An integrative network approach to shared leadership:An illustrative case with creative tasks

Lemoine, G. James; Köseoğlu, Gamze; Blum, Terry C.

doi:10.5465/ambpp.2015.18135abstract

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extent of skill differentiation was relatively evenly distributed across studies in our sample. The following are examples of teams ranging from low to high, respectively: student lab teams (e.g., Lemoine, Koseoglu, & Blum, 2015), negotiation teams with different role instructions (Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994), R&D teams (Ren, Gray, & Harrison, 2015), and top management teams (Hambrick, Humphrey, & Gupta, 2015). To infer skill differentiation, we drew on information about the degree to which different specializations were present in the team.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration.

Greer

Jong

Schouten

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Psychology

146

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hierarchy has the potential to both benefit and harm team effectiveness. In this article, we meta-analytically investigate different explanations for why and when hierarchy helps or hurts team effectiveness, drawing on results from 54 prior studies (N = 13,914 teams). Our findings show that, on net, hierarchy negatively impacts team effectiveness (performance: ρ = -.08; viability: ρ = -.11), and that this effect is mediated by increased conflict-enabling states. Additionally, we show that the negative relationship between hierarchy and team performance is exacerbated by aspects of the team structure (i.e., membership instability, skill differentiation) and the hierarchy itself (i.e., mutability), which make hierarchical teams prone to conflict. The predictions regarding the positive effect of hierarchy on team performance as mediated by coordination-enabling processes, and the moderating roles of several aspects of team tasks (i.e., interdependence, complexity) and the hierarchy (i.e., form) were not supported, with the exception that task ambiguity enhanced the positive effects of hierarchy. Given that our findings largely support dysfunctional views on hierarchy, future research is needed to understand when and why hierarchy may be more likely to live up to its purported functional benefits. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration.

Greer

Jong

Schouten

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Psychology

146

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, Bligh et al () reported that task complexity and task interdependence strengthened the effects of shared leadership on knowledge creation. Lemoine, Koseoglu, and Blum () found that shared leadership had stronger relationships with team performance for creative tasks than decision‐making tasks. Liu et al () found that the indirect effects of shared leadership on team and individual learning behaviors through psychological safety were more positive when team members perceived high job variety.…”

Section: Integrative Framework Of Shared Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared leadership: A state‐of‐the‐art review and future research agenda

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional "great man" approaches to leadership emphasize qualities of individual leaders for leadership success. In contrast, a rapidly growing body of research has started to examine shared leadership, which is broadly defined as an emergent team phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are distributed among team members. Despite the progress, however, the extant literature on shared leadership has been fragmented with a variety of conceptualizations and operationalizations. This has resulted in little consensus regarding a suitable overarching theoretical framework and has undermined developing knowledge in this research domain. To redress these problems, we provide a comprehensive review of the growing literature of shared leadership by (a) clarifying the definition of shared leadership; (b) conceptually disentangling shared leadership from other theoretically overlapping constructs; (c) addressing measurement issues; and (d) developing an integrative framework of the antecedents, proximal and distal consequences, and boundary conditions of shared leadership. We end our review by highlighting several new avenues for future research.

show abstract

“…On the task level, research has demonstrated that shared leadership is more effective in job contexts characterized by higher levels of task interdependence (Nicolaides et al, 2014), a greater variety of required skills (Liu et al, 2014), increased task complexity (Bligh et al, 2006), and a greater need for task creativity (Lemoine et al, 2015). With respect to team characteristics, the effects of shared leadership on desired work outcomes were stronger in virtual teams (Drescher and Garbers, 2016), teams with shorter tenure (Nicolaides et al, 2014), greater diversity (Hoch, 2014), and higher levels of required task-related competence (Chiu et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The advantages and disadvantages of different implementations of shared leadership in organizations: A qualitative study

Edelmann,

Boen,

Stouten

et al. 2023

Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The leadership literature has mainly considered shared leadership as a unified concept, overlooking the fact that it comes in many forms. However, the shift to shared leadership may not always yield favorable outcomes (Mumford et al., 2012). Knowing the benefits and challenges of different shared leadership implementations is crucial as it can either strengthen or undermine the overall effectiveness of shared leadership. To gain insights into the perceived (dis)advantages associated with different implementations of shared leadership, 35 qualitative interviews were conducted with employees across diverse organizational contexts. Participants were prompted to envision different shared leadership formats and to evaluate these hypothetical formats by articulating their potential (dis)advantages: (1) formally appointing peer leaders versus informal leadership (providing insights on the role of jealousy experienced by the formal leader and the ideal selection method of peer leaders); (2) having one peer leader versus several peer leaders take on leadership; and (3) having one versus multiple peer leaders for a leadership role. A thematic analysis revealed several benefits and challenges of each implementation, providing a more balanced view of this leadership model. Based on these findings, we formulate four suggestions to address potential challenges of implementing shared leadership; (1) to involve the formal leader in all stages of implementation, (2) to adopt a transparent selection process for peer leaders, (3) to provide clear role definitions for role clarity, and (4) to have leadership (roles) fulfilled by multiple peer leaders to reduce reliance on a single leader.

show abstract

An integrative network approach to shared leadership:An illustrative case with creative tasks

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration.

Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration.

Shared leadership: A state‐of‐the‐art review and future research agenda

The advantages and disadvantages of different implementations of shared leadership in organizations: A qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About