Madam-Professor (Only) Comp & Cont

franc.moytwovo

SharedLeadershipMixedMethods.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Madam-Professor (Only) Comp & Cont

SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENTS:

TESTING A MODEL FOR MILITARY TEAMS USING MIXED METHODS

RESEARCH

Alex J. Ramthun

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Human Sciences

(Leadership Studies)

Under the Supervision of Professor Gina S. Matkin

Lincoln, Nebraska

May, 2013

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3558754

Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3558754

SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENTS:

TESTING A MODEL FOR MILITARY TEAMS USING MIXED METHODS

RESEARCH

Alex J. Ramthun, Ph.D.

University of Nebraska, 2013

Adviser: Gina S. Matkin The three articles in this dissertation investigate shared leadership in dangerous

environments. Specifically, the research explores the relationship between shared

leadership in military teams and performance in dangerous contexts using an explanatory

sequential mixed methods research design.

In a field study, the dissertation examined the influence of shared leadership on

team performance for 51 military combat teams in a simulated dangerous environment.

To simulate the dangerous context, the study employed amilitary tactical urban fighting

complex, paintball weapons, role players, and a dynamic combat scenario. Using social

network analysis techniques and after controlling for team diversity and combat

experience, the study found the density measure of shared leadership to be positively and

significantly related to team performance, accounting for 40% of the variance in team

performance. This research also found both the centralization measure and

density/centralization interaction effect to be insignificantly related to team performance.

A stepwise multiple regression analysis found the density measure of shared leadership

and the control variable of team combat experience as the best predictors of team

performance, accounting for 49% of the variance in team performance.

The study also collected qualitative data during and following the field study.

Analyzing written observations and definitions of leadership from the 208 participants

during the field study, the results found the project’s measure of shared leadership

appropriately reflected the perceived leadership of the participants. Additionally, post-

study interviews of four shared leadership scholars and four dangerous environment

practitioners found the quantitative results appropriately reflected the phenomenon of

shared leadership in teams under extreme situations.

The results suggest a promising future for shared leadership in teams operating in

dangerous or extreme contexts. The study found military teams relying on multiple

individuals for influence in a combat scenario performed at higher levels than those

functioning under a vertical model. These results do not imply an end of vertical

leadership in dangerous or conventional contexts. Rather, the findings suggest shared

leadership may be as viable of a leadership framework as traditional models of downward

influence during extreme situations.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I .........................................................................................................................1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................2 Research Problem .............................................................................................................2 Research Questions .........................................................................................................4

Quantitative ..............................................................................................................4 Qualitative ................................................................................................................4

Mixed .......................................................................................................................4 Purpose ............................................................................................................................5 Significance ......................................................................................................................6 Philosophical Foundations ..............................................................................................6 References ........................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER II: Highway to the Danger Zone: Investigating Measurements and Boundary Conditions for Shared Leadership in Teams Operating in Dangerous Environments ......11

Abstract of Article ..........................................................................................................12 Introduction ....................................................................................................................13 Literature Review ...........................................................................................................17

Shared Leadership ..................................................................................................17 Social Network Analysis .......................................................................................18 Dangerous Environmental Context ........................................................................20 Social Power ..........................................................................................................22

Conceptual Model and Propositions ..............................................................................24 Shared Leadership, Team Performance, and SNA ................................................24 Dangerous Environments as a Moderator ..............................................................26 Social Power Distribution as a Moderator .............................................................28

Discussion .....................................................................................................................30 Theoretical and Practical Implications ..................................................................30 Limitations ............................................................................................................31 Recommendations ..................................................................................................33

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................35 References ......................................................................................................................36

CHAPTER III: Living Dangerously: Shared Leadership and Performance for Teams in Dangerous Environments ..................................................................................................49

Abstract of Article ..........................................................................................................50 Introduction ....................................................................................................................51 Literature Review ...........................................................................................................54

Shared Leadership ..................................................................................................54 Social Network Analysis........................................................................................55 Dangerous Environmental Context ........................................................................57

iii

Hypotheses ....................................................................................................................59 Method ...........................................................................................................................63

Participants .............................................................................................................63 Procedure ...............................................................................................................64 Measures ...............................................................................................................67

Shared Leadership ......................................................................................67 Team Performance ....................................................................................68 Control Variables ......................................................................................69

Qualitative Data Collection for Construct Validity ..............................................70 Analysis and Results .....................................................................................................71

Quantitative ............................................................................................................71 Qualitative ..............................................................................................................75

Primary Themes .........................................................................................75 Process ...........................................................................................75 Influence ........................................................................................76 Common Goals ..............................................................................78

Supporting Themes ....................................................................................78 Situational awareness ....................................................................78 Follower awareness ........................................................................79

Discussion .....................................................................................................................80 Implications............................................................................................................82 Limitations and Recommendations........................................................................84

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................86 References ......................................................................................................................88 Appendix A: Quantitative Survey and Qualitative Response Questions ......................96 Appendix B: Team Performance Scale .......................................................................103

CHAPTER IV: Dangerous Dynamism: A Case Study of Experts' Perspectives on Shared Leadership in Dangerous Environments ..........................................................................113

Abstract of Article ........................................................................................................114 Introduction ..................................................................................................................115 Research Question .......................................................................................................116 Method .........................................................................................................................116

Qualitative Approach Rationale ..........................................................................116 Tradition of Inquiry..............................................................................................117 Sample .................................................................................................................118 Data Collection Strategy ......................................................................................120

Analysis .......................................................................................................................121 Organization and Exploration ..............................................................................121 Codes and Themes ..............................................................................................121 Verification Procedures ......................................................................................122

Results .........................................................................................................................123 Participant Information .......................................................................................123

Participant 1 .............................................................................................123 Participant 2 .............................................................................................124 Participant 3 .............................................................................................124 Participant 4 .............................................................................................124 Participant 5 .............................................................................................125 Participant 6 .............................................................................................125 Participant 7 .............................................................................................125 Participant 8 .............................................................................................126

Primary Themes ..................................................................................................126 Mutual Influence ......................................................................................126 Leadership Emergence .............................................................................128

Secondary Themes ..............................................................................................129 Dangerous Dynamism .............................................................................129 Distrusted Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities ...........................................132

Discussion ...................................................................................................................133 Implications..........................................................................................................134 Limitations and Recommendations......................................................................135

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................135 References ....................................................................................................................136 Appendix: Interview Protocol and Questions .............................................................138

CHAPTER V ...................................................................................................................142

Introduction ..................................................................................................................143 Mixed Methods ............................................................................................................143 Chapter Findings, Implications, and Summaries .........................................................146 Limitations and Recommendations ..............................................................................149 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................151 References ....................................................................................................................152

APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................155

Appendix A: Phase I Approved IRB Informed Consent Form / Letter .......................156 Appendix B: Phase II Approved IRB Informed Consent Form / Letter .....................157

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES......................................................................................

Chapter II ........................................................................................................................... Figure 1: Visual depiction of the propositions forming a conceptual model of shared leadership in dangerous environments .......................................................46 Figure 2: Example Network Sociograms ...............................................................47 Table 1: Centralized Network Table Examples .....................................................48

Chapter III .......................................................................................................................... Figure 1: Example Network Sociograms .............................................................105

Table 1: Centralized Network Table Examples ..................................................106 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations .................................................107 Table 3: Summary of Regression Analysis for Hypothesis 1 .............................108 Table 4: Summary of Regression Analysis for Hypothesis 2 .............................109 Table 5: Summary of Regression Analysis for Hypothesis 3 .............................110 Table 6: Summary of the Stepwise Regression Analysis ...................................111 Table 7: Codes and Themes ................................................................................112

Chapter IV .......................................................................................................................... Table 1: Codes and Themes ................................................................................141

Chapter V ........................................................................................................................... Figure 1: Mixed Methods Design .......................................................................154

CHAPTER I:

Shared Leadership in Dangerous Environments: Testing a Model for Military Teams

Using Mixed Methods Research

Shared Leadership in Dangerous Environments: Testing a Model for Military Teams

Using Mixed Methods Research

Modern organizations continue to face an increasing number of challenges to

success: uncertainty (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2003), dynamic change (Henderson &

Stern, 2004), globalization (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), complex work tasks

(Gronn, 2000, 2002), and dangerous operating environments (Hannah, Campbell, &

Matthews, 2010). To overcome these challenges, organizations have begun to restructure

workforces from rigid hierarchies of individuals to high performing teams (Day, Gronn,

& Salas, 2004, 2006; Manz & Sims, 1993). These teams, rather than using hierarchical

leadership to solely direct work efforts and meet objectives (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003),

rely on multiple team members with diverse knowledge and experience(Pearce, 2004) to

influence others through the decentralization and distribution of leadership (Carson,

Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Pearce & Sims, 2002). This team—multidirectional—

influence approach is called shared leadership: a dynamic, interactive influence process

among individuals in groups where team members lead one another to achieve

organizational objectives (Pearce & Conger, 2003).

Research Problem

Shared leadership represents a relatively new concept in the field of management.

The theory has seen increasing legitimization and confirmation over the past decade

(Pearce, Hoch, Jeppesen, & Wegge, 2010). Seminal studies have found teams sharing

leadership predict higher levels of performance when compared to teams employing

vertical leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2002). Current shared leadership research has

focused on answering two important questions: who shares leadership and how do teams

share leadership (Manz, Manz, Adams, & Shipper, 2010; Muethel & Hoegl, 2010; Small

& Rentsch, 2010; Weibler & Rohn-Endres, 2010)? As with the development of

leadership theories in the field of management, the maturation of shared leadership

requires investigations of mediating and moderating models to further contribute to the

study and practice of leadership (Hunt, 1999; Reichers&Schneider, 1990). These types

of investigations enable researchers to move the focus away from addressing who and

how to answering: where and when to share leadership (Pearce, 2004)?

With many unexplored boundary conditions and the circumstances under which

the predictions of the theory hold (Dubin, 1976), management scholars have an

opportunity to answer the calls of multiple researchers to investigate hybrid forms of

group leadership models in varying contexts (Day et al., 2004, 2006; Pearce & Conger,

2003; Pearce et al., 2010). As the current body of shared leadership studies has focused

on conventional contexts (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004; Small &

Rentsch, 2010), little research has examined shared influence within extreme or

dangerous environmental context, where teams face highly dynamic and unpredictable

environments with the outcomes of leadership possibly resulting in severe physical or

psychological injury (Campbell, Hannah, &Matthews, 2010). Organizations—such as

military (special forces, aircrew, embedded training teams, provincial reconstruction

teams, etc.), emergency services (firefighting, search and rescue, emergency medical

teams, disaster response teams, etc.), law enforcement (task forces, special weapons and

tactics teams, hostage rescue teams, etc.), intelligence services, and aircrew (airlines,

cargo, corporate, private, rescue, military, etc.)—employ teams in dangerous

environments (Campbell et al., 2010). However, the relationship between the presence of

increasing levels of danger, shared leadership, and team performance remains unclear.

These unresolved boundary conditions of extreme context—asking where and

when—represent theoretical gaps in new phases of dangerous contextual, team, and

shared leadership research. They also represent areas to make strong theoretical,

empirical, and practical contributions to the field of leadership. As organizations

continue to employ high-performing teams to achieve critical objectives in dangerous

contexts and as shared leadership organizational practices increase in popularity, the need

to form a model, conduct empirical research, and deliver practical guidance concerning

the possible application of shared leadership in dangerous environments has become

increasingly important.

Research Questions

Quantitative

What is the relationship between shared leadership and team performance for

military teams operating in dangerous environments?

What model of leadership best predicts higher team performance for military

teams operating in dangerous environments?

Qualitative

How do individuals in military teams operating in dangerous environments

describe their definitions and observations of leadership?

How do subject matter experts describe and explain shared leadership in

dangerous environments for military combat teams?

Mixed

How do subject matter experts on shared leadership and military teams operating

in dangerous environments explain and support the predictive results?

Purpose

This study shall address shared leadership in dangerous environments for military

teams. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design shall be used, involving the

collection of qualitative data after a quantitative phase in order to explain and follow up

on the quantitative data in more depth. In the first, quantitative phase of the study,

leadership and team performance data shall be collected from military participants

executing combat-like scenarios at an urban combat training center near Camp Ashland,

Nebraska. This phase shall test a model of shared leadership in dangerous environments,

demonstrating how shared leadership and social power distribution relate to team

performance. The second, qualitative phase shall be conducted in order to explain

quantitative results. In this exploratory follow-up, shared leadership in dangerous

environments shall be tentatively explored with experts in the fields of shared leadership

and military combat in to provide rich description and explain the initial quantitative

results.

To meet these objectives, this dissertation takes the structure of three distinct

journal articles. The first article reviews the theoretical foundations—shared leadership,

dangerous environments, and social power—in order to develop and present a conceptual

model and propositions for the boundary conditions of shared leadership. This article

acts as a literature review for this dissertation. The second article presents an empirical

field study, quantitatively investigating the relationships between shared leadership and

team performance. The final article is a qualitative study explaining the quantitative

results in order to provide rich description of the empirical findings. The three-article

approach enables the doctoral candidate to effectively capture and publish the primary

elements and findings of the project.

Significance

As organizations continue to employ high-performing teams to achieve critical

objectives in dangerous contexts and as shared leadership organizational practices

increase in popularity, the need to conduct empirical research and deliver practical

guidance concerning the possible application of shared leadership in dangerous

environments has become increasingly important. The results from this empirical study

may possess the potential to fill the critical theoretical gap in research and provide

organizations with future guidance to form, train, and utilize teams employing shared

leadership in dangerous situations to achieve objectives. In these theoretical and practical

contexts, this research may significantly add to the field of study.

Philosophical Foundations

Research questions guide investigations and are focused on the unknown elements

of a phenomenon of interest (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The qualitative and

quantitative research questions for this study present opposing worldviews. The

qualitative research questions describe a constructivist paradigm seeking inductive,

biased description and understanding from the participants (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011). In contrast, the quantitative research questions present a post-positivism

worldview pursuing deductive, biased, empirical evaluation and measurement of a given

phenomenon (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).In order to answer the conflicting

paradigmatic research questions in this study, the researcher embraces a pragmatic

worldview, focusing on the consequences of research and the importance of the research

questions rather than specific methodology (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The

pragmatic paradigm enables the researcher to accept multiple realities and practically

combine and apply multiple approaches in order to achieve “what works” to solve the

research problem (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p. 7). The pragmatic worldview drives

the research to employ a mixed methods approach to answer all of the research questions

and to solve the research problem.

REFERENCES Campbell, D., Hannah, S., & Matthews, M. (2010). Leadership in military and other

dangerous contexts: Introduction to the special topic issue. Military Psychology, 22(Suppl. 1), S1-S14.

Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation

of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.

Creswell, J.,& Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership

Quarterly, 15(6), 857-880. Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the

threshold of a new era. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 211-216. Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 17-39). Chicago: Rand McNally. Gronn, S. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational

Management and Administration, 28, 317-338. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13,

423-451. Hannah, S., Campbell, D., & Matthews, M. (2010). Advancing a research agenda for

leadership in dangerous contexts. Military Psychology, 22(Suppl. 1), S157-S189. Henderson, A., & Stern, I. (2004). Selection-based learning: The coevolution of internal

and external selection in high velocity environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 39-75.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede., G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Culture and organizations: Software

of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hunt, J. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's transformation of the field: An

historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144. Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.

Borman, D. Ilgen,& R. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). New York: John Wiley.

Manz, C., Manz, K. Adams, S. & Shipper, F. (2010) A model of values-based shared leadership and sustainable performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 212-217.

Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are

building high-performing companies. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2010). Cultural and societal influences on shared leadership

in globally dispersed teams. Journal of International Management, 16(3), 234- 246.

Pearce, C. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to

transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57. Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys

of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearce, C., Hoch, J., Jeppesen, H., & Wegge, J. (2010). New forms of management:

Shared and distributed leadership in organizations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 151-153.

Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (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., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work, and virtual teams: The

relative influence of vertical versus shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In R. Riggio & S. Smith Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 160-203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reichers, A., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In

D. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seeger, M., Sellnow, T., & Ulmer, R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis.

Westport, CT: Praeger. Small, E., & Rentsch, J. (2010). Shared leadership in teams: A matter of distribution.

Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 203-211. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009).Foundations of mixed methods research:

Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weibler, J., & Rohn-Endres, S. (2010). Learning Conversation and Shared Network Leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 181-194.

CHAPTER II:

Article 1

Highway to the Danger Zone:

Investigating Measurements and Boundary Conditions for Shared Leadership

in Teams Operating in Dangerous Environments

A. J. Ramthun, L. J. McElravy, and Gina S. Matkin

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication

Manuscript submitted to the

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies

Abstract

The authors conceptually investigate the measurements and boundary conditions for

shared leadership in teams. They propose the use of social network analysis (SNA)

research designs, through the measure of both density and distribution of leadership, as a

comprehensive measure of shared leadership. Additionally, this article presents a

conceptual model of shared leadership and team performance, integrating dangerous

context and social power distribution in teams as moderating variables. The model and

propositions extend prior scholarly efforts and bridge theoretical gaps by integrating

ideas and research approaches from the fields of management, leadership, psychology,

and sociology. Limits and recommendations are discussed.

Keywords: shared leadership, social network analysis, dangerous environments,

social power, teams

Highway to the Danger Zone:

Investigating Measurements and Boundary Conditions for Shared Leadership

in Teams Operating in Dangerous Environments

Contemporary organizations face an increasing number of challenges to

performance: cultural difference (Harms, Han, & Chen, 2012; Matkin & Barbuto, 2012;

Ramthun & Matkin, 2012), globalization (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Muczyk

& Holt, 2008; Story & Barbuto, 2011), dynamically changing work environments (Dool,

2010; Gundersen, Hellesøy, & Raeder, 2012; Henderson & Stern, 2004), complexity

(Gronn, 2000, 2002; Manz, Pearce, & Sims, 2009; Sweetman, 2010; Uhl-Bien &

Marion, 2008; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvery, 2007), unethical employee conduct

(DeCelles & Pfarrer, 2004; Johnson, 2008; Pearce, Manz, & Sims, 2008), and dangerous

operating environments (Hannah, Campbell, & Matthews, 2010; Hannah, Uhl-Bien,

Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009). To prevail while negotiating these obstacles, organizations

have begun to transform from primarily top-down or centralized command and control

structures of individuals (Dunphy, 2000; Pearce, Manz, & Sims, 2009) into self-managed

teams (Manz & Sims, 1987, 1993, 2001; Millikin, Horn, & Manz, 2010; Solansky, 2008).

These teams, rather than using rigid hierarchies of leadership to solely direct work efforts

and meet objectives (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), rely on one another, as team members, to

exhibit leadership when appropriate based on their knowledge, skills, abilities,

experience, and the situation (Pearce, 2004; Pearce et al., 2009). By broadly sharing

power and influence with team members—rather than centralizing leadership around a

single, hierarchical leader—teams may achieve a variety of positive outcomes (Bergman,

Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012; Khasawneh, 2011; Pearce, 1997; Shamir

& Lapidot, 2003) and greater performance (Avolio, Jung, Murry, & Sivasubramaniam,

1996; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Pearce & Sims, 2002). This team—

multidirectional—influence approach is called shared leadership: a dynamic, interactive,

social influence process among individuals in teams where members lead one another to

achieve common objectives (Pearce & Conger, 2003).

Shared leadership represents a relatively new concept in the field of management.

The theory has seen increasing legitimization and confirmation in management literature

(Pearce, Hoch, Jeppesen, & Wegge, 2010). As with the development of leadership

theories in the field of management, the maturation of shared leadership requires new

investigations of more accurate measures of the phenomena (Conger & Pearce, 2003),

boundary conditions (Antonakis et al., 2004), and moderating models (Reichers &

Schneider, 1990) to further contribute to the study and practice of leadership (Hunt,

1999). At its present stage of development, the concept lacks a reliable measure with

wide acceptance in the field (Gockel & Werth, 2010; Conger & Pearce, 2003).

Additionally, shared leadership has many unexplored boundary conditions, the

circumstances under which the predictions of the theory hold (Dubin, 1976). These areas

of shared leadership theory and research require further attention from scholars to

broaden our present understanding of the phenomena (Conger & Pearce, 2003).

Gockel and Werth (2010) and Conger and Pearce (2003) have called on scholars

to address the issue of accurately measuring shared leadership. A majority of quantitative

shared leadership research has employed varying types of conventional survey scales

aggregating group members’ assessments concerning the amount of shared influence and

specific influence tactics in teams as a whole (Gockel & Werth, 2010), such as the shared

leadership questionnaire (Pearce & Sims, 2002). However, it remains unclear how each

member contributes to the leadership of the team or how the distribution of leadership is

actually assessed using these methods (Gockel & Werth, 2010). One approach to provide

greater clarity to overcome these scaling limitations may be the use of social network

analysis (SNA). Though some researchers have scaled shared leadership using SNA

approaches (Carson et al., 2007; Small & Rentsch, 2010), they have failed to measure

both the strength of team leadership—density—and the distribution of leadership—

centralization—which are both required for accurately measuring shared leadership

(Mayo, Meindl, & Pastor, 2003).

Management scholars also have opportunities to advance the field’s

comprehension of shared leadership’s boundary conditions by answering the calls of

multiple researchers to investigate hybrid forms of group/team leadership models in

varying contexts (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004, 2006; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce et

al., 2010). As the current body of shared leadership studies has focused on conventional

contexts (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004; Small & Rentsch, 2010), little

research has examined shared influence within extreme or dangerous environments

(Mills, 2011), where teams routinely face highly dynamic and unpredictable

environments with the outcomes of leadership possibly resulting in severe physical or

psychological injury (Campbell, Hannah, & Matthews, 2010; Sweeney, Matthews, &

Lester, 2011). Organizations, such as military (special forces, aircrew, embedded

training teams, provincial reconstruction teams, etc.), emergency services (firefighting,

search and rescue, emergency medical teams, disaster response teams, etc.), law

enforcement (task forces, special weapons and tactics teams, hostage rescue teams, etc.),

intelligence services (direct action teams, etc.), and aviation (airlines, cargo, corporate,

private, rescue, military, etc.) regularly employ teams in dangerous environments (Boe,

Woolley, & Durkin, 2011; Campbell et al., 2010; Kolditz, 2007). However, the

relationship between the presence of increasing levels of danger, shared leadership, and

team performance remains unclear. Additionally, other possible moderating variables,

such as the distribution of social power (Conger & Pearce, 2003; French & Raven, 1959;

Raven, 1993) in teams, may also strengthen or weaken the relationship between shared

influence and performance. Similar to extreme contexts, scholars have failed to examine

social power distribution in teams for its relationship to shared leadership and

performance. These unresolved measurement issues and boundary conditions represent

gaps in present phases of extreme contextual, team, and shared leadership theoretical

development and empirical research.

This present conceptual investigation of shared leadership has three primary

purposes. First, advance the field’s theoretical understanding of shared leadership by

proposing the use of SNA (density and centralization) to measure shared influence.

Second, advance the field’s theoretical comprehension of the factors bounding and

moderating shared leadership. Finally, this article uses its important theoretical

contribution to stimulate new empirical studies providing researchers and organizations

with a model to better understand the factors surrounding the employment of shared

leadership in teams. To meet these scholarly objectives, this conceptual investigation

first reviews the theoretical foundations of shared leadership, SNA, dangerous

environments, and social power. Second, the authors develop a conceptual model and

propositions for the use of SNA to measure shared influence and identifying the

relationships between boundary conditions and moderators of shared leadership and team

performance. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and

practical implications, limitations, and recommendations for future directions of research.

Literature Review

Shared Leadership

Pearce and Conger (2003) have defined shared leadership as a “dynamic,

interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to

lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (p. 1).

Management researchers view shared leadership as an emergent team property (Pearce &

Sims, 2002), resulting from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team

members (Carson et al., 2007). Unlike traditional models of vertical leadership—the

process of centralizing power and influence through a hierarchical leader (Pearce et al.,

2009)—shared leadership uses the decentralization and sharing of power and influence

among team members to achieve effectiveness (Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2008). In

teams characterized by vertical leadership, the organization’s structure may represent the

primary contributing factor to the influence process (Conger & Kanungo, 1998);

however, when leadership is shared, the influence process may emerge due to situational

factors (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce et al., 2009). As a result, shared leadership may

act as a complement to vertical leadership when structure fails to achieve leadership

effectiveness (Pearce, Manz, et al., 2008).

Shared leadership, supporting mutual influence rooted in the social interactions

among group members, significantly improves team and organizational performance

(Carson et al., 2007; Day et al., 2004; Ensley, Pearce, & Hmieleski, 2006; Pearce &

Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2004; Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999). Additionally,

investigations of shared leadership have found significant links to other positive

outcomes, such as team potency and trust (Boies, Lvina, & Martens, 2010) and

sustainability (Manz, Manz, Adams, & Shipper, 2010). However, shared leadership may

not be effective in every situation or act as a sole replacement to vertical leadership

(Pearce & Conger, 2003). Followers lacking situational knowledge, skills, and abilities

(KSA) may not be able to effectively contribute to the shared leadership process (Conger

& Pearce, 2003).

Social Network Analysis

The primary quantitative methods for measuring shared leadership include

evaluating the team as a whole (Avolio et al., 1996; Pearce & Sims, 2002;

Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, & Jung, 2002) or as a social network (Carson et al.,

2007; Mayo et al., 2003; Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006). Researchers

measuring shared leadership asking respondents, via surveys, to rate the leadership

behaviors of their team as a whole assume the respondents can mentally aggregate the

contribution of leadership from all team members; researchers then use the mean

responses of the individuals on the team to make interpretations concerning shared

leadership (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003). Though this

method reduces the burden on respondents, it fails to measure the distribution,

concentration, and relational patterns of leadership in the team (Carson et al., 2007; Mayo

et al., 2003). Furthermore, it remains unclear how each member arrives at their team

rating. Gockel and Werth (2010) ask several questions highlighting the problem with

using team members’ perceptions of team leadership: “Who is the reference? Do they

average all team members’ behaviors? Or do they base their judgments on the behavior

of the most visible, influential, or sympathetic team member?” (p. 174).

In order to demonstrate that shared leadership as opposed to a single leader or a

few leaders are solely responsible for creating a team environment leading to positive

team outcomes, shared leadership may be measured using SNA (Mayo et al., 2003).

Gockel and Werth (2010) conducted a review of shared leadership measuring techniques

and suggested SNA may be used when researchers have interest in studying team level

outcomes due to SNA’s ability to account for the multidirectional and relational ties for a

team. Since the 1980s, SNA has seen extensive use in the field of management and

organizational studies (for a review, see Borgatti & Foster, 2003). As a methodological

tool, SNA enables researchers to understand the relational ties in a network and consists

of three main elements—the network, the nodes, and the relational ties (Scott, 2000).

The field of leadership has recently begun to more heavily invest in SNA as a

methodological tool (Hoppe & Reinelt, 2010). More specifically, Yukl (2010a) suggests

the literature from social network theory can be used to provide insight into shared

leadership. SNA may not only be used to measure the degree to which team members

perceive their team’s shared leadership—network density—but SNA may also be used to

explore how that leadership is distributed—centralization (Mehra et al., 2006; Small &

Rentsch, 2010).

Only a small number of studies have explored shared leadership using SNA.

Mehra et al. (2006) used qualitative coding of social network diagrams to explore the

relationship between shared leadership and team performance. The quantitative methods

of analyzing social networks are much more accessible to researchers through the use of

computer programs (e.g., UCINET) and provide a much more rigorous and thorough

examination of social network data. Carson et al. (2007) calculated network density as a

measure of shared leadership; whereas, Small and Rentsch (2010) focused on network

centralization—the distribution of leadership—to measure shared leadership. However,

researchers suggest network density and centralization should be combined to measure

shared leadership using SNA (Gockel & Werth, 2010; Mayo et al., 2003).

Dangerous Environmental Context

Campbell et al. (2010) have narrowly classified dangerous environments as “those

in which leaders or their followers are personally faced with highly dynamic and

unpredictable situations and where the outcomes of leadership may result in severe

physical or psychological injury (or death) to unit members” (p. S3). Environmental

dynamism represents the heart of extreme context (Sweeney et al., 2011), where leaders

find it difficult to predict change and face increasing uncertainty (Dess & Beard, 1984).

Aldrich (1979) has argued the nature of environmental dynamism embodies turbulent,

fluctuating changes in stability and instability. In dynamic settings, leaders discover this

type of change to be obscure and difficult to plan against. Obsolescence, as seen in

cellular telecommunications technology, quickly occurs with the introduction of a new

technology, creating a rapid decrease in demand for firms employing older technology;

this type of change represents one of the challenges leaders face in dynamic

environments (Henderson & Stern, 2004). Organizations operating in dynamic

environments may experience sharp, rapid, and discontinuous change in demand,

competitors, technology, or government regulation, creating a leadership context with

inaccurate, unavailable, or obsolete information (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988).

The modern airline industry has experienced a high velocity environment; airline

organizational managers have faced new aviation technologies (larger size planes and

more fuel efficient engines), fluctuating demand, larger firms, labor and fuel price

shocks, and new government regulations (Iyer, 2005). Additionally, the microcomputer

industry of the mid-1980s has operated in dynamic environments, where firm leaders

have experienced substantial technological change, new computer architecture, more

market competition, and double-digit growth in demand (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988).

These examples reflect the pace of change in a dynamic environment and the

predictability of the changes that occur (Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991). Uncertainty,

the degree to which future states of the environment cannot be anticipated and accurately

predicted, challenges the forecasting capability of leaders and may inhibit decisions and

actions (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). When leaders wait or fail to make decisions during

increasing uncertainty, they enter a downward cycle: searching for data to confirm

previous choices, discovering new environmental changes, and restarting the decision-

making process (Eisenhardt, 1989). Extreme rate of change and uncertainty inherent to

dynamic situations, where information contains questionable accuracy and quickly

becomes obsolete, may reduce a leader’s ability to make proactive decisions and achieve

organizational objectives (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988).

Examining the characteristics of dangerous context through dynamism,

discontinuous and rapid change, increasing uncertainty, and imperfect or obsolete

information, coupled with the threat of physical or phycology injury or death, may

present the ultimate psychological, social, and physical challenges for leaders (Sweeney

et al., 2011). Individuals may likely view these types of environments, containing high

levels of dynamism, uncertainty, and danger, as extremely risky. The accumulative

presence of extreme contextual elements induces high levels of stress and anxiety in

leaders (Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001; Sweeney et al., 2011).

Lin, Zhao, Ismail, and Carley (2006) and Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer (2003) have

maintained dangerous settings contain crises with ambiguity, uncertainty, and

unanticipated events. The classic example, a military organization, operates in dynamic

settings demonstrating uncertainty, unpredictability, and danger (United States Marine

Corps, 1997a). The inconsistent presence and rapidly changing rate of intensity for these

variables impact military leaders’ decision-making processes (United States Marine

Corps, 1996). New technologies (laser-guided weapons, stealth, digital communications,

satellite navigation, etc.), unconventional enemy forces, distributed operations, and

strong, political control of warfare compress time and space, forcing higher operating

tempos and creating a greater demand for timely, accurate information to achieve

effective leadership performance (United States Marine Corps, 1996, 1997b). This form

of context may potentially lead to disastrous or life-threatening errors on the parts of team

members (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). As the velocity and danger of the environment

increases, the potential hazards appear and are open to multiple, conflicting

interpretations for team members (Baran & Scott, 2010). This increase in situational risk

creates a greater need to both find new information quickly and to rapidly adapt to the

changing situation in order to lead effectively (United States Marine Corps, 1996).

Social Power

Social power represents the potential to influence (Pfeffer, 2003; Yukl, 2010b).

French and Raven’s (1959) seminal work on social power produced a taxonomy of power

bases used by leaders to influence others in organizations. Focusing solely on downward

directional influence (Raven, 1993), French and Raven (1959) argued the five primary

bases for social power included: coercive, legitimate, reward, referent, and expert. Each

base enables an agent to influence a target to perform in a manner in which the target

may not otherwise perform (Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998). Coercive power

enables agents to threaten punishment to achieve influence. Legitimate power focuses on

an agent’s hierarchical position to influence. Reward power achieves influence by

promising compensation. Referent power relies on the target’s identification with the

agent. Finally, expert power achieves influence through the agent’s high levels of

knowledge. As the theory of social power evolved, new power bases appeared in the

taxonomy. Informational power (Raven, 1999) enables agents to influence by

withholding or providing valuable information.

In the power construct, the relationship between the target of influence and the

agent of influence, determines the level of power (Pfeffer, 2003). Agents of influence

attempt to exert power on targets through specific influence behaviors or influence tactics

(Yukl, 2010b). Though power represents the potential to influence, influence tactics

represent the action attempts of influence by agents onto targets (Raven et al., 1998). If

agents lack power, they are limited in the number of available influence tactics to employ

with targets (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). In this relationship, power acts as a moderator

between influence tactics and outcomes, enhancing or diminishing influence behaviors

due to its presence or lack of presence (Barbuto & Gifford, 2009). However, leaders may

have great potential to influence by holding multiple bases of power, but may only

choose to execute influence tactics for only one power base (Elias, 2006). Additionally,

varying combinations of tactics may enable agents to exhibit more influence than single

tactics depending upon compatibility and context (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).

Social power represents an essential element of effective leadership and

performance (Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Seifert, & Chavez, 2008). Power enhances

leaders’ capacity to successfully employ appropriate influence tactics (Pfeffer, 2003).

Additionally, effective leaders influence others via downward, lateral, and upward

directions in order to achieve organizational objectives (Yukl & Falbe, 1990, 1991). In

this regard, social power and influence represent key interrelated concepts in the field of

management. However, management scholars and researchers have not integrated power

and influence into leadership literature to their full potential (Elias, 2006).

Conceptual Model and Propositions

Shared Leadership, Team Performance, and SNA

Carson et al. (2007) have measured shared leadership using network density by

asking each team member to rate each member of their team on the question, “To what

degree does your team rely on this individual for leadership?” The scale ranged from 1

(not at all) to 5 (to a very great extent). Density is a measure of the average rating for all

team members within the group. An average tie rating of 5 would indicate that all team

members perceived all the other members of the team to rely on each other “to a very

great extent” for leadership. Consequently, a tie strength of 5 would indicate high shared

leadership.

However, density alone fails to capture the entire shared leadership model. The

limitation with the density measure is that the average tie strength does not account for

the distribution of leadership. A measure of shared leadership must not only account for

the level of leadership at the team level, but also the degree to which leadership is

distributed amongst the members of the team (Conger & Pearce, 2003). Do all team

members share in the responsibility of providing leadership or is it simply a few members

of the team? The more leadership is distributed, the better equipped a team is to handle a

dynamic, fast-paced environment because the leadership is not focused on a single, or a

few, actors. Thus, network centralization should also be included in the measure of

shared leadership (Gockel & Werth, 2010; Mayo et al., 2003).

For example, the two six-person networks in Figure 2 have an average tie

strength (density) of 3. In other words, the teams possess a leadership strength of 3. The

heads of the arrows point to team members nominated as demonstrating leadership within

the group. In Figure 2a, only three team members were nominated as leaders, but each of

those members received the highest possible rating (5), while the other team members

received the lowest possible rating (1). In Figure 2b, all six team members were

nominated as leaders; each team member received ratings of 3 from each of the other

members on the team. Though the average tie strength for the two networks is the same,

the distribution of leadership within the networks is very different.

The distribution of leadership is not completely captured using density because

density is not able to distinguish how the ties in the team are distributed. Centralization

is a measure of distribution of ties in a network. A centralization value of 1 would

indicate that one team member is regarded as the leader, and the team would be

completely centralized. In contrast, Figure 2b demonstrates a completely decentralized

network, where the leadership is completely, evenly distributed, and is a better example

of shared leadership. The centralization of the network depicted in Figure 2a is 48%,

while the centralization of Figure 2b is 0 (see Table 1).

This discussion of using density as the sole measure of shared leadership should

not be interpreted as an argument proposing the removal of density as an indicator of

shared leadership. For example, using the scale from Carson et al. (2007), if all team

members rate each other as “never” demonstrating leadership, the centralization is 0,

indicating a completely decentralized network. However, the density of the network is 1,

the lowest possible team leadership strength score. Thus, centralization alone is not able

to completely capture shared leadership. Density and centralization should both be

included as indicators of shared leadership (Gockel & Werth, 2010).

Proposition 1. Teams with relatively higher density and relatively higher decentralization (low centralization) shall also have relatively higher team performance.

Dangerous Environments as a Moderator

The need for team members to share leadership relates to new, complex demands

of modern work situations, technology, and patterns of interdependence and coordination

(Yammarino, Mumford, Connelly, & Dionne, 2010). Dynamism, discontinuous and

rapid change, increasing uncertainty, imperfect or obsolete information, and the high risk

of physical or psychological injury may induce stress at individual and team levels,

impacting the outcome of various leadership and team processes (Hart & Cooper, 2002;

Yukl, 2010a). Additionally, the downward spiral of reactive decision making by team

leaders in dangerous contexts may also lead to negative outcomes (Cordery et al., 1991;

Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). As tasks congruent with the dangerous context increase

in complexity (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996), hierarchical team leaders may

become overwhelmed and unable to effectively handle the situation on their own. In

effect, the volatility in extreme contexts makes it impractical for a vertical leader to

maintain hierarchical control of a team, leading to negative outcomes (Pearce & Conger,

2003; Yammarino et al., 2010). However, the process of shared leadership may enable

teams to meet the challenges of and excel in dangerous contexts.

In extreme situations, team members identify with the team purpose and mission,

becoming willing to make individual sacrifices for the team and to enhance other team

members’ potential and capabilities (Yammarino et al., 2010). Individuals other than the

designated team leader may emerge in a serial fashion to provide influence and direct the

team toward its common mission (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2002). By

sharing leadership in dangerous environments, team members may more effectively

utilize complementary KSAs to meet the demands of the situation, enabling them to

effectively negotiate complex tasks (Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2003; Klein, Ziegert, Knight,

& Xiao, 2006; Pearce & Sims, 2002). In effect, increased task complexity requires

increased shared leadership to achieve successful outcomes (Pearce & Sims, 2002). The

elements driving dangerous contexts change the nature of group tasks from routine to

challenging and complex. Working for a common goal, the group may dynamically

share influence in order to meet the challenges and interconnected requirements of

complex tasks rather than failing to act. However, under routine conditions lacking task

complexity, shared leadership may represent an ineffective team process. Teams

operating in routine situations, lacking a dangerous and dynamic context, may experience

process losses due to the diversion of effort and resources to group maintenance which

“may be more profitably invested directly in completing relatively discrete, simple tasks”

(Cox et al., 2003, p. 65). With little requirement for coordination or collaboration, shared

leadership may represent an irrelevant option for teams in these situations, as it may

contribute to a lack of effectiveness or even ineffectiveness.

Proposition 2: The level of danger in team operating environments moderates the relationship between shared leadership and team performance.

Social Power Distribution as a Moderator

A broad range of factors may encourage the demonstration or expression of

shared leadership, to include members’ task competence, mental modes, and familiarity

(Conger & Pearce, 2003). Additionally, individuals in teams emerge to influence and

lead others through role differentiation and social interaction (Seers, Keller, & Wilkerson,

2003). It is unlikely for designated team leaders to possess all of the requisite KSAs to

effectively accomplish diverse and complex tasks in multifunctional environments

(Conger & Pearce, 2003). To combat these challenges, team members have

demonstrated a dependence on shared mental models, knowledge, and compatibility

(Burke, 1974; Gibson, 2001; Mohammed & Dumville, 2001; O’Toole, Galbraith, &

Lawler, 2003). Shared knowledge and compatible structures may reduce variance in

team performance, enhance team cohesiveness, form positive team climates, and promote

the accomplishment of team objectives (Yammarino et al., 2010).

Many teams operating in dangerous environments are comprised of highly

specialized individuals with complementary skills organized into functional groups

(Hannah et al., 2010). Some members may have experienced dangerous environments in

the past, enhancing their ability to lead in future situations (Fisher, Hutchings, & Sarros,

2010). Additionally, individuals with designated hierarchical roles within a team may

possess the formal authority required to request additional resources and make related

decisions. These are examples of varying bases for social power. Specialized

individuals—with extensive skills, training, and experience in highly specialized roles—

may possess high levels of expert power. Those individuals demonstrating socially

acceptable and desirable behaviors may garner more respect from team members,

demonstrating a high level of referent power. Team members with the authority to make

significant resource decisions for the team hold high levels of legitimate power.

Individuals possessing vital facts and logical justifications for dangerous situations may

retain a high level of informational power. Finally, individuals with the ability to provide

rewards or to coerce others during dangerous situations hold reward and coercive power

bases.

Managers viewing power as a shared resource may be more likely to share power

with others within a team (Coleman, 2004). Organizations have restructured and

reorganized their work forces to support shared power in decentralized, self-managed

teams (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). The distribution of power facilitates the sharing of

tasks, consideration, and roles (Seers et al., 2003). The greater distribution of power

among the team enables group members to influence others and share leadership.

However, as power is concentrated within a single person or small number of individuals

in relation to group size, the majority of the team experiences a power shortage. This

may result in a smaller potential to influence others, resulting in a lack of shared

leadership.

Proposition 3: The distribution of social power among a team moderates the relationship between shared leadership and team performance.

Discussion

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Answering the calls of multiple leadership scholars to address management

conceptual exploration and empirical research in team and extreme contexts, the authors

have developed a conceptual model of shared leadership in dangerous contexts,

contributing to the advancement, study, and practice of management and leadership in

three key areas. First, the introduction of an enhanced SNA measure of shared leadership

may enable researchers to more effectively and accurately assess distribution and

relational aspects of shared leadership in teams to predict performance. Second, this

model, integrating multiple concepts from the field of study, potentially provides a viable

framework to describe and enhance shared leadership within teams during dangerous

situations. The inclusion of a dangerous environmental context as the moderating

variable within the conceptual model enables researchers to consider the implications of

shared leadership in previously unexplored contexts. Finally, the inclusion of social

power distribution as a moderator within the model builds upon an area of management

research requiring more inquiry and potentially enables scholars to improve their

understanding concerning the importance of social power in teams. These combined

efforts advance the field of study by presenting new bridges to multiple theoretical gaps

in extreme context, team, and shared leadership research.

With regard to the practice of management and leadership in dangerous contexts,

this model has the potential to further advance the field of study following empirical

testing. As the employment of self-managed teams continues to increase (Houghton,

Neck, & Manz, 2003; Manz & Sims, 1993), organizations with the potential of operating

in dangerous environments (military, police, firefighting, search and rescue, other

government organizations, etc.) may find it more valuable to approach shared leadership

as a complement to traditional team models. Unlike conventional contexts, where a lack

of performance may negatively impact profits, market share, etc., the performance of

teams in extreme contexts is truly a matter of life and death; the stimulation of research

along this line of inquiry may have a profound impact on the leadership processes

practiced by teams in the most extreme situations. Empirical testing of this model,

focusing on the distribution of social power and leadership in teams, may also stimulate

changes in the methods normally practiced to select and develop teams working in

extreme contexts. Examples of this in practice may include greater role clarification and

highly specialized training for team members, the selection of self-managed team

members’ social power capacity, and increasing requirements for practical, scenario-

based shared leadership training for teams likely to operate in extreme contexts. This

may enable organizations to execute previously ignored team distributed leadership

practices in the most challenging situations.

Limitations

The primary focus of this model is on shared leadership in teams operating in

extreme context; it does not significantly address other traditional approaches to team

leadership, such as the solely hierarchical model. Measuring shared leadership using

SNA may provide a relative scale of shared leadership in teams, but no absolute

distinction of vertical leadership and shared leadership can yet be proposed. However, it

is reasonable to assume the investigation of relative measures of vertical leadership and

shared leadership in teams will yield additional findings more sufficiently enabling

scholars and practitioners to conceptually answer the question of when to share

leadership in teams working in dangerous situations.

The conceptual model of shared leadership in dangerous contexts also neglects

the comprehensive integration of other potential moderating variables, such as team size,

varying dimensions of team diversity (age, sex, culture, etc.), and group member turnover

(Conger & Pearce, 2003). Solely examining social power distribution and dangerous

situations moderators for shared leadership and team performance may prevent the

framework from determining the specific components and processes beyond these

variables contributing to the display and use of shared leadership in extreme situations.

To improve the model, it may be beneficial to include team size, cultural or demographic

diversity, and member turnover as possible moderator or mediator variables rather than

attempting to control these factors as nuisance variables during research.

The lack of a reliable measure for extreme environments represents a major

challenge for examining leadership in dangerous contexts. In order to effectively

measure dangerous context, researchers may need to develop a new measure

incorporating items from other reliable instruments measuring environmental

dynamism/change, uncertainty, risk, and danger from strategic management literature.

Additionally, researchers may desire to conduct a qualitative study using ethnographic

approaches with a specific sample (military, police, fire, rescue, etc.) in order to describe

the elements of dangerous environments and construct a measure with items capturing

dangerous environmental context.

Limited access to specialized teams with a high potential for operating regularly

in dangerous contexts may present challenges to researchers attempting to empirically

test the conceptual model of shared leadership in dangerous environments. Though the

development of team training scenarios may offer opportunities for pilot studies and

laboratory and/or simulator testing, the value of the data may not be as high as that found

in field studies. Researchers may have to provide survey instruments to team members

immediately following events in dangerous contexts. Organizations, especially those

with teams relying on clandestine operations or ongoing criminal investigations, may be

reluctant to grant such field access. Researchers may need to conduct unconventional

data control methods in these cases in order to secure permission to conduct field studies.

SNA studies are sensitive to missing data, so researchers must be able to collect nearly

complete data from the participants in order to conduct accurate analysis (Knoke & Yang,

2008). Furthermore, in order to collect social network data, respondents must assess each

team member, which can increase respondent burden. This burden can be reduced by

ensuring team size is relatively small, but team size must be a theoretically driven a

priori decision by the researchers.

Recommendations

There exists a high potential for management researchers to conduct future

empirical studies of this model to determine the boundaries of shared leadership and their

impact on team performance. Scholars may find it useful to compare the performance

relationships of teams using contrasting approaches to leadership (shared versus vertical)

under varying conditions of dangerous context and social power distribution. This may

provide insight into which influence process may be more effective under varying

conditions, more appropriately answering the question of when to share leadership in

teams. Additionally, researchers may find an opportunity to compare the social power

distribution and shared leadership scores between teams with high and low power

distribution levels. This type of study may be able to determine which degree of social

power distribution facilitated the highest degree of shared leadership for a given set of

tasks or objectives in a dangerous context.

Finally, scholars may encounter institutional review board (IRB) and field

research site challenges complicating the study of shared leadership in dangerous

environments. The general mission of an IRB is to ensure research participants are not

placed at undue risk, provide informed consent to their participation, and rights are

protected during the conduct of studies. Proposing research in dangerous context, where

an element of death or psychological injury exists, may prevent researchers from

receiving permission to test models in extreme situations, as this may increase the risk of

harm to participants. As a result, researchers must use balance when developing projects

in order to simulate danger while at the same time protecting participants as well as

ensuring proper medical and psychological care is available during and after the

conclusion of studies. Researchers may accomplish this by conducting research projects

in conjunction with dangerous training events regularly completed by samples operating

in extreme context. For example, researchers may seek to integrate studies into military

or law enforcement training programs conducting live fire team scenarios. This ensures

the sample has regular experience in this dangerous training realm, providing less risk to

participants and passing IRB standards for approval.

Conclusion

This conceptual model of shared leadership advances the field of study by

proposing a more comprehensive measure of this emerging leadership phenomena and

exploring team leadership outside conventional contexts. By addressing the

measurements and boundary conditions for shared leadership in teams, this scholarly

effort also may stimulate future empirical studies investigating shared leadership in

dangerous environments using SNA in order to bridge the current gaps in dangerous

context, team, and team leadership research. The proposed SNA design, specifically

using both measures of network density and centralization, provide a more holistic and

theoretically sound assessment of shared leadership. The integration of extreme

situations and social power distribution in teams as moderators may enable researchers

and practitioners to more effectively understand when to share leadership in teams.

REFERENCES Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall. Antonakis, J., Schriesheim, C., Donovan, J., Gopalakrishna-Pillai, K., Pellegrini, E., &

Rossomme, J. (2004). Methods for studying leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. Cianciolo, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 48-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B., Jung, D., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly

developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 173-209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Avolio, B., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W., Jung, D., & Garger, J. (2003). Assessing

shared leadership: Development and preliminary validation of a team multifactor leadership questionnaire. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 141-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baran, B., & Scott, C. (2010). Organizing ambiguity: A grounded theory of leadership

and sensemaking within dangerous contexts. Military Psychology, 22(Suppl. 1), S242-S269.

Barbuto, J. E., & Gifford, G. T. (2009). Influence triggers and compliance: A discussion

of the effects of power, motivation, resistance, and antecedents. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (pp. 262-280). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Boe, O., Woolley, K., & Durkin, J. (2011). Choosing the elite: Recruitment, assessment,

and selection of law enforcement tactical teams and military special forces. In P. Sweeney, M. Matthews, & P. Lester (Eds.), Leadership in dangerous situations: A handbook for the armed forces, emergency services, and first responders (pp. 333-349). Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Boies, K., Lvina, E., & Martens, M. (2010). Shared leadership and team performance in a

business strategy simulation. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 195-202. Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A

review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.

Bourgeois, L., III, & Eisenhardt, K. (1988). Strategic decision process in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 816-835.

Burke, P. (1974). Participation and leadership in small groups. American Sociological

Review, 39(6), 832-843. Campbell, D., Hannah, S., & Matthews, M. (2010). Leadership in military and other

dangerous contexts: Introduction to the special topic issue. Military Psychology, 22(Suppl. 1), S1-S14.

Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation

of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.

Cohen, S., & Ledford, G. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-

experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43. Coleman, P. (2004). Implicit theories of organizational power and priming effects on

managerial power-sharing decisions: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 297-321.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Conger, J., & Pearce, C. (2003). A landscape of opportunities: Future research on shared

leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 285-303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cordery, J., Mueller, W., & Smith, L. (1991). Attitudinal and behavior effects of

autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 464-476.

Cox, J., Pearce, C., & Perry, M. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and

distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 48-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15(6), 857-880. Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the

threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 211-216.

DeCelles, K., & Pfarrer, M. (2004). Heroes or villains? Corruption and the charismatic leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1), 67-77.

Dess, G., & Beard, D. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52-73. Dool, R. (2010). Lessons from the military: A new framework for managing change

(C5). Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(3), 253-263. Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 17-39). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Dunphy, D. (2000). Embracing paradox: Top-down versus participative management of

organizational change. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 123-136). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high velocity environments.

Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576. Eisenhardt, K., & Bourgeois, L., III. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high

velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737-770. Elias, S. (2006). Fifty years of influence in the workplace: The evolution of the French and Raven power taxonomy. Journal of Management History, 14(3), 267-283.

Ensley, M., Hmieleski, K., & Pearce, C. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared

leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217-231.

Ensley, M., Pearce, C., & Hmieleski, K. (2006). The moderating effect of environmental

dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 243-263.

Falbe, C., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence

tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638- 652.

Fisher, K., Hutchings, K., & Sarros, J. (2010). The “bright” and “shadow” aspects of in

extremis leadership. Military Psychology, 22(Suppl. 1), S89-S116. French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander

(Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 150-167). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Gibson, C. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 145-160.

Gockel, C., & Werth, L. (2010). Measuring and modeling shared leadership: Traditional

approaches and new ideas. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 172-180. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational

Management and Administration, 28, 317-338. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly,

13, 423-451. Gundersen, G., Hellesøy, B., & Raeder, S. (2012). Leading international project teams:

The effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work environments. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 46-57.

Hannah, S., Campbell, D., & Matthews, M. (2010). Advancing a research agenda for

leadership in dangerous contexts. Military Psychology, 22(Suppl. 1), S157-S189. Hannah, S., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B., & Cavarretta, F. (2009). A framework for

examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897- 919.

Harms, P., Han, G., & Chen, H. (2012). Recognizing leadership at a distance. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(2), 164-172. Hart, P., & Cooper, C. (2002). Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework.

In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 93-114). London: Sage.

Henderson, A., & Stern, I. (2004). Selection-based learning: The coevolution of internal

and external selection in high velocity environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 39-75.

Hoch, J., Pearce, C., & Welzel, L. (2010). 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), 105-116.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede., G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Culture and organizations: Software

of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hoppe, B., & Reinelt, C. (2010). Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership

networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 600-619.

Houghton, J., Neck, C., & Manz, C. (2003). Self-leadership and superleadership: The heart and art of creating shared leadership in teams. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 123- 140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hunt, J. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An

historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144. Iyer, S. (2005). Airline companies see glimmer of hope. High Yield Report, 16(48), 1-11. Johnson, C. (2008). The rise and fall of Carly Fiorina: An ethical case study. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 188-196. Khasawneh, S. (2011). Shared leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour in

Jordanian public universities: Developing a global workforce for the 21st century. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(5), 621-634.

Klein, K., Ziegert, J., Knight, A., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared,

hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590-621.

Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis: Quantitative applications in the

social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kolditz, T. (2007). In extremis leadership: Leading as if your life depended on it. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.

Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Lin, Z., Zhao, X., Ismail, K., & Carley, K. (2006). Organizational design and

restructuring in response to crises: Lessons from computational modeling and real-world cases. Organization Science, 17(5), 598-618.

Manz, C., Manz, K., Adams, S., & Shipper, F. (2010). A model of values-based shared

leadership and sustainable performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 212-217.

Manz, C., Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (2009). The ins and outs of leading teams: An

overview. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 179-182. Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external

leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106-128.

Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are

building high-performing companies. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Manz, C., & Sims, H. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to lead

themselves. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Matkin, G., & Barbuto, J. (2012). Demographic similarity/difference, intercultural

sensitivity, and leader-member exchange. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(3), 294-302.

Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Pastor, J.-C. (2003). Shared leadership in work teams. In C.

L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the how and whys of leadership (pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in

teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232-245.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K., & Kramer, R. (1996). Swift trust in temporary groups. In R.

Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 165-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Millikin, J., Horn, P., & Manz, C. (2010). Self-management competencies in self-

managing teams: Their impact on multi-team system productivity. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 687-702.

Mills, K. (2011). Shared leadership. Brw, 33(23), 26-27. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge

framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89-106.

Muczyk, J., & Holt, D. (2008). Toward a cultural contingency model of

leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 277-286. O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. (2003). The promise and pitfalls of shared

leadership: When two (or more) heads are better than one. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 250-264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearce, C. (1997). The determinants of change management team (CMT) effectiveness: A

longitudinal investigation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.

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

Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys

of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pearce, C., Conger, J., & Locke, E. (2008). Shared leadership theory. The Leadership

Quarterly, 19(5), 622-628. Pearce, C., Hoch, J., Jeppesen, H., & Wegge, J. (2010). New forms of management:

Shared and distributed leadership in organizations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 151-153.

Pearce, C., Manz, C., & Sims, H. (2008). The roles of vertical and shared leadership in

the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 353-359.

Pearce, C., Manz, C., & Sims, H. (2009). Where do we go from here?: Is shared

leadership the key to team success? Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 234-238. Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the

Pearce, C., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work, and virtual teams: The

Perry, M., Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared

leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 35-51.

Pfeffer, J. (2003). Influence, power, and politics in organizational settings. In L. Porter,

H. Angle, & R. Allen (Eds.), Organizational influence processes (pp. 3-13). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource

dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Ramthun, A., & Matkin, G. (2012). Multicultural shared leadership: A conceptual model

of shared leadership in culturally diverse teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(3), 303-314.

Raven, B. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 227-251.

Raven, B. (1999). Kurt Lewin address: Influence, power, religion, and the mechanics of

social control. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 161-186. Raven, B., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a

power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 307-332.

Reichers, A., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In

D. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Seeger, M., Sellnow, T., & Ulmer, R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis.

Westport, CT: Praeger. Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. M. (2003). Can team members share leadership?:

Foundations in research and theory. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 77-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Shared leadership in the management of group

boundaries. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 235-249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W., Avolio, B., & Jung, D. (2002). A longitudinal model

of the effect of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 66-96.

Small, E., & Rentsch, J. (2010). Shared leadership in teams: A matter of distribution.

Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 203. Solansky, S. (2008). Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. Journal

of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 332-341. Steinheider, B., & Wuestewald, T. (2008). From the bottom-up: Sharing leadership in a

police agency. Police Practice & Research, 9(2), 145-163. Story, J., & Barbuto, J. (2011). Global mindset: A construct clarification and

framework. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(3), 377-384.

Sweeney, P., Matthews, M., & Lester, P. (Eds.) (2011). Leadership in dangerous situations: A handbook for the armed forces, emergency services, and first responders. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Sweetman, D. (2010). Exploring the adaptive function in complexity leadership theory:

An examination of shared leadership and collective creativity in innovation networks (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://library.unl.edu

Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (Eds.) (2008). Complexity leadership: Conceptual

foundations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvery, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:

Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.

United States Marine Corps. (1996). Command and control. Retrieved from

http://www.dtic. mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/mcdp6.pdf United States Marine Corps. (1997a). Tactics. Retrieved from

http://www.usmc.mil/news/ publications/Documents/MCDP%201- 3%20Tactics.pdf

United States Marine Corps. (1997b). Warfighting. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/

doctrine/jel/service_pubs/mcdp1.pdf Waldman, D., Ramirez, G., House, R., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?

CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134-143.

Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, K. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an

age of uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Yammarino, F., Mumford, M., Connelly, M., & Dionne, S. (2010). Leadership and team

dynamics for dangerous military contexts. Military Psychology, 22(Suppl. 1), S15-S41.

Yukl, G. (2010a). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (2010b). Power and the interpersonal influence of leaders. In D. Tjosvold & B.

Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (pp. 207-223). New York, NY: Cambridge.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and

lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132-140.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 416-423.

Yukl, G., Seifert, C., & Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the extended Influence Behavior

Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 609-621.

Figure 1. Visual depiction of the propositions forming a conceptual model of shared

leadership in dangerous environments.

Figure 2. a) High centralization is depicted on the left (only 3 nodes were nominated as

leaders). b) Complete decentralization (no centralization) is depicted on the right (all nodes

were equally nominated as leaders).

a) b)

Table 1 Centralized and decentralized networks and measures of density and centralization

Density Centralization

(Indegree) Centralized Network 3 48.00% Decentralized Network 3 0 Note. Indegree refers to nominations received.

CHAPTER III:

Article 2

Living Dangerously: Shared Leadership and Performance

for Teams in Dangerous Environments

A. J. Ramthun, L. J. McElravy, and Gina S. Matkin

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication

Manuscript submitted for the

Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2013

Abstract

In a field study, we examined the influence of shared leadership on team performance for

51 military combat teams in a simulated dangerous environment. To simulate the

dangerous context, we conducted the study at a tactical urban fighting complex utilizing

paintball weapons, role players, and a dynamic combat scenario. Using social network

analysis techniques and after controlling for team diversity and combat experience, we

found the density measure of shared leadership to be positively and significantly related

to team performance, accounting for 40% of the variance in team performance. We also

found both the centralization measure and density/centralization interaction effect to be

insignificantly related to team performance. A stepwise multiple regression analysis

found the density measure of shared leadership and the control variable of team combat

experience as the best predictors of team performance, significantly accounting for 49%

of the variance in team performance. Implication, limits, and recommendations are

discussed.

Keywords: shared leadership, teams, dangerous context

Living Dangerously: Shared Leadership and Performance

for Teams in Dangerous Environments

To prevail while negotiating modern obstacles to performance (globalization,

complexity, environmental dynamism, etc.), organizations have begun to transform from

primarily top-down or centralized command and control structures (Dunphy, 2000;

Pearce, Manz, & Sims, 2009) into self-managed teams (Manz & Sims, 1987, 1993, 2001;

Millikin, Horn, & Manz, 2010; Solansky, 2008). These teams, rather than using rigid

hierarchies of leadership to solely direct work efforts and meet objectives (Kozlowski &

Bell, 2003), rely on one another, as team members, to exhibit leadership when

appropriate based on their knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, and the situation

(Pearce, 2004; Pearce et al., 2009). This team— multidirectional—influence approach is

called shared leadership: a dynamic, interactive, social influence process among

individuals in teams where members lead one another to achieve common objectives

(Pearce & Conger, 2003). A relatively new concept in the field of management, shared

leadership has seen increasing legitimization and confirmation in management literature

(Pearce, Hoch, Jeppesen, & Wegge, 2010). As with the development of leadership

theories in the field of management, the maturation of shared leadership requires new

investigations of more accurate measures of the phenomena (Conger & Pearce, 2003) and

boundary conditions (Antonakis et al., 2004) to further contribute to the study and

practice of leadership (Hunt, 1999).