Using 50 effect sizes from both published and unpublished studies (team n = 3,198), we provide meta-analytic support for the positive relationship between shared leadership and team performance. Employing a random effects model, we found that the theoretical foundation and associated measurement techniques used to index shared leadership significantly moderated effect size estimates. Specifically, as compared to studies that conceptualized and employed assessments of overall shared leadership from members (i.e., an aggregation approach), network conceptions and measures of shared leadership evidenced higher effect sizes. Both network density and (de)centralization approaches to the study of shared leadership–performance relations exhibited significant and higher effect sizes than did the aggregation-based studies. Analyses also revealed lower average effect sizes when the sample studied was in the classroom/lab as compared to the field. Task complexity significantly moderated the shared leadership, with lower effect sizes observed with more complex tasks. No significant influence of team task interdependence was observed. We highlight the relative value of employing social network theories and measures as compared to aggregate theories and measures of shared leadership. Directions for future research and application are discussed.

Despite the lengthy history of team cohesion-performance research, little is known about their reciprocal relationships over time. Using meta-analysis, we synthesize findings from 17 CLP design studies, and analyze their results using SEM. Results support that team cohesion and performance are related reciprocally with each other over time. We then used longitudinal data from 205 members of 57 student teams who competed in a complex business simulation over 10 weeks, to test: (a) whether team cohesion and performance were related reciprocally over multiple time periods, (b) the relative magnitude of those relationships, and (c) whether they were stable over time. We also considered the influence of team members' academic competence and degree of shared leadership on these dynamics. As anticipated, cohesion and performance were related positively, and reciprocally, over time. However, the cohesion → performance relationship was significantly higher than the performance → cohesion relationship. Moreover, the cohesion → performance relationship grew stronger over time whereas the performance → cohesion relationship remained fairly consistent over time. As expected, shared leadership related positively to team cohesion but not directly to their performance; whereas average team member academic competence related positively to team performance but was unrelated to team cohesion. Finally, we conducted and report a replication using a second sample of students competing in a business simulation. Our earlier substantive relationships were mostly replicated, and we illustrated the dynamic temporal properties of shared leadership. We discuss these findings in terms of theoretical importance, applied implications, and directions for future research.

Organizational communities of practice (OCoPs) are used increasingly to capitalize on valuable distributed knowledge and to fully engage the innovation potential of employees. OCoPs have become increasingly global in their reach, relying of necessity on virtual forms of interaction to engage the participation and expertise of a global workforce. An unanswered question is whether the performance of such global OCoPs may be

Companies worldwide are turning to organizational communities of practice (OCoPs) as vehicles to generate learning and enhance organizational performance. OCoPs are defined as groups of employees who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic and who strengthen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on a consistent basis. To date, OCoP research has drawn almost exclusively from the community of practice (CoP) literature, even though the organizational form of CoPs shares attributes of traditional CoPs and of organizational teams. Drawing on Lave and Wenger's (1991) original theory of legitimate peripheral participation, we integrate theory and research from CoPs and organizational teams to develop and empirically examine a model of OCoP effectiveness that includes constructs such as leadership, empowerment, the structure of tasks, and OCoP relevance to organizational effectiveness. Using data from 32 OCoPs in a U.S.-based multinational mining and minerals processing firm, we found that external community leaders play an important role in enhancing OCoP empowerment, particularly to the extent that task interdependence is high. Empowerment, in turn, was positively related to OCoP effectiveness. We also found that OCoPs designated as "core" by the organization (e.g., working on critical issues) were more effective than those that were noncore. Task interdependence also was positively related to OCoP effectiveness. We provide scholars and practitioners with insights on how to effectively manage OCoPs in today's organizations.

Team effectiveness can be gauged not only by team-level outcomes but also in terms of influences on individual members. The authors present a two-sample cross-level model of individual informal learning and team commitment, as influenced by team-level processes and empowerment. In the first sample, they examine the impact of team-level constructs on individual outcomes, using 575 individuals from 80 teams in an international Fortune 500 manufacturing firm. Using a sample of 67 teams and 271 individual service engineers from a separate Fortune 500 business solutions organization, the authors further advance their model using a pre–post intervention design. Informal learning and commitment are shown to be positively impacted by team-level empowerment and processes, over and above individual predispositions and perceptions in both samples. In addition, changes in team empowerment and processes attributable to the intervention account for additional criterion variance. Implications are discussed in terms of both research and practice.