culture, that culture must embody collaboration, trust, and reciprocal accountability.
Erkutlu, H. “The Impact of Organizational Culture on the Relationship between Shared Leadership and Team Proactivity.” Team Performance Management 18.1–2 (2012): 102–119.
DOI: 10.1108/13527591211207734Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Erkutlu looked at whether organizational culture moderated the relationship between shared leadership and team proactive behavior. Results indicated that shared leadership within a work team was positively related to team proactive behavior. This relationship was stronger in organizations with a higher level of supportive culture.
Find this resource:
Rodriguez, C. M. “Emergence of a Third Culture: Shared Leadership in International Strategic Alliances.” International Marketing Review 22.1 (2005): 67–95.
DOI: 10.1108/02651330510581181Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Rodriguez looked at culture through the lens of international strategic alliances, creating a framework of study through strategic leadership and personality theories. One mechanism uncovered in the article that may be useful in helping to build intercultural fit is the design of an organizational culture that allows decision makers to cooperate through shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Organizational Structure
Organizational structure defines how certain components are directed toward the achievement of organizational aims. These components may include task allocation and supervision. Depending on how the organization is structured and carries out tasks, shared leadership may have a stronger or weaker relationship with performance outcomes.
Denis, J. L., L. Lamothe, and A. Langley. “The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 44.4 (2001): 809–837.
DOI: 10.2307/3069417Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Denis et al. conducted qualitative case studies of five healthcare organizations to depict an understanding of the role of collective leadership in engaging in and the facilitation of organizational change. Results supported the value of collective leadership but also caution organizations in terms of the challenges to maintaining collective leadership over organizational levels. The authors offer several themes and recommendations for helping utilize collective leadership in the face of organizational change.
Find this resource:
Ensley, M. D., A. Pearson, and C. L. Pearce. “Top Management Team Process, Shared Leadership, and New Venture Performance: A Theoretical Model and Research Agenda.” Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003): 329–346.
DOI: 10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00020-2Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Ensley et al. conceptualized shared leadership as an antecedent of process variables related to the performance outcome. These process variables can be seen as organizational structure variables and include cohesion and collective vision. Several situational variables were also posed as potential moderators of shared leadership’s relationship with both cohesion and collective vision.
Find this resource:
Scott, L., and A. Caress. “Shared Governance and Shared Leadership: Meeting the Challenges of Implementation.” Journal of Nursing Management 13.1 (2005): 4–12.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2004.00455.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Scott and Caress focused on the organizational structure of shared governance councils within shared leadership to ensure that staffs are engaged and involved in decision making and promoting effectiveness. To establish such a shared governance, effective leadership and an examination of the organization’s structure and culture are needed. This article emphasizes that shared governance is a fluid process that requires continual reevaluation to be flexible and successful.
Find this resource:
Team Context
While the environmental context plays an external role in influencing shared leadership, the team context plays an internally influential role. This team context includes elements of task complexity and task/team interdependence.
Team Task Complexity
Task complexity imposes demands on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of team members. It is theorized that as the task becomes more complex, there is a lower likelihood that any one individual team member can complete all parts of the task. Thus, task complexity is posed as one potential moderator of the shared leadership and performance relationship.
D’Innocenzo, L., J. E. Mathieu, and M. R. Kukenberger. “A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership-Team Performance Relations.” Journal of Management 42.7 (2016): 1964–1991.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
D’Innocenzo et al. explored various research questions related to shared leadership and team performance using meta-analytic techniques of both published and unpublished studies. It was found that task complexity significantly moderated the shared leadership-performance relationship, with lower effect sizes seen with more complex tasks.
Find this resource:
Team Interdependence
Task interdependence in teams is the extent to which team members must rely upon one another to accomplish their tasks and subsequent team goals. It is often argued that the benefits of shared leadership are greatest in certain contexts that are characterized as interdependent. These studies seek to explore this potential moderator.
Gu, J., Z. Chen, Q. Huang, H. Liu, and S. Huang. “A Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship between Shared Leadership and Creativity in Inter-organizational Teams.” Journal of Creative Behavior (2016).
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.135Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Gu et al. tested the relationship between shared leadership and creativity at the team and individual level in the context of interorganizational teams. Results indicated that shared leadership was positively related to outcomes via knowledge sharing. Task interdependence positively moderated the relationship between shared leadership and knowledge sharing. Task interdependence also moderated the relationship between knowledge sharing and the team outcomes, but not between knowledge sharing and individual outcomes.
Find this resource:
Nicolaides, V. C., K. A. LaPort, T. R. Chen, et al. “The Shared Leadership of Teams: A Meta-analysis of Proximal, Distal, and Moderating Relationships.” Leadership Quarterly 25.5 (2014): 923–942.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Nicolaides et al. examined the relationship between shared leadership and team performance, looking at whether this relationship was moderated by various other factors. It was found that task interdependence was a moderator of the aforementioned relationship.
Find this resource:
Ullah, U., and D. S. Park. “Shared Leadership and Team Effectiveness: Moderating Effects of Task Interdependence.” African Journal of Business Management 7.40 (2013).
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Ullah and Park looked at the effect between attitude about shared leadership and team effectiveness with two dimensions of task interdependence as moderators: received task interdependence and initiated task interdependence. Results indicated that there was a significant, positive relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness. Received task interdependence, but not initiated task interdependence, demonstrated a negative moderating effect on the overall relationship.
Find this resource:
Individual Context
In addition to team context, individual context plays an internal role in moderating shared leadership’s relationship with outcome variables. The individual context, however, is a more basic unit of analysis compared to the aggregated team context.
Bligh, M. C., C. L. Pearce, and J. C. Kohles. “The Importance of Self- and Shared Leadership in Team Based Knowledge Work.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 21.4 (2006): 296–318.
DOI: 10.1108/02683940610663105Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Bligh et al. outlined a meso-level theoretical model that discussed the relationship between self- and shared leadership. It focused on the intermediary processes of individual and team trust, self-efficacy and team potency, and individual and team commitment that may lead from self-leadership to the development of shared leadership. Task interdependence and task complexity may moderate the relationship between shared leadership and knowledge creation.
Find this resource:
Hoch, J. E., C. L. Pearce, and L. Welzel. “Is the Most Effective Team Leadership Shared? The Impact of Shared Leadership, Age Diversity, and Coordination on Team Performance.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9.3 (2010): 105–116.
DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000020Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Hoch et al. explored the moderating effect of age diversity and team coordination on the relationship between shared leadership and team performance. Results indicated that shared leadership predicted team performance. Both age diversity and coordination moderated the impact of shared leadership on performance, such that strong effects of shared leadership on team performance were evident when age diversity and coordination were low, but shared leadership was not related to team performance when both age diversity and coordination were high.
Find this resource:
Measurement Considerations for Shared Team Leadership
There are numerous measurement considerations to make when assessing shared leadership within a team. Early approaches to assessing shared leadership tended to apply aggregate measures, while later methods employed social network analysis, which encompasses more advanced techniques such as (de)centralization and density. Such studies have been conducted both within the lab and in the field to reveal the benefits of shared leadership across various contexts. However, future research should consider the advantages and disadvantages that each of these approaches provides given their research context to further advance our understanding of shared leadership.
Aggregating and Level of Analysis as Considerations in Shared Leadership Research
Aggregate measures of shared leadership apply concepts of individual leadership behaviors to the team level to assess shared leadership and assumes that the entire team is the source of leadership. This method has team members rate their overall team on how well the team exhibits shared leadership and then aggregates these assessments to the team level.
Avolio, B. J., N. Sivasubramaniam, W. D. Murry, D. Jung, and J. W. Garger. “Assessing Shared Leadership: Development and Preliminary Validation of a Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.” In Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Edited by C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, 143–172. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2003.
DOI: 10.4135/9781452229539.n7Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Avolio et al.’s book chapter suggests to adapt the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to the team level to create the Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) and asks team members to rate the teams’ inspiring leadership, intellectual stimulation individualized consideration, active management by exception, and passive/avoidant leadership.
Find this resource:
Ensley, M. D., K. M. Hmieleski, and C. L. Pearce. “The Importance of Vertical and Shared Leadership within New Venture Top Management Teams: Implications for the Performance of Startups.” Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006): 217–231.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The authors modified the Pearce and Sims 2002 questionnaire and concluded that shared leadership is comprised of four dimensions: directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership. In aggregate assessments of shared leadership, team members would rate the degree to which the team performed each of these dimensions.
Find this resource:
Pearce, C. L., and H. P. Sims. “Vertical versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6 (2002): 172–197.
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Pearce and Sims created an assessment of five different leadership strategies including aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership to assess shared and vertical leadership by changing the referent of the question to focus on either their team members or their team leader, respectively.
Find this resource:
Networked Metrics to Operationalize Shared Team Leadership
When considering shared leadership, network measures apply social network analysis to understand the relationships between members within a team. This approach considers the degree to which each team member may partake in leadership processes. These measures often require the team to rate all of their team members on a particular assessment, such as how often each member performs a set of leadership functions. Then the ratings are used to calculate the degree of (de)centralization and density within the team.
(De)centralization Metrics
Centrality identifies an individual’s position within the team in terms of their relationships with other members within that team, where central team members have many relationships/ties with other actors. Individuals in central positions (i.e., high centrality score) within a network tend to emerge as leaders of the group, as explored, with numerous members citing them as a leader. In contrast, low centrality scores indicate that there is no clear leader or that everyone in the team is proving leadership. Thus, teams that share leadership have low centralization scores, or exhibit (de)centralization.
Erez, A., J. A. LePine, and H. Elms. “Effects of Rotated Leadership and Peer Evaluation on the Functioning and Effectiveness of Self-Managed Teams: A Quasi-experiment.” Personnel Psychology 55 (2002): 929–948.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Erez et al. revealed that student teams with rotated leadership had higher levels of voice, cooperation, and performance than teams with leader emergence. Rotated leadership was an assigned condition where teams were instructed to have different leaders for each project; therefore, shared leadership was not formally assessed.
Find this resource:
Mehra, A., B. R. Smith, A. L. Dixon, and B. Robertson. “Distributed Leadership in Teams: The Network of Leadership Perceptions and Team Performance.” Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006): 232–245.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Contrary to many studies, they found that decentralization of leadership was not significantly related to performance, but, most notably, found that different decentralized leadership structures were more related to better team performance than others. Thus, highlighting the need considers not only the degree of (de)centralization, but the structure of leadership within a team.
Find this resource:
Small, E. E., and J. R. Rentsch. “Shared Leadership in Teams.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9.4 (2011): 203–211.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Small and Rentsch examined shared leadership as network centralization by employing social network analysis and found that shared leadership increased performance. Calculated shared leadership by creating a measure that assessed change-oriented, task-oriented, and relations-oriented leadership behaviors and then calculated network centrality using Freeman’s 1979 definition in a sample of business students completing a semester-long business simulation.
Find this resource:
Density Metrics
Density refers to an individual’s ties in comparison to all possible ties, or the percent of ties an individual has, and team density is calculated by taking the aggregate of the team members’ individual density scores. In high-density teams, individuals exhibit ties with the majority of their team members, where “complete” networks exist when all possible ties within network are present. When applying density to assess shared leadership, teams that rate all members as exerting leadership influence in the team would be considered dense.
Carson, J. B., P. E. Tesluk, and J. A. Marrone. “Shared Leadership in Teams: An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (2007): 1217–1234.
DOI: 10.2307/20159921Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Carson et al. provide a valued assessment of shared leadership density by assessing the strength of the shared leadership ties between each team member by having each team member rate their peers on the degree to which they rely on that person for leadership.
Find this resource:
Carter, D. R., L. A. DeChurch, M. T. Braun, and N. S. Contractor. “Social Network Approaches to Leadership: An Integrative Conceptual Review.” Journal of Applied Psychology 100.3 (2015): 597–622.
DOI: 10.1037/a0038922Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Carter et al. provide a theoretical examination of social network approaches to leadership and review the varying approaches of network assessments available for shared leadership.
Find this resource:
DeRue, D. S., J. D. Nahrgang, and S. J. Ashford. “Interpersonal Perceptions and the Emergence of Leadership Structures in Groups: A Network Perspective.” Organization Science 26.4 (2015): 1192–1209.
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0963Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
DeRue et al. assessed the density of shared leadership within MBA teams and found that interpersonal perceptions of how individuals identify with the team and varying perceptions of leader-prototypical roles could explain why shared leadership may vary across teams.
Find this resource:
Research Design Issues for Investigating Shared Team Leadership
The next methodological concern for assessing shared leadership considers the contextual factors that are a part of the design for different research studies. As is common in organizational research, the majority of shared team leadership studies have been conducted as cross-sectional studies, ignoring the implications that shared leadership may have temporally within a team. Further, it is also important to consider the varying effects that the type of sample utilized may have on the relationships that emerge with shared leadership.
Longitudinal and Dynamic Aspects of Shared Team Leadership
While meta-analytic results reveal that the effects of shared leadership on performance may dissipate overtime, there is little consensus on why these results may occur or what the true role of shared leadership within a team may be in the long term. By evaluating varying antecedents and outcomes over time, longitudinal assessments help depict the role that shared leadership plays within a team and why this role may shift temporally.
Drescher, M. A., M. A. Korsgaard, I. M. Welpe, A. Picot, and R. T. Wigand. “The Dynamics of Shared Leadership: Building Trust and Enhancing Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99.5 (2014): 771–783.
DOI: 10.1037/a0036474Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Drescher et al. found that over time as shared leadership increases, trust also increases. Further, the relationship between increased shared leadership and performance is facilitated indirectly through trust. This was assessed using teams that participated in a simulation over four months, where participants chose to participate in the simulation game Travian for entertainment purposes.
Find this resource:
Gupta, V. K., R. Huang, and S. Niranjan. “A Longitudinal Examination of the Relationship between Team Leadership and Performance.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17 (2010): 335–350.
DOI: 10.1177/1548051809359184Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Gupta et al. assessed aggregate shared leadership at two time points: three weeks after a team was formed and again five weeks later. Found that shared leadership and performance are fully mediated by conflict, but that performance is positively related to later shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Mathieu, J. E., M. R. Kukenberger, L. D’Innocenzo, and G. Reilly. “Modeling Reciprocal Team Cohesion–Performance Relationships, as Impacted by Shared Leadership and Members’ Competence.” Journal of Applied Psychology 100.3 (2015): 713–734.
DOI: 10.1037/a0038898Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Mathieu et al. evaluated student teams that participated in a business simulation over ten weeks and found that shared leadership evolves over time, but is positively related to cohesion over time, and cohesion and performance have a positive, reciprocal relationship.
Find this resource:
Militello, M., and M. K. Benham. “‘Sorting Out’ Collective Leadership: How Q-Methodology Can Be Used to Evaluate Leadership Development.” Leadership Quarterly 21.4 (2010): 620–632.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.06.005Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Militello and Benham review how Q-methodology in combination with other methodological approaches may be employed to assess shared leadership over time.
Find this resource:
Small, E. E., and J. R. Rentsch. “Shared Leadership in Teams.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9.4 (2011): 203–211.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Small and Rentsch revealed that shared leadership increased over time, but there may be differing predictors of shared leadership at different times. In early states, collectivism may be important to foster shared leadership but not in later stages, while trust is positively related to shared leadership overtime.
Find this resource:
Wang, L., J. Han, C. M. Fisher, and Y. Pan. “Learning to Share: Exploring Temporality in Shared Leadership and Team Learning.” Small Group Research 48.2 (2017): 165–189.
DOI: 10.1177/1046496417690027Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Wang et al. found that the relationship between shared leadership and team learning is a positive and linear relationship in early stages, but that the effects of shared leadership may dimension over time. They analyzed MBA student teams that participated in a five-day business simulation project, and collected data on shared leadership and team learning at the end of days one and two and in the middle of day three.
Find this resource:
The Role of the Study Setting (Lab, Field)
While labs provide a controlled environment to study phenomena, they are often critiqued for failing to be representative of organizational settings. Meta-analysis reveals that labs tend to have smaller effect sizes than organizational settings for the relationship between shared leadership and performance and may provide a conservative sample for testing shared leadership (D’Innocenzo, et al. 2016).
Boies, K., E. Lvina, and M. L. Martens. “Shared Leadership and Team Performance in a Business Strategy Simulation.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9 (2010): 195–202.
DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000021Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Boies et al. conducted this on undergraduate students in an upper-level strategy course where students participated in a business simulation task over the duration of the semester. They found that both team trust and potency are antecedents of team-shared leadership. However, this laboratory-based study did not find a significant relationship between shared leadership and performance, which may be due to the conservative estimates that laboratory-based samples could provide.
Find this resource:
D’Innocenzo, L., J. E. Mathieu, and M. R. Kukenberger. “A Meta-analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations.” Journal of Management 42.7 (2016): 1964–1991.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
D’Innocenzo et al.’s meta-analysis compared the effect sizes of shared leadership studies done in lab and classroom settings to those of studies conducted in the field and found that lab and classroom settings have smaller effect sizes than those of studies conducted in the field. Therefore, the lab may be a valid place to conduct controlled research on shared leadership as it provides more conservative estimates than the field.
Find this resource:
Hoch, J. E., and S. W. Kozlowski. “Leading Virtual Teams: Hierarchical Leadership, Structural Supports, and Shared Team Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99.3 (2014): 390–403.
DOI: 10.1037/a0030264Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Hoch and Kozlowski analyzed a virtual field sample of research and development teams from global manufacturing industries and found that when teams are more virtual, in terms of their geographic dispersion, cultural background, and electronic communication, shared leadership was more positively related to performance than hierarchical leadership. However, regardless of the degree of virtuality within the teams, shared leadership remained related to team performance.
Find this resource:
Determining the Appropriate Operationalization for Shared Team Leadership Studies
There are numerous approaches to assessing shared leadership. However, it is important to understand when to apply each approach for different research questions. While aggregate approaches may be appropriate in some situations, understanding when and why to employ network centrality and density assessments should be key focal questions, as researchers continue to research shared leadership.
Contractor, N. S., L. A. DeChurch, J. Carson, D. R. Carter, and B. Keegan. “The Topology of Collective Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly 23.6 (2012): 994–1011.
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.010Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Contractor et al.’s theoretical review highlights the complexities and key considerations in determining when to use network approaches. It discusses in depth the appropriate metrics that may be applied to assess the complexity of shared leadership.
Find this resource:
Gockel, C., and L. Werth. “Measuring and Modeling Shared Leadership.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 9.4 (2010): 172–180.
DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000023Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Gockel and Werth discussed the advantages and disadvantages of varying approaches to assessing shared leadership such as aggregate ratings of the team, rating team members using social network analysis, and rating team members and computing the coefficient of variation, and they suggest applying the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to future shared leadership studies. The APIM considers how both individual factors (e.g., individual leadership) and group factors (e.g., shared leadership) may influence team members’ behaviors.
Find this resource:
Article
- Abusive Supervision
- Adverse Impact and Equal Employment Opportunity Analytics
- Alliance Portfolios
- Alternative Work Arrangements
- Applied Political Risk Analysis
- Approaches to Social Responsibility
- Assessment Centers: Theory, Practice and Research
- Attitudes
- Attributions
- Authentic Leadership
- Automation
- Bayesian Statistics
- Behavior, Organizational
- Behavioral Approach to Leadership
- Behavioral Theory of the Firm
- Benefits
- Between Organizations, Social Networks in and
- Brokerage in Networks
- Business and Human Rights
- Career Studies
- Career Transitions and Job Mobility
- Certified B Corporations and Benefit Corporations
- Charismatic and Innovative Team Leadership By and For Mill...
- Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
- Compensation, Rewards, Remuneration
- Competitive Dynamics
- Competitive Heterogeneity
- Computational Modeling
- Conditional Reasoning
- Conflict Management
- Considerate Leadership
- Corporate Philanthropy
- Corporate Social Performance
- Corporate Venture Capital
- Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)
- Creativity
- Cross-Cultural Communication
- Cross-Cultural Management
- Cultural Intelligence
- Culture, Organization
- Data Analytic Methods
- Decision Making
- Diversity
- Dynamic Capabilities
- Emotional Labor
- Employee Aging
- Employee Engagement
- Employee Ownership
- Employee Voice
- Empowerment, Psychological
- Entrepreneurial Firms
- Entrepreneurial Orientation
- Entrepreneurship
- Entrepreneurship, Corporate
- Entrepreneurship, Women’s
- Equal Employment Opportunity
- Ethics
- Faking in Personnel Selection
- Family Business, Managing
- Feedback
- Financial Markets in Organization Theory and Economic Soci...
- Findings, Reporting Research
- Firm Bribery
- Fit, Person-Environment
- Forecasting
- Global Leadership
- Global Talent Management
- Goal Setting
- Grounded Theory
- Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
- Human Capital Resource Pipelines
- Human Resource Management
- Human Resource Management, Strategic
- Human Resources, Global
- Human Rights
- Humanitarian Work Psychology
- Humility in Management
- Impression Management at Work
- Imprinting
- Influence Strategies/Tactics in the Workplace
- Information Economics
- Innovative Behavior
- Intelligence, Emotional
- International Economic Development and SMEs
- International Economic Systems
- International Strategic Alliances
- Job Analysis and Competency Modeling
- Job Crafting
- Job Design
- Job Satisfaction
- Judgment and Decision Making in Teams
- Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration within and across Firm...
- Leader-Member Exchange
- Leadership Development
- Leadership Development and Organizational Change, Coaching...
- Leadership, Ethical
- Leadership, Global and Comparative
- Leadership, Strategic
- Learning by Doing in Organizational Activities
- Licensing
- Management History
- Management In Antiquity
- Managerial Discretion
- Meaningful Work
- Mentoring
- Multinational Corporations and Emerging Markets
- Neo-institutional Theory
- Neuroscience, Organizational
- New Ventures
- Organization Design, Global
- Organization Development and Change
- Organization Research, Ethnography in
- Organization Theory
- Organizational Adaptation
- Organizational Ambidexterity
- Organizational Behavior, Emotions in
- Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs)
- Organizational Climate
- Organizational Control
- Organizational Corruption
- Organizational Hybridity
- Organizational Identity
- Organizational Justice
- Organizational Legitimacy
- Organizational Networks
- Organizational Paradox
- Organizational Performance, Personality Theory and
- Organizational Responsibility
- Organizational Surveys, Driving Change Through
- Organizations, Big Data in
- Organizations, Gender in
- Organizations, Identity Work in
- Organizations, Political Ideology in
- Organizations, Social Identity Processes in
- Overqualification
- Passion
- Paternalistic Leadership
- Pay for Skills, Knowledge, and Competencies
- People Analytics
- Performance Appraisal
- Performance Feedback Theory
- Planning And Goal Setting
- Proactive Work Behavior
- Psychological Contracts
- Psychological Safety
- Real Options Theory
- Recruitment
- Regional Entrepreneurship
- Reputation, Organizational Image and
- Research, Ethics in
- Research, Longitudinal
- Research Methods
- Research Methods, Qualitative
- Resource Redeployment
- Resource-Dependence Theory
- Resources
- Response Surface Analysis, Polynomial Regression and
- Role of Time in Organizational Studies
- Safety, Work Place
- Selection
- Selection, Applicant Reactions to
- Self-Determination Theory for Work Motivation
- Self-Efficacy
- Self-Fulfilling Prophecy In Management
- Self-Management and Personal Agency
- Sensemaking in and around Organizations
- Service Management
- Shared Team Leadership
- Social Cognitive Theory
- Social Evaluation: Status and Reputation
- Social Movement Theory
- Social Ties and Network Structure
- Socialization
- Spin-Outs
- Sports Settings in Management Research
- Stakeholders
- Status in Organizations
- Strategic Alliances
- Strategic Human Capital
- Strategy
- Strategy and Cognition
- Strategy Implementation
- Stress
- Structural Contingency Theory/Information Processing Theor...
- Team Composition
- Team Conflict
- Team Design Characteristics
- Team Learning
- Team Mental Models
- Team Newcomers
- Team Processes
- Teams, Global
- Technology and Innovation Management
- Technology, Organizational Assessment and
- the Workplace, Millennials in
- Theory X and Theory Y
- Time and Motion Studies
- Training and Development
- Training Evaluation
- Trust in Organizational Contexts
- Turnover
- Unobtrusive Measures
- Validity
- Virtual Teams
- Whistle-Blowing
- Work and Family: An Organizational Science Overview
- Work Contexts, Nonverbal Communication in
- Work, Mindfulness at
- Workplace Aggression and Violence
- Workplace Coaching
- Workplace Commitment
- Workplace Gossip
- Workplace Meetings
- Workplace, Spiritual Leadership in the
- World War II, Management Research during
