Wk 3, IOP 470: DR 1

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 1/21

To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In FireFox, select FILE then SAVE FILE AS from your browser's toolbar above. In Chrome, select right click (with your mouse) on this page and select SAVE AS

EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.):

NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

References Bergman, J., Rentsch, J., Small, E., Davenport, S., & Bergman, S. (2012). The Shared Leadership Process in

Decision-Making Teams. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.538763

<!--Additional Information: Persistent link to this record (Permalink): https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=sih&AN=69807145&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=uphoenix End of citation-->

The Shared Leadership Process in Decision-Making Teams. The present study examined the process of shared leadership in 45 ad hoc decision-making teams. Each team member's leadership behavior (n = 180) was assessed by behaviorally coding videotapes of the teams' discussions. The within-team patterns of leadership behavior were examined using cluster analysis. Results indicated that the likelihood of a team experiencing a full range of leadership behavior increased to the extent that multiple team members shared leadership, and that teams with shared leadership experienced less conflict, greater consensus, and higher intragroup trust and cohesion than teams without shared leadership. This study supports previous findings that shared leadership contributes to overall team functioning, and begins to delineate the extent to which team members may naturally share leadership.

Keywords: decision making; shared leadership; team effectiveness

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TEAM LEADERSHIP are often cited as the primary reason for failures of team-based work ([ 3]; [68]; [72]). Because a single appointed leader may be unlikely to exhibit all of the leadership behaviors necessary for overall team effectiveness ([ 3]; [ 4]; [56]), a team's performance may depend on its ability to draw on the leadership skills of its members ([39]). Members must emerge as leaders as they are needed, when their relevant skills, knowledge, and expertise are required by the team. Therefore, in addition to the formal appointed leaders that are frequently studied as leadership sources ([ 5]; [61]; [77]), the team itself is an important potential source of leadership (e.g., [29]).

Shared leadership occurs when two or more members engage in the leadership of the team in an effort to influence and direct fellow members to maximize team effectiveness ([12]; [54]). Shared leadership is

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 2/21

an influence process that is multidirectional, dynamic, simultaneous, and on-going ([23]; [26]; [27]), and it is characterized by the "serial emergence" of two or more members as leaders ([54], p. 48).

Although there has been disagreement and controversy surrounding the construct of shared leadership and its performance benefits (see [44]; [55]), empirical research suggests that shared leadership exists in self-managing project teams and decision-making teams and is an important predictor of team outcomes. Shared leadership has been found to relate to self-ratings of team effectiveness ([ 3]; [60]), manager and customer ratings of team effectiveness ([12]; [59]), objective team performance ([ 8]; [48]), satisfaction ([ 3]; [ 8]), and problem solving quality ([60]). Additionally, studies on change management teams ([59]), new venture executive teams ([23]), and virtual teams ([60]) demonstrated that shared leadership was a more important predictor of team effectiveness than was traditional vertical leadership. These research findings are encouraging and suggest the need for additional research on the topic.

With the notable exception of recent studies that employed a social network approach (e.g., [12]; [48]; [69]), shared leadership has been assessed using team member ratings of the extent to which their team collectively performed various leadership behaviors (e.g., [ 3]; [23]; [59]). Although this type of methodology is practical in field studies, it does not clearly demonstrate that two or more team members are engaging in the team's leadership (the very definition of shared leadership).

Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to contribute to the shared leadership research by: a) explicitly examining the number of team members engaged in the team's leadership; b) assessing through observation each member's actual leadership behavior; and c) to examine the relationship between shared leadership and intermediate team processes and emergent states. The use of behavioral observation enabled a direct test of whether more than one team member participated in the team's leadership. In addition, it minimized common method variance and avoided the biases associated with peer ratings of emergent leadership (e.g., that the most talkative and well-liked members are perceived as leaders; [33]; [65]). Observing and recording actual leadership behaviors permitted a direct examination of the content and distribution of leadership behaviors that define shared leadership.

Leadership Behaviors Several decades of research on leadership have found that effective leaders use several specific types of behaviors (see [ 5]; [77]). [77] offered a parsimonious classification of these types of leadership that includes three broad categories of behavior: task-oriented, relations-oriented, and change-oriented. In the present study, we examined each of these categories of leadership behavior, and a fourth category, spanning, that is critical in team settings ([74]).

Initiating structure behaviors are task-oriented ([73]) and are aimed at increasing efficiency and coordination among team members. When initiating structure, leaders bring order to the team's process by assigning tasks, determining requirements, and clarifying priorities and standards ([ 4]; [59]). Initiating structure behaviors help groups progress toward their goals, prevent members from veering off-task, and keep groups focused on details and deadlines.

Consideration behaviors are relations-oriented ([73]) and involve developing and maintaining the team's socio-psychological functioning ([ 4]; [61]). Such behaviors include being friendly, supportive, respectful, and generally showing concern for others and their welfare. Consideration behaviors help to surface each member's needs, to interpret and paraphrase others' views, and to monitor the team's energy

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 3/21

levels and emotional states. Consideration behaviors also include resolving conflicts, providing encouragement, and ensuring that all members' opinions are heard.

Envisioning behaviors are oriented toward change—i.e., improving strategic decisions, adapting to change, increasing innovation, and fostering commitment to visions and goals ([ 4]; [77]). Envisioning leaders create new and compelling visions that help to facilitate idea generation, define overall goals, and encourage others to view issues in a different way. They draw others into the envisioning process, and foster group ownership of central ideas.

Spanning behaviors are necessary for team effectiveness because teams have boundaries between them and other organizational units that influence how a team must operate within its organizational context in order to be effective ([74]). Spanning behaviors that occur within the team help members to develop a common understanding of the needs and demands of the team's (and the organization's) external stakeholders ([79]). Behaviors, such as providing the team with reality checks and focusing attention on "political" happenings that may affect the team, serve to continuously remind the team that its product or decision must meet with external approval, thereby keeping the needs and demands of external agents within the team's sight.

In today's organizations, where success depends on effectively integrating the knowledge of skilled professionals in complex and ambiguous environments, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that a single, vertical leader will possess all of the knowledge, abilities, and skills required to fulfill all of the necessary leadership roles ([12]; [15]; [56]; [58]), thus, leadership responsibilities should shift according to which member's expertise is most relevant to the task at hand ([27]). Additionally, each team member may be more inclined toward one type of leadership behavior than others ([ 4]). Previous research has supported the notion that different leader behaviors are independent (see [77]), suggesting that performing one type of leader behavior does not guarantee being inclined to perform any other type. Thus, a single individual may be unwilling and/or unable to fulfill all of the necessary leadership tasks of the team.

However, shared leadership enables team members' inclinations and abilities to engage in certain leadership behaviors to compensate for and complement each other ([ 9]). Thus, the team increases its probability of capitalizing on its leadership capacity to the extent that more than one member participates in leading the team. When multiple leaders emerge in a team, the likelihood increases that more leadership behaviors will be performed.

Hypothesis 1: Teams with more than one member participating in the team's leadership will experience more types of leadership than teams with only one (or no) members participating in the team's leadership.

Shared Leadership and Team Functioning The present study also examined the relationship between shared leadership and intermediate team processes and emergent states, which, in terms of an input-process-outcome model, may delineate how shared leadership impacts team performance. With only a few exceptions (e.g., [ 3]; [48]; [70]), the research on shared leadership has focused primarily on team performance and effectiveness. Examining intermediate team processes, such as intragroup conflict and consensus-building, and emergent states, such as trust, cohesion, and satisfaction, will contribute to our understanding of the effects of shared leadership on teams and their performance.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 4/21

Intragroup conflict Intragroup conflict consists of both a socio-emotional dimension, involving interpersonal incompatibilities, and a task dimension, involving disagreement about the content of the task itself. Socio-emotional conflict has been consistently associated with reduced productivity and satisfaction, an inability to reach consensus, and decreased decision-making quality ([17]; [16]). Regarding task conflict, a few studies have found positive relationships with decision quality and performance (e.g., [35]; [36]); however, the results of a meta-analysis show task conflict to be negatively related to performance and satisfaction ([17]).

Misattributions by members regarding the intentions of others are thought to be at the core of conflict ([50]; [67]). Team members may interpret the very behaviors required to integrate diverse ideas and make high quality decisions (e.g., scrutinizing and challenging each other's ideas and opinions) as personal criticisms or rejection ([67]). We propose that, when a member participates in the team's leadership, he/she is, in effect, demonstrating his/her commitment to the team and its task. In turn, misattributions regarding that member's intentions or dedication to the team should be minimized. Fewer misattributions should result in less intragroup conflict.

Moreover, as discussed above, as more members participate in the team's leadership, the likelihood increases that different types of leader behaviors will be performed. One important task of leaders is to manage conflict in order to build cohesion ([10]) and to improve the quality of decisions ([41]), but more than one type of leadership is needed for effective conflict management. For example, initiating structure behaviors are likely needed to minimize conflict over roles or task procedures, but effective envisioning leadership is needed to resolve goal conflicts among team members. Thus, as more members participate in the team's leadership, a wider variety of leader behaviors are performed, and the team should experience less conflict. Recent research provides support for the idea that varying types of leader behavior are necessary for effectively managing conflict ([20]; [40]).

Therefore, we expected that as the number of team members who participate in the team's leadership increases, the amount of conflict the team experiences should decrease.

Hypothesis 2: Teams that engage in shared leadership will experience less task and socio-emotional conflict than teams that do not engage in shared leadership.

Consensus-building In [47] development of a typology of tasks, decision-making tasks are those "for which there is not a demonstrably correct answer, and for which the group's task is to select, by some consensus, a preferred alternative" (p. 63). Team members, then, are not in search of an intrinsically correct answer, so much as they are in search of consensus ([47]). Arguably, the core of the strategic decision-making process is consensus-building. Team members must share and integrate diverse knowledge and perspectives, and eventually reach agreement on the best course of action. While consensus does not always directly relate to decision quality or effectiveness (e.g., [76]), consensus among team members that the team's final decision is one that will benefit the company as a whole is typically a necessary condition for successful implementation ([ 7]; [18]; [63]).

Suggestive of the role of shared leadership in consensus-building is the proposition that shared leadership should aid teams in the development of a collective vision, defined as the extent to which team members share a common mental model of the organization's strategy ([24]). [24] argued that it is only logical that team members would have a "greater understanding of something that they helped to

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 5/21

create" (p. 336). We believe that this would also hold true as team members work toward consensus. When members share in the leadership of the team, each having influence over other members and the team's decisions, they become more deeply involved in the team's work, and are likely to better understand both the nature of the problem at hand and the reasons why one alternative was accepted and others rejected, thus aiding the consensus-building process.

[60] demonstrated empirically in a sample of 28 virtual project teams that shared leadership (leadership behavior engaged in by the team) was more strongly related to members' commitment to and confidence in the team's decision than was vertical leadership (leadership behavior engaged in by a single, designated leader). These findings suggest that when more team members are involved in the leadership of the team, members are more likely to understand the reasons for the solution and be committed to its implementation. Thus, we expected that shared leadership would be related to increased consensus among team members.

Hypothesis 3: Teams that engage in shared leadership will have greater consensus among members than teams that do not engage in shared leadership.

Intragroup trust The process of sharing responsibility for the team's leadership should facilitate trust building among members. The prevailing view of trust suggests that it develops through repeated interaction in which team members demonstrate their trustworthiness through their behavior ([37]; [80]). As team members demonstrate their willingness to share power and responsibility, they are signaling their trust for one another ([80]), and the resulting shared leadership behaviors would further solidify trust. [ 3]supported this proposition empirically in a longitudinal study of student teams, finding that ratings of the teams' collective leadership behaviors were positively related to a combined measure of trust and cohesion.

This is also consistent with the concept of participative decision making (PDM), which has been proposed to positively impact trust ([19]). PDM involves supervisors sharing a significant degree of decision-making power with subordinates, and is believed to send a message that management has confidence in and respects others' perspectives and opinions. It communicates to employees that they are trusted, and that management can be trusted to include them in relevant decisions. Likewise, as team members make attempts to share in the team's leadership (i.e., assume some decision-making power and responsibility), and those attempts are accepted by the team, we would expect trust to increase among team members.

Similarly, it has been proposed that trust among team members is damaged when a member attempts to take control of a collectively managed team ([21]). All members likely desire some control over the team's management and direction, because they all have a stake in the team's performance. Therefore, when members show willingness to share control (i.e., share leadership) of the team, we expect increased trust among team members.

Hypothesis 4: Teams that engage in shared leadership will experience greater intragroup trust than teams that do not engage in shared leadership.

Cohesion Shared leadership has been proposed to lead to cohesion because it necessarily contributes to team member interaction and socialization ([24]), and those involved in shared leadership systems may be more committed to the team and its values ([53]). At issue here, as with intragroup trust, is the extent to

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 6/21

which power and responsibility are shared. It has been argued that the potential for dysfunctional political maneuvering increases when power is controlled by one dominant individual ([22]). The extent to which power is shared among members should have a significant effect on the group's dynamics and members' feelings toward the group. Thus, shared leadership should help to create a bond among team members, as they share power and responsibility for the team's outcomes, and allow cohesion to develop naturally and collectively, instead of through the imposition of a single leader ([10]; [70]).

Some empirical evidence supports this proposition. Specifically, [ 3] found that teams in which members collectively exhibited more leadership behaviors reported higher scores on a combined measure of trust and cohesion. Additionally, [60] found that shared leadership behavior was positively related to social integration (i.e., the extent to which the team members get along, stick together, and have positive relationships), and was more strongly related to social integration than was vertical leadership behavior. Thus, when leadership is shared, we expected teams to experience greater cohesion.

Hypothesis 5: Teams that engage in shared leadership will experience greater cohesion than teams that do not engage in shared leadership.

Team member satisfaction Team member satisfaction refers to the affective reactions of individual members to their experiences with the team, and numerous aspects of the team can be the target of such reactions (e.g., team processes, leadership, teammates, etc.). An important function of leaders is to manage team members' affective states, and by doing so, leaders can significantly influence performance ([32]).

As the shared leadership process facilitates positive group interactions and socialization ([24]), it would be expected that such interactions and socialization would, in turn, promote positive affective reactions to the team and its work. Moreover, as more members participate in and take responsibility for the team's leadership, increasing feelings of mutual accountability for outcomes and demonstrating commitment to the team and its task, team members should experience more positive affective reactions. With shared leadership, members are likely to perceive their teammates as committed to and concerned with the success of the team, and, thus, be more satisfied with the team's decisions.

There is some empirical support for this proposition, as well. [ 3] found that shared transformational leadership was positively related to satisfaction with team leadership. Additionally, in a field study of 40 insurance agencies, [ 8] found that shared leadership behavior was related to job and company satisfaction.

Hypothesis 6: Teams that engage in shared leadership will experience greater team member satisfaction than teams that do not engage in shared leadership.

Methods

Participants Participants were 180 undergraduate students at a large southeastern university. The sample included 116 males and 64 females (64.4% and 35.6%, respectively), and was 88.3% Caucasian. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 44 (M = 21.81, SD = 3.50). Participants were recruited from departmental subject pools and received credit toward their research participation requirement in exchange for participation.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 7/21

Experimental Task The experimental task was a multiparty role-play negotiation, during which, each team simulated a cross-functional company task force consisting of four departmental vice presidents within Porsche of America ([28]). The simulation materials were extensive, with each participant receiving six to seven pages of both general background and department-specific information. The team's responsibility was to recommend a product strategy for the following year, involving the production quotas, body styles, and performance options for several lines of cars. The materials were structured to elicit debate among participants regarding the desired outcomes. Each team's primary goal was to reach consensus on each of the strategy issues.

Measures

Leadership Individual leadership behaviors were assessed by trained raters using a behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) designed specifically for this study. BARS are judgmental scales in which actual behaviors define the rating points, as opposed to the numerical or adjective anchors used in traditional graphic scales ([51]). BARS minimize the interpretive ambiguity that often accompanies the use of rating scales with numerical or adjective anchors ([11]). With a BARS, all raters are presented with specific descriptions of what constitutes effective versus ineffective performance, thus, providing raters with a common frame of reference when using the scale.

Four BARS were developed and utilized in the present study, one for each of the leadership behaviors discussed earlier (initiating structure, consideration, envisioning, and spanning). After their initial development, which was based directly on the literature on leader behavior (e.g., [77]), the scales were subjected to three iterations of pre-testing and development. During each iteration, three trained raters independently coded a videotape of a pilot team performing the experimental task. Based on consensus, the scales were revised to ensure that each scale and its anchors reflected the intended dimension of leadership.

In its final version, the rating form included a brief description of each type of leadership behavior and a scale with behavioral anchors representing "poor," "average," and "outstanding" performance. For example, envisioning leadership was briefly described as "creating new/compelling visions; helping others work through the envisioning process; fostering group ownership of central ideas." Behavioral anchors for outstanding performance included: "Reminds teammates to think of best interests of company as a whole," and "Initiates/facilitates discussion of what is most important to Porsche (e.g., profit, quality, customer satisfaction)." Behavioral anchors for poor performance included: "Talks only about what is best for his/her department," and "Takes credit for team's decisions." Similarly, spanning leadership was briefly described as "providing the group with a source of reality checks; ensuring the group's outputs will be well received by others in the organization." Behavioral anchors for outstanding performance included: "Reminds teammates that president is relying on them," and "Asks teammates to consider whether suggestions are realistic (e.g., will another small run of turbos further antagonize dealers?)." Behavioral anchors for poor performance included: "Makes unrealistic suggestions (e.g., eliminate racing program)," and "Makes statements indicating no/little concern with how others will react to team's decisions."

Each BARS was a 6-point scale, ranging from −2 to +3, where the anchors at −2 defined poor performance, the anchors at +1 described average performance, and the anchors at +3 described

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 8/21

outstanding performance. Thus, negative ratings indicated poor leadership performance, which involved individual-centered behaviors directed at satisfying personal needs, with little or no regard for the team and its goals (i.e., behaviors that detracted from the team's functioning and/or were clearly self-serving in nature). Positive ratings indicated average leadership performance or higher, which involved team- centered behaviors directed at helping the team make progress toward task accomplishment (i.e., behaviors that facilitated the team's functioning and were clearly team-focused in nature). Members who displayed no leadership behaviors for a dimension were rated a "0" on that dimension.

For each team, a trained rater watched a videotape of the team's discussion, and, using the BARS, rated each team member's behavior with regard to each of the four leadership dimensions. A random subset (29%) of the videotapes were independently rated by two raters in order to assess inter-rater reliability, which was 0.81 (see [43], for a similar protocol). This level of reliability exceeds the conventional level of acceptable inter-rater reliability ([42]; [52]).

Shared leadership Shared leadership was operationalized in two ways: ( 1) the number of members on the team who performed positive leadership behaviors; and ( 2) the amount of leadership behavior exhibited by the team. The amount of leadership behavior exhibited by the team was calculated by aggregating to the team-level the leadership ratings for each team member for each type of behavior. However, the amount of leadership in a team is only one aspect of shared leadership. The very essence of shared leadership is that more than one team member participates in the team's leadership ([46]). Therefore, shared leadership was considered to be the number of team members on each team that engaged in leadership behaviors (i.e., had positive ratings for one or more type of leadership), and the total amount of leadership behavior displayed by the team.

Intragroup conflict Task and socio-emotional conflict were measured using eight items from the Intragroup Conflict Scale developed by [35]. Four items assessed task conflict and four items assessed socio-emotional conflict. Example items include, "How much friction was present in your work group?" (socio-emotional conflict) and "How often did people in your work group disagree about the work being done?"(task conflict). The scale utilized a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (a great deal). The internal consistency reliability estimates for the two subscales were.79 for socio-emotional conflict and.76 for task conflict.

Consensus-building Consensus-building was measured with a single item assessing the level of agreement with the team's decisions. After the team had reached its final decisions, each individual team member independently and privately indicated his/her level of agreement with the team's decisions, on a scale from 0% (no agreement) to 100% (complete agreement), with instructions to keep in mind the best interests of the company. Individual responses to this item were aggregated to the team level to indicate the amount of consensus among team members. Thus, this measure was not simply an indicator of whether members "signed off" on the team's decisions. It reflected the degree to which individual members privately agreed that the team had made quality decisions that would benefit the company as a whole.

Intragroup trust Intragroup trust was measured using an established scale of five items representing widely agreed-upon components of trust ([67]): members' perceptions of group-wide trust, their perceptions of group-wide expectations of truthfulness, integrity, and living up to one's word, and their sense of shared respect for

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 9/21

team members' competence. Example items include, "We absolutely respect each other's competence," and "We are all certain that we can fully trust each other." Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The internal consistency reliability estimate of the scale for the present sample was.86.

Cohesion Cohesion was measured using six items assessing both task and interpersonal cohesion ([62]; [78]). Example items include, "The members of my work group are cooperative with each other," and "I liked belonging to this group because of the activities I participated in." Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal consistency reliability estimate of the scale for the present sample was.77.

Satisfaction Team member satisfaction was measured with a single item designed to assess the participant's overall satisfaction with the final decisions made by the team. Responses were made on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). Research has demonstrated the adequacy of one- item measures in areas such as performance evaluation and job satisfaction (see [38], and [66], respectively). [66] argued that there is no empirical evidence to show that a single-item measure of job satisfaction is unreliable, and that such measures have been found to be "extremely stable and reproducible" (p. 579).

Design and Procedure The study was conducted in a laboratory setting in order to control for the team's task and to allow for videotaping. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to the study, and, at the start of each session, participants provided informed consent to participate and were assured of strict confidentiality.

A power analysis indicated that a sample size of 45 teams provided power of.70 to detect a moderate effect size. As such, participants were randomly assigned to teams of four (n = 45 teams), and were then randomly assigned to their role in the decision-making task (i.e., Sales, Marketing, Production, or R&D). After assignment to roles, participants were given some time to familiarize themselves with the task materials, and then performed the experimental task with their teammates. Teams were instructed to discuss the task until they had reached final decisions on each of the strategy issues. Each team was videotaped while performing the experimental task. The mean time-to-completion was 44.95 minutes (SD = 14.85). Two teams were cut off at a 75-minute time limit and were given one additional minute to finalize their decision(s).

At the conclusion of the experimental task, one team member recorded the team's final decisions. Members then independently rated their satisfaction and consensus with their team's decisions, and completed measures of conflict, intragroup trust, and cohesion. Because of time constraints, completed measures of intragroup trust and cohesion were obtained for only a subset of teams. Because shared leadership is a relatively new line of research and we believed that the findings pertaining to intragroup trust and cohesion were meaningful, these variables were retained in the study.

Results

Analytic Strategy

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 10/21

Prior to hypothesis testing, team-level variables were created by computing the mean of the four team members' scores on each variable. The level of within-team agreement for intragroup trust, cohesion, task conflict, and socio-emotional conflict were assessed using r ([34]). The number of team members who engaged in leadership behaviors and the number of types of leadership behaviors exhibited by each team were also calculated. All results were evaluated using p <.05.

To examine the relationship between shared leadership and intermediate team processes and emergent states an agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis was first employed to identify the extent to which different teams shared leadership roles. The cluster analysis used Ward's minimum-variance method, which utilizes squared Euclidean distance to combine clusters, and has been shown to outperform other clustering procedures ([ 2]; [25]; [49]). The cluster analysis was performed using raw team-level scores on each of the four types of leadership behaviors. The dendrogram and the agglomeration schedule were examined to determine the number of clusters (see [ 2]; [71]). The means of the resulting clusters were compared to determine if the differences between the identified clusters were statistically significant.

Preliminary Analyses For all variables, correlations, means, and standard deviations are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 1. Individual-Level Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Initiating structure behaviors — Consideration behaviors .30 — Envisioning behaviors .11 .28 — Spanning behaviors .11 .13 .04 — Intragroup trust .10 .16 −.04.27 — Cohesion −.02.11 −.03.22 .70 — Socio-emotional conflict .06 −.10−.07.02 −.29 −.21 — Task conflict −.10−.07−.04.02 −.34 −.13 .46 — Satisfaction .14 .00 −.06−.07.41 .42 −.19−.29— Consensus .19 .00 .01 .00 .51 .51 −.12−.26.72 — M .28 .14 .03 .07 24.8232.232.023.655.5480.67 SD .64 .74 .68 .36 5.75 5.45 .78 .87 1.0816.98 n = 180, unless otherwise denoted. n = 60 for correlations involving this variable.

*p <.05, two-tailed. **p <.01, two-tailed. TABLE 2. Team-Level Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Initiating structure behaviors — Consideration behaviors .24 — Envisioning behaviors −.04.17 — Spanning behaviors .15 .13 −.13— Number of leaders .41 .42 .19 .24 — Number of behaviors .56 .50 .31 .36 .72 — Intragroup trust .18 .60 −.17.51 .30 .39 —

wg

†

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 11/21

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cohesion .02 .44 −.08.58 .20 .40 .67 — Socio-emotional conflict −.09−.28−.18−.10−.08−.13−.40 −.32 — Task conflict −.11−.23−.14.08 .08 −.13−.63 −.19 .63 — Satisfaction .05 .18 .00 −.02.04 .02 .52 .30 −.34−.48— Consensus .22 .21 .12 −.10.21 .29 .56 .36 −.19−.45.74 — M 1.13.56 .11 .27 1.762.0024.8232.232.023.655.5480.46 SD .89 1.561.21.91 .91 1.043.48 3.01 .54 .55 .58 9.56 n = 45, unless otherwise denoted. n = 15 for correlations involving this variable.

*p <.05, one-tailed. **p <.01, one-tailed. Results indicated that the level of within-team agreement for intragroup trust, cohesion, task conflict, and socio-emotional conflict was appropriate for aggregating to the team-level. Specifically, the mean r scores for intragroup trust, cohesion, task conflict, and socio-emotional conflict were.80,.85,.69, and.80, respectively.

The results also indicated that the raters were able to distinguish among the four types of leadership behaviors. Individual-level correlations among the leadership behaviors (Table 1) were not significant except for those between consideration and envisioning leadership, and consideration and initiating structure, r =.28 and.30, respectively. These results also provided some support for our contention that different individuals may be more inclined to engage in one type of leadership over another. In general, team members rated highly on one type of leadership were not rated highly on other types.

Furthermore, 79 of the 180 team members (43.9%) engaged in at least one type of leadership behavior. Of these 79 members, the average number of leadership types performed was 1.5. The majority of these 79 members (48, 60.8%) engaged in only one type of leadership, and only eight members (10.2%) engaged in three or four types. Additionally, there was a very strong positive team-level correlation, r =.72, between the number of leaders on a team and the number of leadership behaviors exhibited (Table 2). Taken together, these results provided support for Hypothesis 1. Team members tended to effectively perform only one type of leadership, and, in the majority of teams, multiple members had to engage in leadership in order for the team to experience multiple types of leadership behaviors.

Cluster Analysis Two clusters emerged from the cluster analysis using raw team-level scores on each of the four types of leadership behaviors as input. Specifically, examination of the dendrogram for the number of groupings at a low distance level and the agglomeration schedule for gaps between cluster joinings (see [ 2]; [71]) suggested a clear two-cluster solution. Further examination of these two clusters indicated a fairly straightforward pattern—one cluster contained teams that had high, positive scores on the four types of leadership behaviors and the second cluster contained teams that had low or negative scores on the four types. Cluster 1, comprising 60% (n = 27) of the sample, was characterized by positive, above average scores on each of the four types of leadership. These teams can be considered well-led teams. Cluster 2, comprising 40% (n = 18) of the sample, was characterized by either no leadership or clear self-serving behaviors. In other words, teams in this cluster either lacked leadership or experienced prevalent self-serving behaviors with respect to one or more types of leadership.

†

wg

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 12/21

Independent samples t-tests with cluster group as the between-subjects factor confirmed that the mean scores for the two clusters were significantly different with respect to all four leadership behaviors: initiating structure, consideration, envisioning, and spanning (see Table 3).[ 1]

TABLE 3. Final Cluster Means and Standard Deviations

Shared leadershipNo shared leadership Cluster 1 (n = 27) Cluster 2 (n = 18) M SD M SD t d

Initiating structure behaviors 1.37 0.88 0.78 0.812.280.70 Consideration behaviors 1.33 1.07 −0.611.465.151.52 Envisioning behaviors 0.59 1.15 −0.610.923.711.15 Spanning behaviors 0.56 0.93 −0.170.712.790.88 *p <.05, two-tailed. **p <.01, two-tailed. Tests of Hypotheses As mentioned earlier, the very definition of shared leadership is that multiple team members participate in the team's leadership. Because the cluster analysis was based on teams' aggregate scores on the four leadership behaviors, two one-tailed t-tests were conducted to investigate whether the clusters differed significantly with regard to the number of leaders that emerged and the number of leadership behaviors exhibited. The results (Table 4) confirmed that teams in Cluster 1 had significantly more members perform leadership behaviors and had significantly more types of leadership behaviors performed than did teams in Cluster 2. This finding provides additional support for Hypothesis 1, further suggesting that when multiple members participate in the team's leadership, the team is more likely to experience multiple types of leadership behaviors.

TABLE 4. Means and Standard Deviations Between Clusters on Leadership, Process, and Outcome Variables

Shared leadership

No shared leadership

Cluster 1 (n =  27)

Cluster 2 (n = 18)

M SD M SD t d Number of leaders 2.19 0.68 1.11 0.834.741.42 Number of leadership behaviors 2.63 0.69 1.06 0.737.362.21 Intragroup trust 26.22 3.20 23.213.281.790.93 Cohesion 33.59 3.60 30.680.852.081.11 Socio-emotional conflict 1.88 0.51 2.22 0.532.100.65 Task conflict 3.53 0.58 3.82 0.471.750.55 Satisfaction 5.63 0.56 5.40 0.59n.s. 0.40 Consensus 83.45 8.80 75.989.102.750.83 For intragroup trust and cohesion: cluster 1, n = 8;

cluster 2, n = 7. *p <.05, one-tailed. **p <.01, one-tailed. Support was also found for Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5. Teams in Cluster 1 experienced significantly less socio-emotional and task conflict, higher consensus, and greater intragroup trust and cohesion than did teams in Cluster 2 (see Table 4).

†

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 13/21

The difference between clusters with regard to satisfaction, although in the expected direction, was not significant; therefore, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.

Discussion In the present study, we sought to contribute to the shared leadership research by operationalizing shared leadership in terms of the number of members contributing behaviorally to the leadership of the team, and by examining the relationship between shared leadership and team processes and emergent states. The results strongly supported the contention that shared leadership is a significant predictor of team processes and intermediate outcomes ([ 4]; [59]). Teams that developed a pattern of leadership behavior that included numerous types of leadership and multiple leaders experienced significantly better intermediate team processes and emergent states than did teams that lacked leadership or developed a pattern of dysfunctional behavior. Specifically, teams with shared leadership reported less conflict, greater consensus, and higher intragroup trust and cohesion than teams that did not experience shared leadership.

Moreover, the results suggested that the likelihood of a team experiencing a full range of leadership behavior increases to the extent that multiple team members share leadership. First, the majority of team members effectively engaged in only one type of leadership. Second, teams with positive scores on all four types of leadership behavior had significantly more team members participate in the leadership of the team. On average, two team members in Cluster 1 engaged in leadership (50% of the team), compared with Cluster 2, in which only one team member typically engaged in leadership. Third, the number of leaders on a team was significantly, positively correlated with the number of leadership behaviors fulfilled. Thus, in order for a team to experience the multiple types of leadership necessary for positive team functioning, at least two team members may have to participate in the team's leadership. Otherwise, certain types of leadership may be absent, limiting the team's potential.

The results with respect to satisfaction, although in the expected direction, were not significant. This finding was surprising, given the significant differences between clusters with regard to consensus, and that ratings of satisfaction and consensus were highly correlated, r =.72, p <.01. One possible explanation for these findings is that the primary effect of shared leadership was to increase understanding of the team's decisions (i.e., consensus), even if members did not "like" the decisions (i.e., satisfaction). In other words, shared leadership may act to increase cognitive acceptance of decisions, with a lesser impact on affective acceptance.

Overall, our findings support previous research suggesting that shared leadership is related to positive team functioning (e.g., [ 3]; [23]; [60]). However, the current study went beyond previous research on shared leadership in several ways. First, problems associated with common method bias were minimized because actual leadership behavior was coded by independent observers, versus being assessed via peer reports (e.g., [ 3]; [23]; [59]). Observers independently coded leadership behaviors representing all four types with a high degree of reliability. Second, this method of data collection resulted in each individual team member being rated on each leadership dimension, providing 16 individual data points per team—four team members, each with four leadership scores. Previous studies (e.g., [23]; [59]) have assessed shared leadership by asking team members to rate the amount of various types of leadership behavior collectively exhibited by the team's members. In contrast, the data collected in the present study enabled us to directly examine the extent to which shared leadership may naturally occur among team members, and showed that multiple team members are likely needed for a team to experience multiple types of leadership behaviors. Third, the use of cluster analysis revealed

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 14/21

patterns of leadership behaviors that existed among team members and how these patterns influenced team processes and outcomes.

Limitations A few limitations of the present study should be noted. The present study involved short-term project teams working on a decision-making task. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the relevance of different types of leadership behaviors is contingent upon team type. Although the four types of leadership behaviors examined in the present study (initiating structure, consideration, envisioning, and spanning) are arguably applicable to all types of teams, this is not an exhaustive list of leadership behaviors, and we examined only one type of team. There are undoubtedly additional types of leader behaviors that are important for team effectiveness, and it is possible that different types of behaviors are more or less relevant to shared leadership depending on team type.

Our use of ad hoc groups working on a short-term task likely resulted in members having little time to bond and build trust, and the natural conflicts built into the task may have discouraged members from emerging as leaders to coordinate a decision. However, we believe that such a setting simply provided a conservative test of the extent to which members naturally share leadership and the relationship of such leadership with team functioning. Thus, our significant results likely speak to the importance of shared leadership within teams.

Our sample consisted of student participants working in a controlled environment. Although this was necessary in order to control for the team's task and to permit videotaping and behavioral coding of leadership, the sample may limit the generalizability of the results. Future research should continue to study the occurrence of shared leadership by examining organizational teams in field settings.

Additionally, subsequent replications with larger samples are encouraged to determine the robustness of the current findings. Particularly with respect to the results of the cluster analysis, findings should be cross-validated on another sample in order to ensure the stability and validity of the study's leadership profile.

Lastly, the cross-sectional design limits causal inferences. For example, with regard to shared leadership and intragroup trust, it is certainly possible that higher levels of trust among team members leads to greater shared leadership. That is, as team members grow to trust one another, they then feel more comfortable participating in the leadership of the team. Perhaps most likely is that this relationship is a cyclical one. However, given the literature and research on shared leadership, we did hypothesize specific causal directions, and our methodology fit these hypotheses (i.e., leadership behaviors were rated throughout the course of the team's discussion, while other variables were assessed at the end of the session). Future research should utilize longitudinal designs in order to directly test these causal relationships.

Implications and Future Research The present findings may directly influence the content and types of training and development that are recommended for work teams and, in particular, the increasingly popular self-managed work teams. If indeed team effectiveness results from shared leadership, then team members must be made aware of their individual accountability for the leadership and followership in their respective teams. Shared leadership may be unlikely to occur if members hold "traditional" expectations of team leadership, that is, if members expect one person to take full responsibility for the team's fate ([ 9]). Also, the significant relationships between shared leadership in teams and team cohesion and intragroup trust may have

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 15/21

meaningful implications for the enhancement of team viability. That is, perhaps by training teams to share in their leadership responsibilities, practitioners may actually improve the long-term interactions among team members. Of course, as mentioned above, the type of work team and the nature of the task at hand may influence the importance of different types of leader behavior, and past research has found that team type can impact certain outcomes (e.g., [ 1]). Thus, these variables should be examined in future research, along with other types of leadership behaviors.

Perhaps most importantly, now that more empirical studies of shared leadership have been conducted (e.g., [23]; [48]; [60]; [59]; [70]), showing its importance to team processes and outcomes, research needs to be conducted on the process by which shared leadership occurs. For example, in some teams, multiple leaders appear to harmoniously emerge, while other teams have several members fight to control power. It is possible that shared leadership emerges in teams in a manner similar to the trust- building process ([45]; [80]). Emergent leadership behaviors are risky, in that one's influence attempt can be rejected by the team. Perhaps as one team member takes this risk and is accepted by the team, other members, learning through observation, then feel comfortable making influence attempts, and the team experiences a positive spiral resulting in shared leadership. Alternatively, one team member may attempt to influence the team and have that attempt rejected. Not only is that team member now less likely to make another attempt, but other members may also be less likely to risk rejection, and a dominant, controlling member is provided the opportunity to step forward unopposed.

This also leads to questions regarding possible antecedents of shared leadership. There has been much speculation but little empirical research on the precursors to shared leadership. [12] examined internal team environment and external team coaching, while others have suggested factors such as task complexity and team size ([14]), team maturity and demographic diversity ([57]), and team member desire to lead and leadership self-efficacy ([31]). Clearly more research is needed in this area. If shared leadership is an important component of team effectiveness, and it certainly appears to be, then the next step is to understand how and why it occurs so we can facilitate the process. Research in the broader areas of team leadership and leadership emergence may provide some guidance. For example, recent work on the Big Five personality traits and an individual's attachment style point to possible factors in being seen by others as a leader ([ 6]; [30]).

Lastly, future research should continue to examine shared leadership beyond its influence on traditional conceptualizations of performance and satisfaction. For example, shared leadership has been proposed as a deterrent to executive corruption ([57]), and as a way to improve teamwork among corporate boards ([13]).

Conclusion Effective leadership is critical to a team's success, and the complexity of a team setting may require a more complex leadership dynamic. Such close coordination of numerous and often vastly different individuals requires a wide variety of leadership behavior in order to handle the team processes and contexts that lead to high performance. Thus, in nearly all team settings, with or without external leadership, the team itself is an important source of leadership that cannot be overlooked. It seems increasingly clear that the conceptualization of leadership must expand from that involving only a single, vertical leader to one involving both formal, hierarchical leadership and leadership shared among team members.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 16/21

This study adds to the small, yet growing, empirical research on shared leadership in teams, helps to answer the calls for more research that conceptualizes leadership as a team-level phenomenon, and provides evidence that shared leadership affects important team processes and emergent states. Shared leadership among team members can increase team effectiveness, and teams that overlook this potent source of leadership are likely left at a disadvantage.

Notes Footnotes 1 1. With the exception of the leadership behavior of spanning, none of the skewness and kurtosis statistics for the study's variables indicated a departure from normality ([75]). Regarding spanning behavior, the kurtosis statistic suggested a leptokurtic distribution. In light of this, we re-tested the relevant hypothesis using a Mann Whitney U test, and replicated the results of the independent samples t-test reported in Table 4. Given that: a) only one variable was found to violate the normality assumptions, b) the analogous non-parametric test yielded the same result as the parametric test, and c) most parametric approaches for inferences about means are quite robust ([64]), the results of the independent samples t-tests were reported for all variables.

REFERENCES Abbott, J. B., Boyd, N. G. and Miles, G.2006. Does type of team matter? An investigation of the relationships between job characteristics and outcomes within a team-based environment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146: 485–507.

2 Aldenderfer, M. E. and Blashfield, R. K.1984. Cluster analysis, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

3 Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W. and Sivasubramaniam, N.1996. Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 3: 173–209.

4 Barry, D.1991. Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20: 31–47.

5 Bass, B. M.1990. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership, New York, NY: Free Press.

6 Berson, Y., Dan, O. and Yammarino, F. J.2006. Attachment style and individual differences in leadership perceptions and emergence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146: 165–182.

7 Bourgeois, L. J.III. 1980. Performance and consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 1: 227–248.

8 Bowers, D. G. and Seashore, S. E.1966. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11: 238–263.

9 Bradford, D. L. and Cohen, A. R.1984. Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high performance organizations, New York, NY: John Wiley.

Brown, M. E. and Gioia, D. A.2002. Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 397–419.

Cardy, R. L. and Dobbins, G. H.1994. Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives, Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 17/21

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E. and Marrone, J. A.2007. Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1217–1234.

Conger, J. A. and Lawler, E. E.III.2009. Sharing leadership on corporate boards: A critical requirement for teamwork at the top. Organizational Dynamics, 38: 183–191.

Conger, J. A. and Pearce, C. L.2003. "A landscape of opportunities: Future research on shared leadership". In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Edited by: Pearce, C. L. and Conger, J. A.285–303. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P. and Salas, E.2004. Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 857–880.

De Dreu, C. K. W. and Van Vianen, A. E.2001. Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 309–328.

De Dreu, C. K. W. and Weingart, L. R.2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 741–749.

Dess, G. G.1987. Consensus on strategy formulation and organizational performance: Competitors in a fragmented industry. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 259–277.

Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L.2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611–628.

Doucet, O., Poitras, J. and Chenevert, D.2009. The impacts of leadership on workplace conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20: 340–354.

Druskat, V. U. and Pescosolido, A. T.2006. "The impact of emergent leader's emotionally competent behavior on team trust, communication, engagement, and effectiveness". In Individual and organizational perspectives on emotion management and display: Research on emotion in organizations, Edited by: Zerbe, W. J., Ashkanasy, N. and Hartel, C.Vol. 2, 25–55. New York, NY: JAI Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and Bourgeois, L. J.1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 737–770.

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M. and Pearce, C. L.2006. The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 217–231.

Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. and Pearce, C. L.2003. Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13: 329–346.

Everitt, B. S.1993. Cluster Analysis, London, UK: Arnold.

Fletcher, J. K. and Kaufer, K.2003. "Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility". In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Edited by: Pearce, C. L. and Conger, J. A.21–47. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 18/21

Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A. and Mumford, M. D.2009. A framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 20: 933–958.

Greenhalgh, L.1984. Strategic marketing decisions at Porsche of America: The Carrera task-force simulation, Hanover, NH: Unpublished manuscript, Dartmouth College.

Gronn, P.2002. Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 423–451.

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Thomas, C. H. and Feild, H. S.2008. Observed leadership potential of personnel in a team setting: Big five traits and proximal factors as predictors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16: 385–402.

Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P. and Manz, C. C.2003. "Self-leadership and superleadership: The heart and art of creating shared leadership in teams". In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Edited by: Pearce, C. L. and Conger, J. A.123–140. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Humphrey, R. H.2002. The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 493–504.

Jaffee, C. L. and Lucas, R. L.1969. Effects of rates of talking and correctness of decisions on leader choice in small groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 79: 247–254.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. and Wolf, G.1984. rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85–98.

Jehn, K. A.1994. Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value- based intragroup conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5: 223–238.

Jehn, K. A.1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282.

Jones, G. R. and George, J. M.1998. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23: 531–546.

Judge, T. A. and Ferris, G. R.1993. Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1): 80–105.

Katzenbach, J. R.1997. The myth of the top management team. Harvard Business Review, 75(6): 83– 91.

Kotlyar, I. and Karakowsky, L.2006. Leading conflict? Linkages between leader behaviors and group conflict. Small Group Research, 37: 377–403.

Kotlyar, I. and Karakowsky, L.2007. Falling over ourselves to follow the leader: Conceptualizing connections between transformational leader behaviors and dysfunctional team conflict. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1): 38–49.

Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G.1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33: 159–174.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 19/21

Larson, J. R., Christensen, C., Abbott, A. S. and Franz, T. M.1996. Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 315–330.

Locke, E. A.2003. "Leadership: Starting at the top". In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Edited by: Pearce, C. L. and Conger, J. A.193–214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayer, R. C. and Davis, J. H.1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123–136.

Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R. and Pastor, J.2003. "Shared leadership in work teams: A social network approach". In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Edited by: Pearce, C. L. and Conger, J. A.193–214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McGrath, J. E.1984. Groups: Interaction and performance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L. and Robertson, B.2006. Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 232–245.

Milligan, G. W.1981. A review of Monte Carlo tests of cluster analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16: 379–407.

Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J. and Amason, A. C.2007. Don't take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 733–758.

Murphy, K. R. and Cleveland, J. N.1995. Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H.1994. Psychometric theory, 3rd, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

O'Toole, J., Galbraith, J. and Lawler, E. E.III. 2002. When two (or more) heads are better than one: The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership. California Management Review, 44(4): 65–83.

Pearce, C. L.2004. The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 47–57.

Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A. and Locke, E. A.2008. Shared leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 622–628.

Pearce, C. L. and Manz, C. C.2005. The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2): 130–140.

Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C. and Sims, H. P.Jr.2008. The roles of vertical and shared leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 19: 353–359.

Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C. and Sims, H. P.Jr.2009. Where do we go from here?: Is shared leadership the key to team success?. Organizational Dynamics, 38: 234–238.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 20/21

Pearce, C. L. and Sims, H. P.Jr.2002. 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): 172–197.

Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M.2004. "Leadership, social work, and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical versus shared leadership in the nonprofit sector". In Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations, Edited by: Riggio, R. E. and Orr, S. S.180–203. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L. and Sims, H. P.Jr.1999. Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3): 35– 51.

Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B.1994. An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 702–713.

Priem, R. L., Harrison, D. A. and Muir, N. K.1995. Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in group decision making. Journal of Management, 21: 691–710.

Rasch, D. and Guiard, V.2004. The robustness of parametric statistical methods. Psychology Science, 46: 175–208.

Riggio, R. E., Riggio, H. R., Salinas, C. and Cole, E. J.2003. The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7: 83–103.

Scarpello, V. and Campbell, J. P.1983. Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there?. Personnel Psychology, 36: 577–600.

Simons, T. L. and Peterson, R. S.2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1): 102–111.

Sinclair, A.1992. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies, 13: 611–626.

Small, E. E. and Rentsch, J. R.2010. Shared leadership in teams: A matter of distribution. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9: 203–211.

Solansky, S. T.2008. Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14: 332–341.

SPSS, Inc. 2008. SPSS statistics base 16.0 user's guide, Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

Stewart, G. L. and Manz, C. C.1995. Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48: 747–770.

Stogdill, R. M. and Coons, A. E.1957. Leader behavior: Its description and measurement, Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

8/26/2020 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=983e93c8-f5a8-4af3-869b-e4238fd353d0%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 21/21

Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P. and Futrell, D.1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45: 120–133.

Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, S. F.2007. Using Mulivariate Statistics, 5th, Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

West, C. T.Jr. and Schwenk, C. R.1996. Top management team strategic consensus, demographic homogeneity and firm performance: A report of resounding nonfindings. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 571–576.

Yukl, G.2010. Leadership in organizations, 7th, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J.1991. Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 131: 387–399.

Zaccaro, S. J. and Marks, M. A.1999. "The roles of leaders in high-performance teams". In Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance, Edited by: Sundstrom, E. and Associates, DD. 95–125. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Zand, D. E.1972. Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 229–223.

~~~~~~~~ By JacquelineZ. Bergman; JoanR. Rentsch; ErikaE. Small; ShaunW. Davenport and ShawnM. Bergman

Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author

Jacqueline Z. Bergman is an Assistant Professor of management at Appalachian State University, and received her PhD in industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Joan R. Rentsch earned her PhD in industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Maryland and is currently a Professor of communication studies at the University of Tennessee conducting research on psychological processes in organizations and in decision-making teams.

Erika E. Small received her PhD in industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and is currently an Assistant Professor of management at Coastal Carolina University.

Shaun W. Davenport received his PhD in industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Tennessee in 2009 and is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Entrepreneurship at High Point University.

Shawn M. Bergman is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Appalachian State University, and earned his PhD in industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Copyright of Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.