A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations

Abstract

Using 50 effect sizes from both published and unpublished studies (team n = 3,198), we provide meta-analytic support for the positive relationship between shared leadership and team performance.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.

Task-Oriented and Relationship-Building Communications between Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots

“…Considering the effects of shared leadership on the two previously mentioned types of communication, previous research shows that in terms of 'achievement of goals', shared leadership is also associated with relationship building [32]. Also, Perry, Pearce and Sims [33] state that shared leadership in teams leads to both affective responses as well as behavioral responses.…”

The Teacher Leader in Context of Shared Leadership in Public Schools

“…However it is possible to observe similar descriptions because of the following facts; (1) focusing on leadership process, (2) the way of defining leadership, (3) the sharing or distributing of leadership, (4) dynamics of leadership process and (5) grounding on multiple roles and functions [3].…”

Sharing the Full Range of Leadership in Student Teams: Developing an Instrument

“…Results of meta-analyses indicate that the interpretation of shared leadership may have an effect on the relationship between shared leadership and team performance. D'Innocenzo et al 36 found a statistically significant difference among the two study techniques, with rating the members providing a stronger overall relationship. Density and centralization measures showed Page 26.1370.4 no significant differences in terms of effect size.…”

“…[35][36][37][38] By interpreting shared leadership as an emerging, dyadic phenomenon, researchers rate the members through social network analysis of individual team member data. [35][36][37][38] Within the social network analysis, three approaches to measuring leadership sharedness have been used: 1) network centralization (variability of individual indices, 2) network density (number of influence relationships within the team) , and 3) coefficient of variation (variation of team member influence scores). 35 Meta-analyses have not addressed the use of coefficient of variance measures (see 36; 37; 38 ).…”