For Perfecto only L1

eba031

out.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >For Perfecto only L1

Transcending the power of hierarchy to facilitate

shared leadership Barry Barnes

Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA

John H. Humphreys, Jennifer D. Oyler and Stephanie S. Pane Haden Texas A&M University – Commerce, Texas, USA, and

Milorad M. Novicevic University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA

Abstract

Purpose – Although communal forms of leadership are being called for to provide contemporary organizations with more responsive leadership platforms, the paper can find no compelling description as to how such leadership might develop in a world of hierarchy. The purpose of this paper is to fill this void. Design/methodology/approach – Attempting to comprehend the sharing of leadership will require contemplation of unconventional approaches in opposition to the dominant logic associated with conventional organizational leadership. One current example of such unorthodox deliberation is the emerging awareness of the Grateful Dead’s influence on business management and leadership. Accordingly, the paper examined and interpreted the experiences and expressed beliefs of Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead to offer a conceptualization of how shared leadership could emerge in traditional organizational settings. Findings – The analysis indicates that Jerry Garcia exhibited aspects of transformational leadership, servant leadership, and authentic leadership that allowed him to influence the environment needed for the emergence of shared leadership. Research limitations/implications – As a single case study, the primary limitation is one of generalizability. The paper accepts the trade-off, however, due to the significant conceptual insights available with a case methodology. Practical implications – Without greater understanding of how shared leadership might unfold practitioners will assume the construct of shared leadership is laudable but naı̈ve. The paper must begin developing plausible conceptualizations if the notion of sharing leadership is to be taken more seriously in organizations. Originality/value – The paper offers a counterintuitive, counterculture conceptualization of how shared leadership could emerge and flourish in traditional hierarchical settings.

Keywords Hierarchy, Jerry Garcia, Shared leadership

Paper type Conceptual paper

This report shows how we really work. We do business the way artists do business. The reason there is a Grateful Dead Productions is because the State of California requires that we identify ourselves as a business. [y]

Grateful Dead Productions, Inc. is a legal fiction, not a working reality. It doesn’t represent our real work. Just because we have an office doesn’t mean we have to feel we have to be office workers, nor identify ourselves as a Corporation because we have a corporation.

The reason for the attempt to describe ourselves is to free all the people in our organization from having to feel defined by what is actually an externally dictated fiction of convenience. [y] ( Jerry Garcia).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Received 31 January 2012 Revised 12 June 2012

Accepted 14 June 2012

Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Vol. 34 No. 8, 2013 pp. 741-762

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739

DOI 10.1108/LODJ-01-2012-0015

741

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

The verbiage above is taken from a June 12, 1981 report recounting the operations of one of the most profitable bands of all time, the Grateful Dead. Though readers may primarily think of the Grateful Dead, including the group’s lead guitarist Jerry Garcia, as musicians symbolizing the counterculture of the 1960s, their impact on business and management may ultimately become one of the more significant aspects of their legacy (Green, 2010). In support, Goodwin (2010, p. 47) asserted that “the hairiest hippie band of all time” were the “inspiration for Apple, Yahoo!, Google and the digital future.” Moreover, their unique form of shared leadership may provide a valuable source of learning for contemporary organizational leaders.

Specifically, Garcia, who was more than reluctant to label himself a leader, exhibited consistent behaviors and expressed unconventional beliefs that speak volumes as to his behavioral integrity (see Simons, 1999) and remarkable influence. Our examination of his words and deeds revealed a portrait of an unorthodox leader who was masterful at transcending the power of hierarchy, sharing leadership, generating trust, and creating a sense of unity and cooperation amongst his peers and the broader community of his diverse followers.

This portrayal is opportune as the current literature is replete with calls for more communal forms of leadership (e.g. Pearce et al., 2009). Numerous articles have celebrated the advantages thought to be attributable to distributing leadership (see Kocolowski, 2010). Regrettably, successful implementation of these idealistic conceptualizations of shared leadership in business organizations has largely failed to materialize (Crevani et al., 2007). Without greater understanding of how shared leadership could legitimately emerge and thrive in a world of hierarchy, practitioners will continue to assume the intent is laudable yet rather naı̈ve (Locke, 2003). As a result, Carson et al. (2007) proposed that researchers should focus their attention on factors that might engender an organizational climate that is more conducive to the sharing of leadership.

In addition, scholars have called for richer conceptualizations of less hierarchical leadership processes (Werhane, 2007), more consideration of unconventional groups and leaders (Peiro and Melia, 2003), and counterculture approaches (i.e. in opposition to the dominate logic) to get past the “worn-out mindsets” engrained in the traditional view of organizational leadership (Ghoshal, 2005, as cited in Werhane, 2007, p. 427). In response to these calls, our focus on Jerry Garcia as an original, counterculture figure that actually enabled shared leadership is warranted.

In this study, we address these proposals by examining Garcia’s unique leadership role in the Grateful Dead and his facilitation of shared leadership. First, we review the literature related to shared leadership and hierarchy. Second, we compare Garcia’s leadership to existing leadership models to discern how he overcame hierarchy and influenced the consciousness of community that collective forms of leadership require. Finally, we reflect upon his experiences and expressed beliefs to offer a counterintuitive, counterculture conceptualization of the conditions under which shared leadership could emerge in traditional organizational settings.

Shared leadership and organizational hierarchy We must first note that the idea of shared leadership is not new (O’Toole et al., 2002). For example, Sally (2002) described the sharing of leadership in ancient Roman political society. Also, we would be remiss without recognizing the extensive discussions concerning shared leadership in the writings of Mary Parker Follett (1924). In addition, although nearly forgotten today, the vision of sharing leadership was described in the works of the sociologist Talcott Parsons in the 1950s (Heckscher, 2008).

742

LODJ 34,8

Although support for shared leadership has been largely anecdotal, advocates have extolled the benefits of the approach. In their view, a shared leadership framework should contribute to superior decision making (O’Toole et al., 2002), particularly in complex situations (Palus et al., 2003), reduced stress for individual leaders (Pearce, 2007), greater synergy (Lee-Davies et al., 2007), enhanced creativity (Hooker and Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), and improved team success (Hiller et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the reality is that most real-world organizations are led by individuals who seldom share leadership and prefer to retain power in a hierarchical fashion (Crevani et al., 2007). Moreover, a recent review of leadership articles in top-tier academic journals determined that 85 percent assumed a traditional, hierarchical leadership configuration (Ancona and Backman, 2010).

While scholars have called for more specific definitions of shared leadership, our understanding of the construct is still in its “infancy” (Kocolowski, 2010, p. 27). One reason is simply delineation of the concept (Carson et al., 2007) and the vernacular describing it (Pearce et al., 2008). It is common to encounter the terms shared leadership (e.g. Pearce and Conger, 2003), distributed leadership (e.g. Gronn, 2002), collaborative leadership (e.g. Ansell and Gash, 2008), collective leadership (e.g. Crevani et al., 2007), and liberating leadership (e.g Getz, 2009) used more or less interchangeably but with varied meanings (Avolio et al., 2009).

To reconcile these different yet overlapping concepts, Pearce and Conger (2003, p. 1) purposely defined shared leadership broadly 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.” Although this definition is general, it conveys our grasp of the concept and we will adopt it within our examination and subsequent conceptualization.

A specific issue that should be addressed is the fact that some proponents (not all – see Pearce et al., 2008) have described shared leadership as in large measure removed from a hierarchical framework. The rationale of those advocating this perspective is that hierarchical leadership is a downward process (Crevani et al., 2007) that is generally authoritarian (Sirman, 2008) in nature. We argue that this is a misguided perspective that leads many, most notably practitioners, to assume shared leadership initiatives are not viable (Locke, 2003; Oman, 2005).

We think this dilemma of the expressly dimensional representation of hierarchical leadership could be mitigated with a better representation of the spectrum of leader power that could be conceptualized to vary from stringent, even autocratic, positional authority to truly shared leadership. Clearly, all forms of hierarchical leadership are not alike and it would be constructive if researchers acknowledged precisely their intent within the hierarchical label. Such a categorical view of hierarchy omits important information that is relevant in the progression from hierarchical authority in its many forms to shared leadership.

We see leader power ranging from formal hierarchical structures such as positional authority (Kohn and Schooler, 1983) and dispersed expertise (Jelinek and Schoonhoven, 1983) to facilitative leadership (Maccoby, 1996), to informal hierarchical forms (see Magee and Galinsky, 2008) like empowered teams (Pearce and Manz, 2005), collaborative practice (Ansell and Gash, 2008), and self-leadership (Lovelace et al., 2007) to, ultimately, shared leadership (Pearce and Conger, 2003). We are not, however, advocating for a logical step-wise progression from formal hierarchy to shared leadership along this continuum, as we view the emergence of such leadership as much more complex than the degree of leader hierarchical power alone.

743

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

Shared leadership is much more about the system (Pearce et al., 2008). As this is the case, we take a process world view (see Thompson, 2011) with respect to the sharing of leadership.

In fact, we think the myopic focus on entity-based deductive strategies has hindered conceptual development of such composite systems. We have “[y] fallen prey to our deductive, empirical nature, attempting to break down the parts of a complex thriving whole [y]” (Goeppinger, 2002, p. 77). Our favored modes of inquiry have focussed on deductive reasoning where we slice up the whole and attempt to understand the component parts. Often this approach is not only misleading but contradictory to the natural flow of the complex interactional workings held by the systems within which we function. We think this statement is especially applicable with the idea of sharing leadership. Shared leadership can be “viewed as a property of the entire system, as opposed to solely the property of individuals, effectiveness in leadership becomes more of a product of the connections or relationships among the parts than the result of any one part of the system [y]” (O’Connor and Quinn, 2004, p. 423). In order for the notion of community to flourish, we must accept that it goes against deductive reductionism. “There is really no need to rationalize the processes of community and leadership, but there is a need to understand them. To accomplish this, one needs only to observe, not break apart and measure” (Goeppinger, 2002, p. 82). Therefore, we observed the beliefs, words, and actions of a leader who truly realized this conceptualization of community and sharing leadership.

Jerry Garcia of the grateful dead Rowley (2002) argued that single case studies are appropriate when the case is unique or has something special to reveal. We think Garcia meets both criteria. We find him a valuable example because his case is likely to contribute to: richer conceptualizations of less hierarchical processes (Werhane, 2007), better understanding of the emerging thoughts of the Dead’s influence on management (Green, 2010), heightened awareness for the need to reflect on unconventional groups to better understand current organizational issues (Peiro and Melia, 2003), and the acceptance of counterculture approaches as a means to move beyond the traditional thinking that dominates our conceptualizations of hierarchical leadership (Ghoshal, 2005). Moreover, Garcia’s leadership actually overcame the power of hierarchy and promoted the sense of community needed for shared leadership to develop. For 30 years he influenced not only his band mates but also tens of thousands of fans (referred to as the Deadheads). From 1965 to 1995 the business of the Grateful Dead grew in size to 70 full-time employees and tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue even though they had only one top ten single in their long career. The Grateful Dead were a touring band that played roughly 75 concerts each year driven in large part by Garcia’s passion for playing before live audiences (Barnes, 2004).

Jerry Garcia formed the nucleus of the Grateful Dead in the early 1960s first in Mother McCree’s Uptown Jug Champions with Bob Weir, Bill Kreutzmann, and Ron McKernan. Garcia led the shift to rock and roll in 1965 when they added bass player Phil Lesh and took the name the Grateful Dead (Jackson, 1999). They began playing in a pizza parlor in Palo Alto, California for $50 a night, and by 1973 they played to the largest crowd in US history (estimated at 600,000 – nearly twice as large as the crowd at Woodstock in 1969) at Watkins Glen, New York. In 1991 total attendance at their concerts was 1.8 million with a 99.4 percent occupancy rate. Demand for tickets was always strong, and sales reached $52.5 million in 1994, the band’s last full year of touring.

744

LODJ 34,8

From the very beginning of the band, however, Garcia expressed his reluctance to the idea that he alone was the leader. For example, in a 1972 interview and book, Garcia said (Garcia et al., 1972, p. 76):

The way it works is it doesn’t depend on a leader, and I’m not the leader of the Grateful Dead or anything like that, there isn’t any [y] leader. I don’t think you need it anymore [in the band] because everybody is the leader.

In 1988 when asked to what extent he was the leader of the Grateful Dead, Garcia replied, “Not to any great extent, but the guys in the band all trust me” (Sievert, 1993, p. 88). Noticeably, his statements expressed his belief that leadership was shared and that a hallmark of their relationships was trust. He also demonstrated humility.

Although Garcia resisted the label of leader, others around him believed differently. Bass player Phil Lesh said that, “Jerry was definitely emerging as the undeclared leader. As much as we all loved playing with one another, everyone’s primary musical bond was with Jerry” (Lesh, 2005, p. 135). Sue Swanson, one of the earliest Grateful Dead fans said, “It was always Jerry’s band” (Jackson, 1999, p. 111). Another insider, Emily Craig, had much the same view saying, “Jerry’s vote was greater than the sum of everybody else’s” (Jackson, 1999, p. 274). In addition, Dennis McNally (2002, p. 55), the band’s publicist offered that he led “subtly and by example.” In any event, it is clear that Garcia was attributed positional authority by those around him.

Garcia’s influence on the business of the Grateful Dead was enormous, and Robert Hunter, Garcia’s lyricist and close friend, once said “the shape of the Grateful Dead reflects the shape of Jerry Garcia’s mind” (McNally, 2002, p. 55). It was Garcia who brought in Keith Godchaux on keyboards when original keyboard player, Ron McKernan, became ill in 1971. It was Garcia who supported the creation of the Dead’s own record label in 1973. It was Garcia who directed and edited the film The Grateful Dead Movie in 1974-1976. It was Garcia who recommended keyboard player Brent Mydland when Godchaux left the band in 1979 (Lesh, 2005). Furthermore, Garcia’s influence extended well beyond his band mates.

Garcia was also the driving force behind fan taping of the band’s live performances much as he himself had done in the late 1950s when he followed and recorded bluegrass star Bill Munroe (Jackson, 1999). It was his position that, “When we’re finished playing it, they can have it” (Barnes, 2004, p. 294). Allowing fans to tape Grateful Dead performances may have been “the best decision we never made” according to Phil Lesh (2005, p. 192). Although counterintuitive, rather than reduce record sales as feared by their record company, the tapes of their live performances were widely traded among fans (long before MP3) and led to a nearly insatiable demand for tickets to their concerts for the rest of their career.

The audience for the Grateful Dead became a unique phenomenon in popular music, and much has been written about them in both the popular press and academic publications (Adams and Sardiello, 2000; Barnes, 2004; Rifkin and Hill, 1999). For them there was a passion for the music that grew throughout the band’s history and even after their demise. By the mid-1990s the band’s fan database included as many as 140,000 names. If leadership is transforming others to seek a common goal, then Garcia was clearly a leader to the fans who sought to share the music.

Part of the Deadheads’ strong connection to Garcia was due to the understanding by all parties that the audience was part of both the music and the band. They had a shared vision and, in essence, they were parts of one system. Garcia “[y] always considered the audience an integral part of the band, recognizing that one

745

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

could not exist without the other” (Sievert, 1993, p. 88). Bassist Phil Lesh (2005, p. 265) offered:

It’s hard to overemphasize the importance of the Deadheads, not just to the band’s career, but also to the core values that made the music so unique. If the band onstage was a microcosm, the audience, and by extension the larger Deadhead community, could be considered a macrocosm.

Upon his death, singer Maria Muldaur (Jackson, 1999, p. 456) summed up Garcia’s influence:

He had a flock. He didn’t choose it. He didn’t say ‘I want to be a big icon and guru’ to what is now several generations. But I think it was because in his own unassuming way he made himself completely an instrument of higher good energy, which is the real reason people need music so much.

Just as he resisted being labeled the single leader of the band, Garcia also seemed concerned about his influence on the Deadheads. He explained (Vaughn, 1987, p. 84):

I’ve made a real effort, so far anyway, to tell people that I’m not leading anybody anywhere. I’m extremely paranoid. If you look at where we’re going, it has all the elements of the most extreme fascism. So that scares me a lot. I worry about it. That’s not what we’re about. It’s not what that power is about. It’s not about directing it somewhere. And it’s certainly not up to me to decide what it’s for or what it even is or even if it exists. But if people find something to believe in, in the midst of all that stuff, it’s OK with me. It’s just that I think there are better places to look than in other human beings. Would you like to have the responsibility of leading thousands of people off into some oblivion somewhere? If you thought that you were capable of it, you would automatically be the wrong person. So I’m disqualifying myself early. Whatever it is that the Grateful Dead does, it’s not me doing it.

His concern with misleading Deadheads continued and in a 1992 interview (Meier, 1992, p. 57) he responded to a question about offering a political message to the crowd by saying:

The power is frightening. If I’m going to be onstage I’m not going to say anything to anybody or address the crowd, because it doesn’t matter what you say, sometimes just the sound of your voice might inadvertently set somebody off.

Thus, much like his unwillingness to be the sole leader of the band, Garcia was equally sensitive to his power with the Deadheads. Reluctant or not, however, Garcia was the leader of the Grateful Dead and the Deadheads, certainly at the beginning, and held significant hierarchical sway. Yet he managed not to exploit the power of hierarchy and created a sense of community where leadership could be more broadly distributed. This is remarkable as “power is the currency of leadership” and “power-addiction” is commonplace with leaders holding such staggering influence (Weidner and Purohit, 2009, p. 83). The question remains then as to how he achieved such a consistent, communal, relationally based form of guidance.

Palus et al. (2003, pp. 28-29) surmised that “the ability to consistently apply a relational understanding of leadership might be associated with postformal stages of meaning-making such as Kegan (1994) described as interindividual [y].” Unfortunately, most organizational leaders, particularly those at more functional levels, operate at prior stages (Fisher et al., 2000). In addition, Peiro and Melia (2003) called for more consideration of unusual leaders outside of typical organizations to enhance our conception of sharing power, a notion that flies in the face of organizational hierarchy. Accordingly, we describe Garcia’s leader behaviors and

746

LODJ 34,8

beliefs and examine them in the context of contemporary theories of leadership to determine how this transcendent leader (see Crossan and Mazutis, 2008) overcame the power of hierarchy and established such a robust sense of community and trust with followers and fellow leaders alike.

The leadership of Jerry Garcia We began our examination of Garcia with Palus et al.’s (2003) proposition that the capacity to maintain a relational understanding of leadership is likely related to more complex modes of understanding. A higher stage of development allows for greater freedom for self and relational interpretation (Kegan, 1994). Consistent with these constructive developmental assumptions, Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) offered that the perceptual structures of transformational leaders were different from lower level transactional leaders and that only at higher stages could leaders truly consider the interests of others, as personal goals were transcended by a focus on interpersonal relations. Thus, transformational leaders can alter the goals of those around them allowing their influence to filter throughout the organization (Bass et al., 1987). Based upon these studies and the reality of Garcia as such a transformative figure, Garcia’s followers would undoubtedly label him as a transformational leader that fostered a web of co-developmental relationships with them (see McCauley et al., 2006).

Garcia as a transformational leader Building on earlier work by Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and colleagues developed their theory of transformational leadership to explain how some leaders are able to inspire followers to perform beyond expectations (Bass and Avolio, 1990). They suggested that earlier leadership theories concentrated on a simple exchange relationship with followers. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, are change agents who are willing to alter their own behaviors when it is ineffective in order to move followers to create new methods for achieving goals. Bass and Avolio (1990) asserted that transformational leaders are likely to be viewed as charismatic by followers, creating remarkable referent power, in large measure due to extraordinary trust.

Yukl (2006) explained that because of the trust created, transformational leaders appeal to high-order needs and inspire followers to move beyond their self-interests for the good of the organization. Transformational leader behaviors are generally thought to be idealized influence which is often related to charisma, individualized consideration which provides a supportive climate, inspirational motivation which creates high expectations and enhanced team spirit, and intellectual stimulation which generates creativity. These transformational leaders encourage higher levels of effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction among followers who are then “more capable of leading themselves, taking responsibility for their own actions, and gaining rewards through self-reinforcement” (Bass and Avolio, 1990, p. 244).

In the community of Garcia, the Dead, and the Deadheads, all members were concerned with the idea of transformation. In a 1991 interview (Henke, 1991, p. 37), Garcia explained:

When we get onstage [y] we want to be transformed from ordinary players to extraordinary ones, like forces of a larger consciousness. And the audience wants to be transformed from whatever ordinary reality they may be in to something a little wider, something that enlarges them.

By combining this quote with earlier comments on the audience being an integral part of the band, it becomes easy to see that Garcia’s leadership moved beyond a simple

747

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

transaction of exchanging tickets for a performance to an effort to transform their entire community through the process of reciprocal co-development (Valcea et al., 2011). In this process, Garcia acted as the prime catalyst with great charisma (idealized influence), considering the needs of those around him (individual consideration), through inspiring words and deeds (inspirational motivation), while stimulating others to offer new ways of looking at previous issues (intellectual stimulation). He consistently exhibited the behaviors associated with transformational leadership. The exceptional levels of trust which he generated, and the ethically based empathy shown to accomplish transformation of the community as a whole, however, point to his qualities as a servant leader as well.

Garcia as a servant leader Like the theory of transformational leadership, the theory of servant leadership also emerged from the charismatic leadership genre as a distinct theory yet with some conceptual similarities (Graham, 1991). This is not unexpected as transformational leaders are thought to operate out of personal value systems that align comfortably with the servant leader paradigm.

Graham (1991), however, argued that servant leadership is distinct in that it posits the leader must become responsible for more than mere accomplishment of organizational goals. Specifically, the servant leader conceptualization gives directionality to the moral facet. According to Graham (1991, p. 110), “there is nothing in [y] transformational leadership [y] that says leaders should serve followers for the good of the followers [y] the primary allegiance of transformational leaders is clearly to the organization [y].”

Greenleaf (1977) proposed that servant leaders emphasize collaboration, trust, empathy, and the ethical use of power. He contended that such leaders consciously decide to lead in order to better serve others rather than to increase their own power. Servant leaders aim to enhance the growth of the individuals in the organization through teamwork and personal involvement through listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of others, and building community. More recently others (Laub, 1999; Spears, 1998) have refined these elements to six distinct components. Specifically, servant leaders value people, develop people, build a community, display authenticity, provide leadership, and share leadership.

Although Garcia seemed to have consciously chosen not to be labeled a leader, many if not all of Greenleaf’s servant leader characteristics can be applied to him. Listening, empathy, awareness, foresight, and building community contributed to the symbiotic relationship between the band and the audience. Reflecting on the earlier comments and quotes about Garcia’s leadership, we can see his stewardship, interest in building community, and concern for the ethical use and sharing of power. As another example, Garcia said in 1992 (Meier, 1992, p. 57):

Is it fair to charge people $25 a ticket to go into an enormous stadium and see people on the stage this big? ( Jerry holds his thumb and forefinger a half of an inch apart.) I don’t think it is, unless you’re able to create a good enough sound and a large enough image to play to the worst seat in the house.

Garcia and the Dead were also focussed on seeking constructive co-developmental synergy which the Deadheads called the X-factor where, when things went “just right” at a Dead concert, there was a remarkable synergy between the band members as they played, and between the audience as well, that created a feeling of joy and ecstasy (Barnes, 2004). We think this reflected his belief in healing and the growth of others.

748

LODJ 34,8

Expressed in the 1967 CBS television program, “The Hippie Temptation,” he offered ( Jackson, 1999, p. 120):

We would all like to be able to live an uncluttered life; a simple life, a good life, and think about moving the whole human race ahead a step [y]. We want people to feel a little better [y]. The music that we make is an act of love, an act of joy.

Considering these quotes and observations, it takes no conceptual leap to see that Garcia’s servant leadership clearly valued people and focussed on building community with great sincerity. Therefore, we argue that his leadership should be examined in terms of the current conceptualization of authentic leadership.

Garcia as an authentic leader Just as there is a conceptual relationship between transformational leadership and servant leadership, the same is true for the relationship of these concepts with authentic leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Again, this should come as no surprise as authentic leadership proponents also speak to the moral dimension in the operational definition of authenticity (see Walumbwa et al., 2008).

In fact, although others have called for more of an ethically neutral basis for authentic leadership (e.g. Shamir and Eilam, 2005), Gardner et al. (2005, pp. 395-396) invoked the words of Burns (1978) when defending their characterization:

[y] we have specifically taken the stand that authentic leaders [y] are of high moral character [y] which is a prerequisite for such leadership, in the same way that Burns (1978) defined transforming leaders as being of high moral character [y].

Because of this intersecting moral dimension, it has been suggested that authentic leadership is describing what Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) referred to as authentic transformational leadership. Conversely, authentic leadership supporters rightly maintain that, “Although authentic leadership is closely related to the four behavioral aspects of transformational leadership [y] the proposed dimensions of authentic leadership are not explicitly encompassed by transformational leadership” (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 104).

For example, Walumbwa et al. (2008) suggested that self-awareness, a key element in authentic leadership, is not represented in transformational leadership. Also, even though authentic leaders build solid relationships, they may not necessarily be perceived as charismatic (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Further, whereas Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) admitted that transformational leaders may sometimes manipulate followers for the common good, authentic leaders are thought to have no such inclination because their values have become indistinguishable from their individual self-concepts (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

By building networks of collaborative relationships with followers, authentic leaders lead in a way that followers perceive as genuine (Avolio et al., 2009). Authentic leaders are true to self and their exhibited behavior positively transforms or develops associates into leaders themselves. Avolio and Gardner (2005, p. 321) declared that authentic leaders “lead from their own personal point of view [y] based on their personal values and convictions.”

The components of authentic leadership are (Walumbwa et al., 2008): self- awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and an internalized moral perspective. Self-awareness is the recognition of one’s affect on others; relational transparency is the presentation of one’s authentic self to others as opposed to a fake image; balanced processing is the objective analysis of all relevant data before making

749

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

a decision; and internalized moral perspective is guidance by internal moral standards and values rather than external pressures (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Authentic leaders are guided by a set of values that are oriented toward doing what’s right and fair for all stakeholders (Luthans and Avolio, 2003).

Once again, demonstrating Garcia’s authenticity as a leader is not a daunting task. The numerous quotes already presented showing his real concern for the influence he held over others indicate a strong degree of self-awareness. He certainly went out of his way to present a true picture of himself to others (relational transparency). His ability to consider multiple perspectives (balanced processing) allowed him to rightly gauge the implications from unconventional actions (e.g. taping of live performances). Lastly, whether one agrees or not with Garcia’s notions of morality, there is absolutely no doubt that he was guided by his own internal moral standards (internalized moral perspective), doing what he thought was in the best interest for all in the community, and doing so no matter what the consequences to him or even the demands from society. A review of his leadership places him squarely within the description of an authentic leader. Moreover, we submit that the combination of his authentic, transformational, and servant leadership might explain how he created the context needed to shift the dominance of hierarchical forces towards community and trust so that shared leadership could emerge.

Understanding the emergence of shared leadership The goal of establishing and sustaining shared leadership in business organizations has not materialized (Crevani et al., 2007), primarily because we do not grasp the means of restraining the power of hierarchy. As this is a commonly shared view, some find the idea of shared leadership impractical (Oman, 2005) or, practical only with certain tasks (Pearce and Manz, 2005), situations (Pearce et al., 2009), or professions (Adler et al., 2008).

We argue, however, that there are significant benefits to broadly shared leadership in terms of giving an organization “a more flexible, dynamic, robust and responsive leadership platform” (Pearce et al., 2009, p. 237). Yet, we are still searching for greater specificity in how it might be accomplished, particularly at more functional levels where “managerialism and performativity” tend to rule (Zepke, 2007, p. 311). To that end, based upon our examination of Garcia’s leadership and the literature, we reason we can offer a general conceptualization of the emergence of shared leadership from formal, hierarchical positional authority.

We begin with the notion that shared leadership must in some way work in conjunction with hierarchical leadership if we are ever to see it take hold in organizations in any meaningful way. This assumption of hierarchical embeddedness is made because those in positions of organizational authority demand it (Locke, 2003). In the real world, where incentives to share are weak and resources are unevenly distributed, specific vertical leadership intervention is often necessary (Ansell and Gash, 2008). In addition, attempts to simply evade hierarchy inevitably result in that hierarchy relentlessly rising to meet the challenge to its existence (Leavitt, 2005), as “power hierarchies tend to be self-reinforcing” (Magee and Galinsky, 2008, p. 351).

Furthermore, we agree with Pearce and Conger (2003) that influence within leader- follower relationships moves laterally, as well as up and down hierarchical processes. Although counterintuitive, hierarchical leadership plays a significant role in creating a culture where shared leadership might develop and thrive (Pearce, 2004). In other words, we think that the attempt to move beyond powerful, hierarchical leadership to more communal forms will require powerful, hierarchical leaders. These must be

750

LODJ 34,8

leaders that followers trust, both individually and collectively trust (Lewis and Weigert, 1985), as a means of tolerating the environmental uncertainty that is engendered from the shift to shared leadership (O’Toole et al., 2002). So, we are making the case that power can motivate, and not only corrupt, depending on the exhibited and perceived form of leadership.

We do understand this is a tall order as, “People in positions of power are able to set agendas, norms for discussion, rules for behavior, and standards for thought and opinion, all of which constrain the psychological freedom experienced by individuals lower in the hierarchy and help maintain the current power hierarchy” (Magee and Galinsky, 2008, p. 367). We realize that those with hierarchical power sometimes act in self-serving ways (Georgesen and Harris, 1998) and even create less harmonious social relations (Sampson, 1965).

Social psychologists, however, have asserted that positional power does not always corrupt and that the effects depend upon the person, situation, and context (e.g. Lammers et al., 2008). Indeed, Chen et al. (2001) explicitly argued for the importance of examining power and its relationship to communal versus exchange relationships. Specifically, communally oriented individuals (e.g. Garcia) are more likely to be focussed on the needs of others, while those who are exchange-oriented focus on making sure they get their fair share. Follett (1924) would label the communally oriented as focussed on co-active power (power-with) and the exchange oriented as focussed on coercive power (power-over). Thus, hierarchical power interacts with the particular leader variables in play to enact the budding leadership environment. For these reasons, we view hierarchical leadership not in opposition to shared leadership but, rather, as a critical and indispensable precursor. That is, for truly shared leadership to eventually emerge, we must begin with a differentiation between leader and followers with respect to power.

Accepting this premise preeminently elevates the leadership behaviors of the positional authority. This should not be surprising, as few would dispute “that leaders exercise influence, taking actions that [y] shape the behavior of others” (Mumford et al., 2000, p. 11). If that authority is focussed on exchange relationships and the maintenance of control, traditional hierarchical leadership will be the result as the context will continue to reinforce the hierarchy. Conversely, if the positional authority consistently exhibits the leader behaviors needed to shift the organizational environment towards community, shared leadership can become a reality. We argue these elements of leadership are those revealed by Garcia.

As presented earlier, Jerry Garcia epitomized many aspects of authentic, servant, and transformational leadership. Although authentic leaders need not be charismatic (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), Garcia was charismatic, which reflects transformational leadership. In addition, his servant character produced the socialized form of charisma (see Choi, 2006). Even when exhibiting socialized charisma, though, transformational leaders can be manipulative (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999) but this is not the case with servant leaders (Ehrhart, 2004). We think Garcia’s servant nature allowed for the benefits of transformational leadership while eliminating the threat of exploitation.

In addition, Garcia’s self-awareness, a hallmark of authentic leadership outside of transformational leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2008), was an important element of his interactions with followers. Thus, authentic leadership components must be included as well. Moreover, based upon his example, we think we can represent a feasible path from an individual authentic, transformational leader with servant qualities to the appearance of shared leadership.

751

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

Overall, we think the facilitation of shared leadership demands an authentic, transformational leader with servant qualities for many reasons. On the one hand, we know that aspects of these three leadership forms overlap and each promotes trust and “without trust there is no hope of developing shared leadership” (Pearce, 2004, p. 52). On the other hand, Carson et al. (2007) declared that effective hierarchical leadership was an important antecedent to shared leadership. They found that shared leadership was facilitated by the development of an environment characterized by the elements of shared purpose, social support, and voice.

Shared purpose exists when team members have similar understandings of their team’s objectives and take steps to ensure a focus on collective goals. This is an expected outcome of transformational leadership (idealized influence) particularly with a transformational leader whose charisma is the socialized form. Socialized charismatic relationships provide followers with a means of expressing their values within a collective framework (Howell and Shamir, 2005) and are more focussed on follower needs than the desires of the leader (Choi, 2006).

Social support exists when team members and leadership provide emotional and psychological support to one another, where they feel their input is valued and appreciated (Carson et al., 2007). It takes no theoretical bound to see the characteristics of servant leadership here (e.g. commitment to the growth of people, building community, valuing people, sharing leadership), as well as the transformational behavior of individual consideration (Laub, 1999).

Voice does not have a common definition but Carson et al. (2007) described it as connoting participation and input. We can see clearly the role of relational transparency and balanced processing of authentic leadership in achieving voice, as well as transformational leadership’s intellectual stimulation and servant leadership’s listening as a way of valuing and building trust.

Beyond these elements, we think that transparency (Werhane, 2007) is a fourth antecedent to creating an environment/context capable of producing shared leadership. We view transparency as an environmental precursor to trust. Since shared leadership is rooted in leadership as a social construct (Balkundi and Kilduff, 2006) and a relational phenomenon (Carson et al., 2007) the relational transparency of authentic leadership would be crucial.

Therefore, we propose that when an authentic, transformational leader with servant qualities is placed in the hierarchical position of authority, shared purpose, social support, voice, and transparency are all significant components of the overall leadership context. This context creates the environment needed to shift the dominance of hierarchy towards community. In making this claim, we borrow liberally from the ideas of Adler (2001) and Ouchi (1980) to demonstrate this shifting from the dominance of hierarchy and market towards the conception of community. While these authors examined this shifting from the macro level, we find their general application equally appropriate for the micro level of leadership.

Adler (2001, p. 215) described general organizational forms as hierarchy (authority), market (price mechanism), and community (trust), although he rightly asserted that real organizations typically “embody a mix of the three [y].” He and others (e.g. Ouchi, 1980; Powell, 1990) have advocated for community as a real alternative and have suggested that trust is the primary “coordinating mechanism in the community form” (Adler, 2001, p. 217). Adler (2001) offered that the objects of such trust could be in individuals, systems, or collectivities. Unfortunately, the three-way tension between hierarchy, market forces, and community has radically

752

LODJ 34,8

slanted towards hierarchy and market over community in most organizations (Adler, 2001).

We think that if we are to shift the supremacy away from hierarchical forces to some degree at the group level, however, trust must first be directed around an individual leader. We visualize this leader generating significant trust with followers by way of the authentic, transformational, and servant leader behaviors described. This enhanced level of trust, placed into a leadership context where shared purpose, social support, voice, and transparency are consistently demonstrated, allows for community to usurp some degree of the power associated with hierarchy. This transfer in dominance away from hierarchy and towards community allows team members to then begin building trust in the collectivity. As this is the case, we see trust as both an antecedent and an outcome of the shift towards community.

We are not suggesting that the power associated with market and hierarchy goes away, only that the power of community is enhanced to an extent that hierarchy and market forces no longer completely govern the relationship. In fact, we do not want to lose the value of hierarchy and market forces, as community must be balanced by hierarchy to ensure stability and equity and balanced by market to ensure flexibility and adaptability (Adler, 2001). Without these forces, a prevailing community might become too inward looking. We think this rebalancing moves the potentiality of shared leadership into reality. This is vital since the accumulation of social capital can be mitigated or exacerbated by hierarchy and market forces (Adler and Kwon, 2002).

As the focus moves toward community, trust is building in the collectivity. This focal shift is important because trust leads to mounting social capital which in turn leads to norms of reciprocity and increased solidarity (Adler and Kwon, 2002). This occurs as the leader begins to discount rank, encourages collective knowledge creation, and dissemination, and focusses on collaboration as a strategy (Ireland and Hitt, 2005). Eventually, the initial positional authority can evolve to a significant degree into the communal leadership process, further strengthening trust as a relational bond and enhancing the group’s sense of community (Adler, 2001).

Also, within this shift, the perception of power results from accumulated social capital (Adler and Kwon, 2002), as the leader creates a sense of power for followers (Martorana, 2005). This sense of power, which impacts the thoughts and behaviors of followers, is more important than actual power because it allows followers to respond voluntarily to their perception of empowerment (Gioia and Sims, 1983) in the process of shared leadership. In other words, power has shifted from the hierarchical leader and now lies in the co-developmental interactions that take place between the community members (Goeppinger, 2002).

Our conceptualization posits that a powerful, hierarchical leader is needed to enact an environment/context for shared leadership to take place, and that the antecedents for the enactment of this environment are shared purpose, social support, voice, and transparency. Specifically, we are proposing that an authentic, transformational leader, with socialized charisma, and with servant qualities could create the environment for shared leadership to emerge, influence the shift from the dominance of market and hierarchy/power influences towards community/trust, engender the trust needed for the sufficient accumulation of social capital, and establish appropriate norms of reciprocity, so that shared leadership might emerge and flourish to an extent that the initial hierarchical leadership has evolved in large measure into the collective leadership process. Since the idea of a powerful, hierarchical leader (initial attribution of positional authority) as a necessary precursor to shared leadership is

753

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

counterintuitive, and we are encouraged to pursue a counterculture approach to leadership (Ghoshal, 2005), we offer this counterintuitive, counterculture conceptualization to explain how shared leadership might be initiated in a world of power and hierarchy.

Contributions, limitations, and future research This paper emerged as a response to the recent calls for further inquiry into the triggers for shared leadership, facilitation factors, and the most conducive influence approaches for the process of shared leadership (Kocolowski, 2010). As this type of leadership was exhibited by Jerry Garcia, we examined his case to illustrate how shared leadership might occur and flourish. We argue that our conceptualization based on this case is relevant to real organizational contexts and points to a viable path for practical implementation. We hope that we have in this way operationalized the theoretical concept of shared leadership as a paradigm useful for practice.

We certainly think that another contribution of our work is the promotion of management history as an appropriate lens for building leadership theory. “Moreover, Shamir (2011, p. 312) recently called for the examination of more historical case studies as a means to “narrate leadership phenomena as they unfold over time” (Humphreys et al., 2013). We argue that our conceptualization could provide management practitioners guidance as to behaviors that could lead to the creation of an environment conducive to the sharing of leadership. Using the lens of historical exploration, we have attended to both Ghoshal’s (2005) admonition of getting past our long-standing mindsets concerning leadership and the appeal for greater consideration of unconventional research contexts (Bamberger and Pratt, 2010) through our examination of Jerry Garcia as an unorthodox catalyst of shared leadership.

We also hope to motivate researchers to investigate other atypical leaders consistent with the theme of leadership as art (see Ladkin and Taylor, 2010). We ground this motivation in the words of Barnard (1938, p. 235) who declared that leadership is “[y] a matter of art rather than a science, and is aesthetic rather than logical.” We can learn unique lessons from artists because artists approach leadership from a different starting point than do traditional organizational leaders (Novicevic et al., 2011). For example, we evoke Garcia’s insightful statement that he would “really like to see what could be created from joy.” We agree with Ladkin and Taylor (2010, p. 236) that today’s leaders would be “well-advised to look to the artist, whose purpose throughout the ages has been to navigate unchartered territories and reveal the difficulties as well as the glories lurking within them.” As this is the case, we think future examinations of artistic leaders and forms of leadership (Bathurst et al., 2010) could prove beneficial.

Finally, we would like to think the greatest contribution of our conceptualization will be the generation of future research. We believe our description will promote debate among leadership scholars and allow for further theorization and subsequent empirical examinations, primarily with the relationships among the variables we have described.

We do, however, recognize the limitation of generalization of single historical case studies. While we readily acknowledge the limitations of a case approach, we find the offsetting strengths provide justification (Humphreys et al., 2011; Siggelkow, 2007). “Moreover, even flawed case studies (e.g. Hawthorne Works of Western Electric) have significantly altered the evolution of some of our most basic theoretical assumptions (Stuart et al., 2002)” (Ahmed and Humphreys, 2008, p. 47). We also note that with various forms of ethno-methodology, the achievement of generalizability is often considered at best premature (see Fairhurst, 2009).

754

LODJ 34,8

Due to the limited scholarly knowledge available concerning the sharing of leadership, we argue a case study is appropriate (Yin, 2003). Eisenhardt (1989) suggested case studies were applicable when the goal was conceptualization to avoid the potential bias of previous assumptions. In fact, such historical approaches often allow us to create a richer mode of description and understanding (Booth, 2003) and develop new paradigms (Voss et al., 2002).

We also find support in the work of Siggelkow (2007, p. 20), who asserted that examinations of single cases can be “powerful” and “desirable.” Although the validity of case-based approaches has been questioned from a strict positivist perspective (see Gibbert et al., 2008) inductive conceptualization from cases can also “offer insights that might not be achieved with other approaches” (Rowley, 2002, p. 16). We argue that historical case studies can generate explanatory knowledge (Tsoukas, 1989) that is valuable to the practice of management (Ahmed and Humphreys, 2008) and the extension of theory (Shamir, 2011).

We find this avowal fitting with the unique case of Garcia. Emulating the proposal of Siggelkow (2007), this case was not randomly selected, as we reasoned it offered compelling insights with regard to the effective sharing of leadership. Furthermore, Siggelkow (2007, p. 21) declared that the study of such cases could make valuable contributions to the literature by way of “illustration” and/or “inspiration,” allowing qualitative conceptual researchers and practitioners to judge the illustrative properties of the case while offering those that view case methodology as less robust the ability to focus on our grounded conceptualization and view the case as simply inspiration for that conceptualization.

Even so, the question of bias always surfaces, and legitimately so as, “The historian displays a bias through the mere choice of a subject” (Gilderhus, 1992, p. 80). We obviously believed Garcia to be an unusual and effective leader and proceeded from that standpoint. When a case of exemplary leadership is examined the “requirements of reasonable objectivity do not rule out individual interpretation and judgment [y].” (Daniels, 1981, p. 92). We agree with Scott (1996, p. 85) that “historical facts and contextual imagination are necessary.” We think this viewpoint conforms well to Weick’s (1989) idea of disciplined imagination. Moreover, we pursued a reasoning strategy of contextualization and asked readers to judge the plausibility of our ideas concerning shared leadership on this basis.

Yet, we must acknowledge another limitation of the leadership described. Although we think we have more than adequately made the case for Jerry Garcia as an authentic, transformational leader with servant qualities, the inclusion of such leadership does raise the issue of reasonable applicability. Can identify and/or develop leaders across organizations and levels who consistently exhibit leader behaviors associated with these three powerful leadership forms? While we agree this could prove difficult, there is a modicum of evidence that at least some of these elements are potentially learned behavior (Dvir et al., 2002), leading us to conclude that some portion of such influence exists as a social and attributional process. Besides, we are of the opinion that we must first develop possible conceptualizations if we hope to ever have the notion of sharing leadership taken seriously in organizational circles.

As to future research, the field is wide open. Shared leadership is nascent theory, even more so for researchers who may be more practically inclined. While we have offered a general conceptualization of potential variables involved, empirical studies should commence in the effort to create true models of shared leadership. We also think future studies should attempt to refine the continuum of leader

755

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

hierarchical power. We have a long way to go in truly comprehending the effective sharing of leadership.

Conclusion The increasing complexity of leadership in contemporary organizations has initiated a “rethinking of what leadership is, where to find it, and how it can be practiced and developed” (Palus et al., 2003, p. 26). In particular, the idea of effectively sharing leadership is emerging at the forefront of this debate.

Although communal forms of leadership are being called for to provide more responsive leadership platforms, we find no compelling narrative as to how such leadership might develop in a world of hierarchy. Without greater understanding of how this process might work, practitioners will assume that shared leadership is a naı̈ve proposition and lose the many potential benefits associated with successfully distributing leadership. Accordingly, we examined the experiences and expressed beliefs of Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead to offer a counterintuitive, counterculture conceptualization of how shared leadership might transcend hierarchy to emerge and flourish in traditional settings.

References

Adams, R.G. and Sardiello, R. (2000), Deadhead Social Science, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Adler, P.S. (2001), “Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of Capitalism”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 215-234.

Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.

Adler, P.S., Kwon, S. and Heckscher, C. (2008), “Professional work: the emergence of collaborative community”, Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 359-376.

Ahmed, Z.U. and Humphreys, J.H. (2008), “A conceptual framework for developing country transnationals: PROTON Malaysia”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 45-58.

Ancona, D. and Backman, E. (2010), “It’s not all about you”, Harvard Business Review, April, available at: http://blogs.hbr.org/imagining-the-future-of-leadership/2010/04/its-not-all- about-me-its-all-a.html (accessed August 1, 2010).

Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008), “Collaborative governance in theory and practice”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 543-571.

Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-338.

Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 421-449.

Balkundi, P. and Kilduff, M. (2006), “The ties that lead: a social network approach to leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 419-439.

Bamberger, P.A. and Pratt, M.G. (2010), “Moving forward by looking back: reclaiming unconventional research contexts and samples in organizational scholarship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 665-671.

Barnard, C. (1938), The Functions of The Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Barnes, B. (2004), “The grateful dead – creating deadheads by providing drop dead customer service”, in Johnson, W.C. and Weinstein, A. (Eds), Superior Customer Value in The New Economy: Concepts, Cases and Applications, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 254-260.

756

LODJ 34,8

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), “The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, pp. 231-272.

Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leader behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217.

Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J. and Bebb, M. (1987), “Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-87.

Bathurst, R., Jackson, B. and Statler, M. (2010), “Leading aesthetically in uncertain times”, Leadership, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 311-332.

Booth, C. (2003), “Does history matter in strategy? The possibilities and problems of counterfactual analysis”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-104.

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper, New York, NY.

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), “Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1217-1234.

Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A.Y. and Bargh, J.A. (2001), “Does power always corrupt? Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 173-187.

Choi, J. (2006), “A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: envisioning, empathy, and Empowerment”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 24-43.

Crevani, L., Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2007), “Shared leadership: a postheroic perspective on leadership as a collective construction”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 40-67.

Crossan, M. and Mazutis, D. (2008), “Transcendent leadership”, Business Horizons, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 131-139.

Daniels, R.V. (1981), Studying History: How and Why, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-744.

Ehrhart, M.G. (2004), “Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 61-94.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.

Fairhurst, G.T. (2009), “Considering context in discursive leadership research”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1607-1633.

Fisher, D., Rooke, D. and Torbert, W. (2000), Personal and Organizational Transformations Through Action Inquiry, EdgeWork Press, Berkeley, CA.

Follett, M.P. (1924), Creative Experience, Logmans Green, New York, NY.

Garcia, J., Reich, C. and Wenner, J. (1972), Garcia: A Signpost To New Space, Straight Arrow Books, San Francisco, CA.

Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: emergent trends and future directions”, in Gardner, W.L. Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (Eds), Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects, and Development, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 387-406.

Georgesen, J.C. and Harris, M.J. (1998), “Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta- analysis of power effects on performance evaluations”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 184-195.

757

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

Getz, I. (2009), “Liberating leadership: how the initiative-freeing radical organizational form has been successfully adopted”, California Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 32-58.

Ghoshal, S. (2005), “Bad management theories are destroying good management practices”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 75-91.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W. and Wicki, B. (2008), “What passes as a rigorous case study?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 13, pp. 1465-1474.

Gilderhus, M.T. (1992), History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Gioia, D.A. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1983), “Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of managerial behavior and reputation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-26.

Goeppinger, A. (2002), “The fallacies of our reality: a deconstructive look at community and Leadership”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 77-83.

Goodwin, C. (2010), “Think different, man!”, Sunday Times of London Magazine, August, pp. 47-51.

Graham, J.W. (1991), “Servant leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 105-119.

Green, J. (2010), “Management secrets of the grateful dead”, The Atlantic, March, available at: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/management-secrets-of-the-grateful- dead/307918/

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into The Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ.

Gronn, P. (2002), “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 423-451.

Heckscher, C. (2008), “Parsons as an organization theorist”, in Adler, P. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations, Oxford Handbooks Online, New York, NY, pp. 607-632.

Henke, J. (1991), “The Rolling Stone interview: Jerry Garcia”, Rolling Stone, Vol. 616 Nos 34-40, pp. 103-108.

Hiller, N.J., Day, D.V. and Vance, R.J. (2006), “Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: a field study”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 387-397.

Hooker, C. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003), “Flow, creativity, and shared leadership”, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 217-234.

Howell, J.M. and Shamir, B. (2005), “The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their consequences”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 96-112.

Humphreys, J.H., Gibson, J.W. and Oyler, J.D. (2013), “Upward defiance in organizations: management lessons from the battle of Blair mountain”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 304-327.

Humphreys, J.H., Pane-Haden, S., Clayton, R., Novicevic, M.M. and Gibson, J.W. (2011), “Lillian McMurry of trumpet records: integrity and authenticity in the charismatic, constructive narcissist leader”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 40-55.

Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (2005), “Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: the role of strategic leadership”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 63-77.

Jackson, B. (1999), Garcia: An American life, Viking, New York, NY.

Jelinek, M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. (1983), The Innovation Marathon, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Kegan, R. (1994), In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

758

LODJ 34,8

Kocolowski, M.D. (2010), “Shared leadership: is it time for a change?”, Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 22-32.

Kohn, M.L. and Schooler, C. (1983), Work and Personality, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.

Kuhnert, K.W. and Lewis, P. (1987), “Transactional and transformational leadership: a constructive/ developmental analysis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 648-657.

Ladkin, D. and Taylor, S.S. (2010), “Leadership as art: variations on a theme”, Leadership, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 235-241.

Lammers, J., Galinsky, A.D., Gordijn, E.H. and Otten, S. (2008), “Legitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach, action, and risk-taking”, Psychological Science, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 558-564.

Laub, J.A. (1999), “Assessing the servant organization: development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument”, Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, No. 2A: 0308, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.

Leavitt, H.J. (2005), Top Down: Why Hierarchies Are Here to Stay and How to Manage Them More Effectively, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Lee-Davies, L., Kakabadse, N.K. and Kakabadse, A. (2007), “Shared leadership: leading through Polylogue”, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 246-253.

Lesh, P. (2005), Searching for the Sound: My Life With the Grateful Dead, Little, Brown and Company, New York, NY.

Lewis, D.J. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 967-985.

Locke, E. (2003), “Leadership: starting at the top”, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 271-284.

Lovelace, K.J., Manz, C.C. and Alves, J.C. (2007), “Work stress and leadership development: the role of self-leadership, shared leadership, physical fitness, and flow in management demands and job control”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 374-387.

Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership: a positive developmental approach”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 241-261.

McCauley, C.D., Drath, W.H., Palus, C.J., O’Connor, P.M. and Baker, B.A. (2006), “The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 634-653.

McNally, D. (2002), A Long Strange Trip: The Inside History of the Grateful Dead, Broadway Books, New York, NY.

Maccoby, M. (1996), “Knowledge workers and new structures”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 56-58.

Magee, J.C. and Galinsky, A.D. (2008), “Social hierarchy: the self-reinforcing nature of power and status”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 351-398.

Martorana, P.V. (2005), “From system justification to system condemnation: antecedents of low power attempts to change power hierarchies”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.

Meier, B. (1992), “Jerry Garcia speaks with Barbara Meier”, Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, Vol. 1, Spring, pp. 56-58.

Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T.O. and Fleishman, E.A. (2000), “Leadership skills for a changing world: solving complex social problems”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 11-35.

Novicevic, M.M., Humphreys, J.H., Buckley, M.R., Cagle, C. and Roberts, F. (2011), “Effective leadership in unexpected places: a sociohistorical analysis of the red tops dance orchestra”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 529-540.

759

Hierarchy to facilitate shared

leadership

O’Connor, P.M.G. and Quinn, L. (2004), “Organizational capacity for leadership”, in McCauley, C.D. and Van Velsor, E. (Eds), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 417-437.

Oman, S. (2005), “Juridiska aspekter pa samledarskap – Hinder och mojligheter for delat ledarskap”, Report No. 29, Arbetslivsinstitutet, Stockholm.

O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J. and Lawler, E.E. III (2002), “When two (or more) heads are better than one: the promise and pitfalls of shared leadership”, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 65-83.

Ouchi, W. (1980), “Markets, bureaucracies and clans”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 125-141.

Palus, C.J., Horth, D.M., Selvin, A.M. and Pulley, M.L. (2003), “Exploration for development: developing leadership by making shared sense of complex challenges”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 55 No. 1 , pp. 26-40.

Pearce, C.L. (2004), “The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-57.

Pearce, C.L. (2007), “The future of leadership development: the importance of identity, multi-level approaches, self-leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on-boarding processes”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 355-359.

Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003), “All those years ago: the historical underpinnings of shared leadership”, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, London, pp. 250-267.

Pearce, C.L., Conger, J.A. and Locke, E.A. (2008), “Shared leadership theory”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 622-628.

Pearce, C.L. and Manz, C.C. (2005), “The importance of self – and shared leadership in knowledge work”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 130-140.

Pearce, C.L., Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2009), “Where do we go from here? Is shared leadership the key to team success?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 234-238.

Peiro, J.M. and Melia, J.L. (2003), “Formal and informal personal power in organizations: testing a bifactorial model of power in role-sets”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 14-35.

Powell, W. (1990), “Neither markets nor hierarchy: network forms of organization”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 295-336.

Rifkin, G. and Hill, S. (1999), Radical Marketing: From Harvard to Harley, Lessons from Ten that Broke the Rules and Made it Big, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.

Rowley, J. (2002), “Using case studies in research”, Management Research News, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 16-27.

Sally, D. (2002), “Co-leadership: lessons from republican Rome”, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 84-99.

Sampson, R.V. (1965), Equality and Power, Heinmann, London.

Scott, W.G. (1996), “Do historical facts speak for themselves? Imagination and intuition in management history”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 2 No. 3, p. 85.

Shamir, B. (2011), “Leadership takes time: some implications of (not) taking time seriously in leadership research”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 307-315.

Shamir, B. and Eilam, G. (2005), “‘What’s your story?’ A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 395-417.

Sievert, J. (1993), “Lately it occurs to me y”, Grateful Dead: Best of Guitar Player, October, pp. 6-22.

760

LODJ 34,8

Siggelkow, N. (2007), “Persuasion with case studies”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 20-24.

Simons, T. (1999), “Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 89-104.

Sirman, R. (2008), “Collaborative leadership – a sound solution for complex problems”, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 31-42.

Spears, L.C. (Ed.) (1998), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant- Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY.

Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R. and Samson, D. (2002), “Effective case research in operations management: a process perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 419-433.

Thompson, M. (2011), “Ontological shift or ontological drift? Reality claims, epistemological frameworks, and theory generation in organization studies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 754-773.

Tsoukas, H. (1989), “The validity of idiographic research explanations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 551-561.

Valcea, S., Hamdani, M.R., Buckley, M.R. and Novicevic, M.M. (2011), “Exploring the developmental potential of leader-follower interactions: a constructive-developmental approach”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 604-615.

Vaughn, C. (1987), “Dead fingers talk”, Spin, Vol. 3, pp. 74-75.

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-219.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S. and Peterson, S.J. (2008), “Authentic leadership development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126.

Weick, K.E. (1989), “Theory construction as disciplined imagination”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 516-531.

Weidner, C.K II and Purohit, Y.S. (2009), “When power has leaders: some indicators of power- addiction among organizational leaders”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 83-99.

Werhane, P.H. (2007), “Women leaders in a globalized world”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 425-435.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Yukl, G.A. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Zepke, N. (2007), “Leadership, power and activity systems in a higher education context: will distributive leadership serve in an accountability driven world?”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 301-314.