View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
-1-
EFFECTS OF SHARED LEADERSHIP ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS IN THE
HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY
Apichai Somboonpakorn
College of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Email: apichaie@gmail.com
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which how shared leadership functions,
as observed in nurse teams, affect cohesiveness among members, job stress, team output and
satisfaction. Based on data obtained from 800 nurses, representing 223 teams working in 10 Thai
hospitals, structural equation modeling is used to examine these relationships. The result reveals that
shared leadership enhances group cohesiveness and leads to an increase in team effectiveness. On
the other hand, the consequential increase in job demand under shared leadership setting does not
appear to give rise to job stress.
KEY WORDS: Shared leadership, job stress, group cohesiveness, and team effectiveness
Page 1 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-2-
INTRODUCTION
Many Asian companies are faced with business challenges brought about by disruptive and
rapid change spurred on by uneven growth and uncertain business environment. Many laggard
companies are found to lack organization with the skills and knowledge to respond to the change in
business complexities and uncertainties. On the other hand, progressive organizations have begun to
respond to these changes by becoming more nimble – shifting their central power to a localized and
distributed structure to foster greater sharing of leadership and responsibilities among teams to better
respond to and cope with these challenges. Such shift is consistent with the emerging theory of shared
leadership – that the single leadership theory is outmoded and has many shortfalls in an environment
that is undergoing disruptive and rapid change. Therefore, this development for shared leadership
capacity in Asian management could better enhance organization survival and success. It empowers
people in organization to manage themselves and their teams to respond and adapt to complex change.
Such team empowerment is observed to assume both formal and informal leadership roles.
In establishing such shift and structure, these organizations will have to take into
consideration of the associated challenges – where leadership is distributive and shared, team
dynamics such as peer influence and peer pressure would create more job demand among team
members. As job scope expands and becomes ambiguous under shared leadership settings, an
individual within the team would be challenged and experiences stress, consequently affecting team.
The goal of this study is to investigate such organization phenomenon that embraces shared
leadership in the team structure. Healthcare industry provides a setting in which to study this
phenomenon. The nursing work environment is team-based (work in team formed through roster and
therefore not necessarily same team members all the time), patient-centric (primary focus on patient
care but in-patient period is typically short), case-dependent (nurses are required to know the patient
case), high stress situations (sometimes have to deal with crisis, especially in emergency ward).
The study incorporates the approaches of shared leadership, how it could affect group
cohesiveness and individual job stress, which in turn, affecting team. It is a detailed examination and
modeling of the effect of shared leadership on intermediated outcome, group cohesiveness and job
stress, and consequently on team effectiveness. Although many studies have pointed towards the
Page 2 of 50ANZAM 2011
-3-
positive aspects of shared leadership as an organizational cure, the inter-relationship and interplay of
these parameters have been less well understood and explored such as the implications of job stress
that might arise, under the shared leadership setting, due to higher demand for integration, and peer
influence. The following sections, I will describe the concept of shared leadership, followed by the
identification of mediating factors in the model, test the model using survey data collected from nurse
teams and conclude with discussion on the implications of my findings for future research.
The concept and theoretical development of shared leadership
Early study of leadership mainly focus on behaviors of the appointed leader of the group
(Bass, 1990), but later Yukl (1998) introduce a different perspective of leadership by focusing the
importance of context and emphasizing a distributed form of leadership. According to Gronn (2002),
leadership paradigm can be viewed in two aspects: focused and distributed. First, the dominant
paradigm reflects assumptions embedded in “transactional” perspectives on leadership, focusing
individual as a leader, leading through interpersonal influence over consideration of followers. The
transition paradigm shifts toward visionary, charismatic and inspirational leadership, where
inspiration and motivation are source of influence that inspired the followers (Avery, 2004). However,
visionary, charismatic and transformational leadership paradigm still focused on single leader. Much
of the leadership literature has been devoted to these approaches and has investigated individual
leadership traits, and behaviors and transformation as their primarily focus (Bass, 1990).
Second, emerging paradigm presumes that leadership is distributed among members in the
team, termed in various ways, e.g., distributed (Gronn, 2002), collaborative (Wallace, 2002), diverse
(Bennet, Wise, Woods & Harvey, 2003), organic (Avery, 2004), shared (Pearce & Conger, 2003),
collective (Hiller, Day & Vance, 2006; Friedrich, Vessey, Schuelke, Ruark & Mumford, 2009).
The key assumption of shared leadership from social exchange theory describing leader
position in the organization can be distributed to all organizational members and that every member in
the organization can be a leader in different circumstances (Harris, 2006). Where the functions of
leadership are shared, team members are also the source of collaboration and influence (Wood &
Fields, 2007). Important components essential to form shared leadership team in the extent literature
are (i) collective form of leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003), and (ii) peer as agent of distributed
Page 3 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-4-
influence among one another (Pearce & Conger, 2003), and (iii) shared vision that place common
value among in members (Avery, 2004).
Collective form of leadership. Recent studies have emphasized on the distinction of
understanding leader of the team relative to leaders in the team. Concept of shared leadership looks
beyond single actor, but describes that those leadership can be shared across the structure of team
depending on situation and context. Shared leadership offers a concept of new practice at team level,
where behaviors are enacted by multiple individuals rather than by those in formal leadership roles
(Bligh et al., 2006) In addition, sense of empowerment for multiple individual leading the team is
necessary to help individual experience sense of shared leadership within team (Spooner, Keenan &
Card, 1997).
Peers as agents of influence. Shared leadership is an influence process, which may frequently
include peer influence in addition to upward and downward hierarchical influence (Pearce & Conger,
2003). Although vertical leaders continues to play a significant role in developing and maintaining
the teams, the important difference of shared leadership lies in the agent of influence, which are often
the peers. Pearce and Conger (2003) describe lateral influence among peers would typify the
experience of leadership under conditional of shared leadership. Zaccaro et al. (2001) in his study also
notes that previous theories of leadership tend to minimize the contributing influences of peers. Such
minimization could lead to a reduction of our understanding of collective decision-making behavior of
a group. Given this, there will be a limit of understanding on the contribution of members within the
team formation.
Shared vision. A common vision among team and set of values are essential in maintaining
group striving for shared leadership (Avery, 2004). Shared vision is intent of the member, within the
team to generate a clear organizational purpose and promote necessary changes in the organization so
that team can achieve its desired future outcomes. Collective form of leadership and peer influence
alone are not sufficient to hold shared leadership team to emerge over time. Shared leadership team
requires guiding principle, a shared vision derived from team members, to uphold and sustain the
friction from collective from of leadership and peers pressure.
Page 4 of 50ANZAM 2011
-5-
Shared leadership is described as “a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals
in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of the group or
organizational goals or both”. This influence process often involves peer or lateral influence and at
other times involves upward or downward hierarchical influence” (Pearce & Conger, 2003: 286).
Friedrich et al., (2009) describes collective leadership as a dynamic leadership process in which a
defined leader or leaders selectively utilize skills and expertise within a network and effectively
distributed leadership roles as the situation or problem at hand required. In this paper, the definition of
shared leadership would refer to a team property whereby leadership is distributed and peers create
lateral influence among team member with the objectives to enact team behaviors to achieve team’s
common goal.
Organizational context and healthcare setting
Organization context, that exhibits task complexity, multiple exchange relationships among
members would find the good use of shared leadership such as, nurse team (Spooner et al, 1997), new
product development team (Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2003), cross functional team, creative business team
(Politis, 2005). Organization context, in which, works exhibit (i) task interdependence, (ii) task
complexity and creativity, and operates under (iii) environment uncertainty can therefore subscribe to
the use of shared leadership (Gladstein, 1984; Pearce, 2004).
Task interdependence. It is the degrees to which goal accomplishment depends on one
another to accomplish the task and level on interdependence varies as work require multiple tasks
with different skill sets (Campion et al, 1993). Pearce (2004) concludes that the more interdependent
the task, the greater the need for shared leadership. Previous studies reveal that team outperforms
individuals on task involving greater integration and interconnectedness (Lateen et al., 1979). Liden et
al. (1979) find task interdependence moderates the relationship between group that are empowered
with decision-making and team performance. Therefore, under higher task interdependence work
environment, shared leadership setting is more appropriated team setting that has higher affect on
team performance (Bligh et al., 2006).
Task complexity and creativity. When task become more complex or demand high creativity,
integrated team under shared leadership setting is more appropriated. The more complex the task, it is
Page 5 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-6-
unlikely that any one could have skills or capabilities to address all problems (Pearce, 2004). In fast
pace business environment, team required skills and knowledge that are more specialized to address
many aspects of complex decision. Therefore, shared leadership would be beneficial to this type of
organizational context.
Environment uncertainty. It defines as a situation in which the team experiences little
information about its external environment that is in a state of flux and unpredictability. Under high
uncertainty environment, shared leadership would be beneficial. However, team working in a routine
known engagement, shared leadership would prove to provide little benefit.
It can therefore be deduced that because shared leadership structure facilitates multiple
exchange relationships among members (Liden, 1979), it will be relevant to the context of high task
interdependence and uncertainty and prove effective for team faced with high task complexity or high
creative task (Gladstein, 1984). Therefore, organization context, healthcare setting, where task
interdependence, task complexity and environment uncertainty co-exists would provide an interesting
setting to study shared leadership and performance outcome. In the following section, a conceptual
framework is described to serve as groundwork for research on shared leadership and its relations to
team effectiveness.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The study of shared leadership–performance relation is structured around Input-Process-
Output (IPO) framework. IPO framework has been used to guide team research for decades, however,
substantial studies have focused on the relationship between process and output, and few have
investigated relationship among input, process and output (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996, Marks, Mathieu
& Zaccaro, 2001). In this study, shared leadership serves as enabler affecting change in group
cohesiveness, but also increases high job stress. Team effectiveness would serve as an outcome of this
framework, which includes performance outcomes, describing quantity and quality of the work, and
attitudinal outcomes, describing individual attitude toward team and peers such as team satisfaction.
In shared leadership setting, peer interaction would increase influence upon one another,
potentially leading each to take leadership role in its tasks. Greater empowerment and autonomy
inherent to share leadership role within each member would have positive effects on team
Page 6 of 50ANZAM 2011
-7-
performance and satisfaction (Wood & Field, 2007). As shared leadership starts to develop and take
shape, inevitably at the same time, high role ambiguity and workload shared within team will increase
individual job stress. This could lead to impede team performance. However, shared leadership is also
an enabler affecting high level of group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness serves as mediators
helping to synchronize action among members, increasing collaboration process, leading toward team
effectiveness. Given these requisite, the interaction of shared leadership, job stress and group
cohesiveness will serve directly to shape the condition of team performance. Figure 1 provides a
framework displaying the effects of shared leadership, and team effectiveness mediated through job
stress and group cohesiveness.
- Insert in figure 1 -
HYPOTHESES
In reviewing the components of the proposed framework, I would describe key elements
affecting team effectiveness, includes shared leadership, job stress, group cohesiveness, and then
followed by a set of hypotheses relating to specific variables within the model components.
Shared leadership and team effectiveness. Shared leadership increases the ability of a team to
shared leader roles to a specific member with the needed expertise for a situation. The result of shared
leadership my increase group effectiveness and accountability as each increased interdependent and
reliance on each others (Colbeck, Campbell, and Bjorklund, 2000). Team effectiveness can be broadly
defined into different perspectives in term of attitudinal outcomes and behavior outcomes. Many
empirical studies have recently begun to focus beyond formal appointed leadership and emphasize
more on relationship between collective forms of leadership and team performance (Carson, Tesluk &
Marrone, 2007; Day et al., 2006; Ensley et al.,2006; Friedrich et al.,2009; Mehra et al., 2006; Pearce
& Sims 2002). Previous conceptualizations studies have led to conclude direct linkage between
shared leadership behaviors and aspects of team performance in various contexts. Politis (2005)
concludes that dispersed leadership is positively related with the stimulant dimensions of creativity in
work environment. Hiller et al., (2006) also find improvement of supervisory effectiveness in
construction industry through collective leadership enactment within teams. Carson et al. (2007)
report evidences indicating that shared leadership team demonstrates high level of team performance
Page 7 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-8-
among groups of MBA students. Wood & Field (2007) find that shared leadership with high
teamwork encouragement provides better outcomes than those with lower teamwork effort. In their
longitudinal study on school improvement, Heck & Hallinger (2009) report significant effects of
distributed leadership on change in the schools’ academic capacity and indirect effects on student
growth rates in math. These conclusions from empirical studies indicate strong and consistent link
between shared leadership and subsequent outcomes, team performance. Therefore, this study predicts
a direct linkage between shared leadership and team effectiveness.
H1: Shared leadership in team will be positively related to team effectiveness.
Consequences of shared leadership
Job stress as consequence of shared leadership. In this framework, job stress is an
intermediate outcome of shared leadership. Psychologist distinguishes between two forms of stress:
chronic stress and acute stress. Acute stress refers to “discrete observable events, which are thought to
be threatening because they represent change” (Wheaton 1990:210). Chronic stress refers to
“continuous and persistent conditions in the social environment resulting in a problematic level of
demand on the individual’s capacity to perform adequately in social role (Wheaton 1990:210). In this
paper, Job stress refers to chronic stress, which will refer to psychological response of individual in
which individual capability cannot copes with persistent job demand that required by team (Wood &
Fields, 2007). Under shared leadership setting, peers assert influence over one other, demanding
output. Those members without sufficient abilities to meet role expectation may feel threatening, thus
resulting high level of individual job stress. Few empirical studies investigate linkage between shared
leadership and job stress (Gross, 1989; Wood & Field 2007). Gross (1989) indicates that over
engagement in activities that exceed the abilities of a member, similar to context under shared
leadership setting, contributes to job stress. Wood & Field (2007) also find that shared leadership has
immediate effects on team member perception of job role conflict and role ambiguity in turn,
affecting job stress. High levels of shared leadership are related negatively to job stress. This study
predicts a direct linkage between shared leadership and job stress. Previous research has confirmed
that job stress significantly reduced performance of work teams (Chen, 2009; Cohen, 1980; Jamal,
1985; Raeda, 2004; Westman & Eden, 1990 Wood & Field, 2007). Cohen (1980) indicates that cadet
Page 8 of 50ANZAM 2011
-9-
with moderate stress performs better than do those with high or low level of stress. In his research on
blue-collar workers, Jamal (1985) reports negative linear relationship between stressors and measures
of job performance and finds organization commitment to be an important moderator of the stress
performance relationship. In a later study of officer-cadets, Westman & Eden (1990) also find high
job stress experience associated with substantially lower performance for various tasks. Chen (2009),
In his recent study, investigates the relationship between job stress and job performance of police
officers and finds officers perceived job stress are caused by tasks and contextual performance and
concludes higher job stress leads to lower job performance and vice versa. However, Raeda (2004), in
his study on the effect of job-related stress on job performance, reveals that hospital nurse who report
moderate level of job stress perform less well than did those who report low or high work stress. The
study indicated curvilinear relationship between job stress and job performance. These empirical
findings indicate strong and consistent link between job stress and performance. This study predicts a
direct linkage between job stress and team performance and also predict that job stress as a key
variable that has direct influence and mediate the relationship between shared leadership and team
effectiveness.
H2a: Shared leadership will be positively related to job stress
H2b: Job stress will be negatively related to team effectiveness.
H2c: Job stress will mediate negatively to the relationship between shared leadership and team
effectiveness.
Group cohesiveness as consequence of shared leadership. The emerging leadership function
that responds to the rising demand of team-based structure is the ability to motivate the team to
connect and bond with one another and to manage the team to perform the task more effectively
(Wendt, Euwema, & Emmerik, 2009). Group cohesiveness is the extent to which members are
attracted to a team and desire to remain in it (Shaw 1981). It is described as the sum of all forces
acting on individuals to remain in the team. Previous research finds amplified empirical evidences on
existing relationship between group cohesiveness-performance and suggests strong interaction among
leadership, group cohesiveness and performance (Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986; Jung & Sosik 2002;
Jordan et al, 2002; Wendt et al., 2009). Dobbin & Zaccaro (1986) point out that the most salient
Page 9 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-10-
characteristics of highly cohesive group are less inter-member friction, higher member trust, and
greater interpersonal coordination. More important, group cohesiveness increases group energy to
devote more on maintenance activities managing co-ordination or conflict of the group, rather than,
spend more on task-related activities, solving problem on task. Day et al. (2006) describe that today
the shift in implication of leadership function should be about ability to manage and understand the
linkage between leadership and team productivity. These empirical findings show the impact of
leadership on group cohesiveness and group cohesiveness is a variable that mediates the relationship
between shared leadership and team performance. Therefore, exploration study of linkage between
leader’s effects on group cohesiveness and later its impact to team effectiveness is crucial part of
leadership study.
H3a: Shared leadership will be positively related to group cohesiveness.
H3b: Group cohesiveness will be positively related to team effectiveness.
H3c: Group cohesiveness will mediate the relationship between shared leadership and team
effectiveness.
METHODS
Participants and data collection
The survey is administered in 10 major hospitals in Bangkok. The data is collected from 800
full time nurses, comprised into 223 teams. Participant nurse teams are randomly selected from
different departments from each hospital. The response rate of participant is 85%. Size of collected
team sample ranges from four to six with the majority falls around five members from each sample
group. The age of the participant in majority (67%) range between 21 and 35 years old. The majority
(93%) reported having at least bachelor degree education. On average, nurse in the sample has nearly
8 years of nurse experiences. The largest number of team represented in this sample is collected from
medicine department (18%) and surgery department (13%). A self-explanatory questionnaire is
administered. Respondents completed it at the own pace. Survey administrators assisted the
respondents, if there are any inquiries on the questionnaire.
Variables and measures
Page 10 of 50ANZAM 2011
-11-
The instrument includes a number of attitudes and team behavior questions related to shared
leadership characteristics, job stress, group cohesiveness, job satisfaction and output effectiveness.
Shared leadership: Fifty items are used to assess shared leadership. The measure is developed
by Rosenbach & Taylor (2005) called “The Leadership Profile” (TLP) to measure leadership behavior.
In the context of this study, TLP items has been adapted for collective view of the team by changing
“leader” into “Our team” and called TLP-collective Leadership Profile. Collective TLP consists of ten
subscales that is hypothesized and grouped into three scales: collective transactional leadership
behaviors, collective transformation leadership behaviors, and collective transformational leadership
characteristics. TLP-collective Leadership Profile measure has a reported coefficient alpha of 0.7
(Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
Job stress: Instrument measuring job stress is adapted from job stress scales developed by
Parker & Decotiis (1983). The measure used thirteen items to measure job stress along two
dimensions, time stress: feelings of being under constant pressure and anxiety; job related feeling of
anxiety. Job stress measure has a reported coefficient alpha of 0.71 (Jamal, 1990).
Group cohesiveness: Eight items is used to assess group cohesiveness. The measured is
adapted from Dionne (2000) group cohesiveness along three dimensions, interpersonal attraction,
commitment to the task, and group pride. Group cohesiveness measure has a reported coefficient
alpha of 0.91 (Dionne, 2000).
Team effectiveness: In this study, team effectiveness is measured along two dimensions,
output effectiveness and staff satisfaction. Instrument measuring output effectiveness is developed by
Manz and Sims (1987). The measure used five items to measure output effectiveness. Output
effectiveness measure has a reported coefficient alpha of 0.85 (Manz & Sims, 1987). Instrument
measuring staff satisfaction is developed by Campion, Paper and Medsker (1993). The measure used
seven items to measure staff satisfaction. Staff satisfaction measure has a reported coefficient alpha of
0.79 (Campion et al., 1993).
All items in this studies are measured on 5-point Likert scales with anchors from 1 =
“strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. Since the study investigates at the team level as unit of
analysis, data is collected at individual level and group into team level by average to form a scale. I
Page 11 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-12-
also use items parcels as indicators in the confirmatory factory analytic (CFA) and structural model
tests to reduce the number of parameters to be estimated. In addition, team level internal consistencies
for all of scales are calculated using the average items response per team as input. A number of
demographic and team composition items are included in the questionnaire.
RESULTS
Results of Structural Equation Analysis
To test the causal hypotheses, I use SPSS version 18 to review descriptive statistic and
calculate Pearson product moment correlations. I also use AMOS version 7.0 to test relationship of all
variables simultaneously because AMOS can calculate the relationship simultaneously and
incorporate several measures of underlying constructs. Full Information Maximum Likelihood
(FIML) is used to handle missing data in the model. Two model, measurement and structural model
are specified in AMOS input. The measurement model defines the relationships between the observed
variable and underlying construct and structural model defines the hypothesis relation among
constructs.
-Insert Table 1-
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, correlation analysis, and reliability of the study
variables. Results presented in the correlation matrix support some of the hypothesis. As hypothesize,
collective shared leadership characteristics are significant and positively correlate with staff
satisfaction and output effectiveness, therefore, providing initial support for H1. Collective shared
leadership characteristics are significant and positively correlate with time stress but not anxiety;
therefore, H2a is partially supported. Time stress is significant and positive correlate with both staff
satisfaction and output effectiveness; however, anxiety is not correlated with both staff satisfaction
and output effectiveness; therefore, H2b is partially supported.
Finally, collective shared leadership characteristics are significant and positively correlate
with cohesiveness dimension: interpersonal attraction, commitment to task and group pride, therefore,
providing strong support for H3a. Group cohesiveness scales: interpersonal attraction, commitment to
task and group pride are also significant and positively correlate with both staff satisfaction and
output effectiveness; therefore H3b. is strongly supported. All reliability is relatively high > 0.7 except
Page 12 of 50ANZAM 2011
-13-
that of job stress dimension, including time stress and anxiety. The reliability of job stress dimension
is 0.67 and 0.59 respectively.
- Insert table 2-
Confirmatory factor model results. Table 2 presents standardized factor loadings, standard
error, critical ratio and R2 for all variables. The data shows standardized factor loadings for all
constructs, which are generally high ranging from 0.77-0.83 and statistically significant. Larger R-
squared value indicates reliable indicators of their associated latent factor. Critical ratio operates as a
z-statistic ranged from 12.52-20.18. I also report the Goodness of fit index (GFI) and Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) to gauge model fit. The guidelines for estimate model fit are as following. GFI and CFI
with value less than < .9 is considered indicative of “relatively good fit for the model”. SRMR, a
measure of standard root mean square residual, with value of less than <.08 is considered a “good fit”.
RMSEA, a measure of root mean squared error of approximation with values less than < .07 is
considered a “relatively good fit for the model” (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). I
first examine the measurement model with loading of indicator on latent variable shared leadership.
The measurement model is tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 7.0. The CFA
results support three scales dimension of shared leadership: Collective Transaction Leadership
Behavior, Collective Transformational Leadership Behavior and Collective Transformation
Leadership Characteristic model fit. Acceptable model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit statistics.
χ2 (22, N = 223) statistic for CFA model is 33.36, p>0.05; GFI = 0.972, CFI = 0.99 and RMR = 0.002
Root mean squared error (RMSEA) = 0.05. The CFA results support job stress model fit: Acceptable
model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit statistic. χ2 (50, N = 223) statistic for CFA model is 66.75,
p>0.05; GFI = 0.953, CFI = 0.98 and RMR = 0.03 Root mean squared error (RMSEA) = 0.04. The
CFA results support three scales dimension of group cohesiveness: interpersonal attraction,
commitment to task and group pride model fit. Acceptable model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit
statistic. χ2 (15, N = 223) statistic for CFA model is 13.21, p>0.05; GFI = 0.985, CFI = 0.99 and RMR
= 0.005 Root mean squared error (RMSEA) = 0.00. The CFA results support Team effectiveness
model fit. Acceptable model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit statistic. χ2 (38, N = 223) statistic
Page 13 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-14-
for CFA model is 52.39, p>0.05; GFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.99 and RMR = 0.024 Root mean squared error
(RMSEA) = 0.04
-Insert table 3-
Causal equation model results. To investigate the influence of shared leadership on team
effectiveness and possible mediating role of job stress and group cohesiveness, Structure equation
modeling analyses (SEM) are used. The framework represents the full recursive structural equation
depicted that hypothesized causal relationships among latent factors. I hypothesize shared leadership
to have a direct effect on job stress and group cohesiveness and team effectiveness. In addition, I
hypothesize job stress to have direct effect on team effectiveness and mediate the effect of shared
leadership on team effectiveness. Finally, I also hypothesize group cohesiveness to have direct effect
on team effectiveness and mediate the effect of shared leadership on team effectiveness.
Fit statistic for structural model presented in Table 3 demonstrates a satisfactory fit to the data
with 2 (63, N=223) statistic is 107.73, GFI = .95 CFI =.99, RMR = .004 and RMSEA = .03.
Figure 2 summarizes the standardized path coefficients and Z-value of the causal model. I
examine the path coefficients between the indicator variables and their respective underlying
constructs in the hypotheses. In table 4, the structure model (SEM) results show total effect of shared
leadership on team effectiveness of .75, direct effect of .44 and indirect effect of .31. Total effect path
is significant with p < 0.05, confirming Hypothesis H1.
The path coefficient for shared leadership and job stress is not significant (.06, p> .05).
Therefore, shared leadership does not show predicted increase in job stress. The path coefficient for
job stress and team effectiveness is also not significant (.02, p>.05). Shared leadership create direct
effect of .75 on team effectiveness, but the effect does not mediated by increasing level of job stress
among team member. There is no drop in total effect of shared leadership on team effectiveness,
which indicates that there is no indirect effect cause by job stress. Therefore, the results reject
hypothesis H2a, H2b and H2c.
The total effect path coefficient for shared leadership and group cohesiveness is .89 and
significant with p<.05. Therefore, shared leadership shows the predicted increase in group
cohesiveness. The total effect path coefficient for cohesiveness and team effectiveness is .35, with
Page 14 of 50ANZAM 2011
-15-
p<.05. Shared leadership creates direct effect (.44) on team effectiveness and the effect mediated by
increasing level of group cohesiveness among team member. The increase effect of .31 between
shared leadership and team effectiveness indicates indirect effect caused by group cohesiveness.
Therefore, the results support hypothesis H3a, H3b and H3c.
-Insert Figure 2- -Insert Table 4-
Discussion
Shared leadership and team effectiveness. I explore the relationship between shared
leadership and the result of team performance outcome from nurse team. I find that the effect of
shared leadership is directly related to team effectiveness. The model shows that higher levels of
shared leadership directly relates to team effectiveness. The hypothesis (H1) is supported and is
consistent with previous research (Carson, Tesluk & Marrone, 2007; Day et al., 2006; Ensley et
al.,2006; Friedrich et al.,2009; Mehra et al., 2006; Pearce & Sims 2002) highlighting the significance
of using shared leadership as a platform to enhance team performance and team satisfaction.
Job stress as negative effect of shared leadership. The hypothesis (H2a) is the extent to which
nurses engaged in shared leadership would cause high level of individual job stress. It is assumed that
under shared leadership setting, peer influencing may increase workload and role uncertainty among
members, leading to a high level of individual job stress. Contrary to the original hypothesis of this
study, it is found that higher level of shared leadership does not create high level of individual job
stress. The result does not support my early prediction of the effect of shared leadership on job stress;
therefore, hypothesis H2a is rejected. The results also reject both hypothesis (H2b) predicting that high
level of job stress causes poor team effectiveness and hypothesis (H2c) predicting that the effect of
shared leadership is reduced due to increasing level of high job stress among team member. The
effect of job stress on team effectiveness in this study is not consistent with previous research could
be explained by the overall effect of shared leadership and the characteristic of the nurse team. It was
initially hypothesized that under shared leadership, peer influencing may create high workload and
role uncertainty among members and would significantly affect individual job stress and lead to high
group stress. However, in this sample, nurses have an average of eight years of experiences working
within team. It can be deduced that adequate role definitions have already been implicit and assumed,
Page 15 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-16-
so there are no role ambiguity among in members. As a result, job stress may have been either
internalized or normalized. In addition, data gathered from nurse working in more subtle situation
might not experience work stress. Under a shared leadership setting, the mismatches between
expectations and actual job activities may be resolved through increase interaction among peer (Wood
& Fields, 2007). The result suggests that the benefits of shared leadership with increased interaction
could greatly overcome the pressure or stress caused by peer influence among team members.
Shared leadership and group cohesiveness. The hypothesis (H3a) is the extent to which nurse
engaged in shared leadership increase strong group bonding among the members. Overall, the model
indicates higher level of shared leadership is related positively to group cohesiveness. The effect is
strong; therefore, hypothesis H3a is also support. The study tests the effect of group cohesiveness and
team effectiveness. The result also supports hypothesis (H3b) predicting that high level of group
cohesiveness results in better team effectiveness. The study also tests the mediating effect of group
cohesiveness on the relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness. The result reveals
that group cohesiveness acts as a linking agent between shared leadership and team effectiveness. It
supports the final hypothesis (H3c) predicting that the effect of shared leadership is increased due to
higher level of group cohesiveness among team member. The result of this study shows consistency
with previous research demonstrating strong links between group cohesiveness-performance and
suggests strong interaction among leadership, group cohesiveness and team performance (Dobbins &
Zaccaro, 1986; Jung & Sosik 2002; Jordan et al, 2002; Wendt et al., 2009). Members within highly
cohesive team would create higher desires to live up to the expectations of the team, therefore
resulting in better team performance. However, with strong group cohesiveness, there is a danger of
compromise and decisions driven by team member.
Future research
Shared leadership is a promising leadership concept and construct, but it is still at a
developmental stage. This study is an initial attempt to define model of intermediated effect of shared
leadership on team effectiveness using two mediating variables: job stress and group cohesiveness,
however, they are not exhaustive components. Other critical dimensions of mediating variable
underlying shared leadership and team effectiveness relationship are worth investigating. The
Page 16 of 50ANZAM 2011
-17-
following are issues for future research on shared leadership that could improve our understanding of
the implication of shared leadership.
First, we need to further studies to determine its relevance and applicability to different
organizational context such as what types of organizational contexts that would be receptive to the use
of share leadership, and facilitate shared leadership formation. Second, since shared leadership is the
study of team approach, various levels of analysis are needed in the research design of team study,
data collection, and analytical techniques. Multilevel analysis on individual perspective and group
perspective could shed further lights in shared leadership and performance model. Third, negative
effect of team dynamics such as role ambiguity and role conflict caused by shared leadership is worth
investigating. In shared leadership setting, increase role ambiguity and role conflict is expected and
team is unable to respond to the expectations of one or more members of the team. Steers (1989)
suggests that job satisfaction is lower in larger teams and cohesiveness and communication diminish
with increased team size. Larger team members may also engage in social loafing. This occurs when
an individual feels that the needed effort will be shared by the team’s member and that he or she can
count on others to take up any necessary slack (Latane et al, 1979). Fourth, the effect of team
composition in shared leadership team. The proper composition of a team with a diverse background
and skill base would lead to an increase in information processing capacity, and thus be more able to
achieve its goals and objectives over team with homogeneous background and skill. Teams composed
of highly similar individual who hold common beliefs and have much the same abilities are likely to
view a task from a single perspective. Such commonality can be productive, but it may also mean the
lack of a critical perspective for looking at certain problems (Dyer 1987). However, strong
homogeneity tends to be more beneficial in situations where team task are relatively simple and
focused. In contrast, team diversity teams to provide better results in situation where team tasks are
complex and highly varied.
Therefore, addressing the issues in future research could improve the model abstraction and
generalization that would help guide practitioners in identifying appropriate factors and determine
environment to promote the team development.
Conclusion
Page 17 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-18-
The concept of single leadership theory emphasizing on an individual leading the
organization is becoming less applicable in a rapid changing and dynamic environment. Leadership
can no longer rely on individual set of traits and behaviors. The emerging view of leadership is
leaning towards the model where multiple individuals with diverse set of skills and abilities would act
as team of leaders and replace the traditional sole leader (Friedrich et al., 2009). The study indicates
that importance of adopting shared leadership, which may challenges and stretch an individual team
member in terms of ability and capacity. The result of the study reveals benefit of shared leadership
through better group cohesion and high team effectiveness, which out weight any peer pressure
caused by shared leadership setting. Therefore, it is worth to encourage team to adopt shared
leadership to promote team performance. Furthermore, it is worth investigating the effect of shared
leadership in organizational context with different level of high task interdependence, high task
complexity, and environment uncertainty. However, it is necessary to explore other side effects such
as counter-action arising from the impact of shared leadership on individual psychological effect that
is brought about by high job demand on and anxiety of an individual that has yet to align with other
team members.
Page 18 of 50ANZAM 2011
-19-
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W., & Jung, D. I. (1999). A preliminary validation of the
Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Manuscript in preparation. Binghamton
University.
Avery, G. (2004). Understanding Leadership. London: Sage.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership, 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.
Beehr, T. A., Newman, J.E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A
facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personal psychology, 31, 665-699.
Bennet, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003), Distributed Leadership. NCSL, Nottingham.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L., & Kohles, J.C. (2006). The important of self- and shared leadership in team
based knowledge work a meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 296-318.
Campion, M. A., Paper. L. M & Medsker. G. J. (1993). Relations between work team characteristics
and effectiveness: Implications for designing effectiveness work groups. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 823-849.
Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E., & Marrone, J.A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of
antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal. 50, 1217-
1234.
Chen, Y. (2009). Job stress and performance: A study of police officers in central Taiwan. Social
Behavior & Personality: An International Journal. 37. 1341-1356.
Cohen, S. (1980). After effects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of
research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 88-108.
Colbeck, C.L., Campbell, S.E. & Bjorklund, S.A. (2000). Group in the dark. Journal of Higher
Education. 71, 60-81.
Cox, J.F., Pearce, C.L., and Perry, M.L., (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed
influence in the innovation process: how shared leadership can enhance new product
development team dynamics and effectiveness, in Pearce, C.L. Conger, J.A. (Eds),
Page 19 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-20-
Shared leadership: Refraining the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, California. 48-76
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold
of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211-216.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, E. L., & Spanglerm,W.D. (2004). Transformational
leadership and team performance, Journal of Organizational Change. 17, 177-193.
Driver, M., & Streufert, S. (1969). Integrative complexity: An approach to individuals and groups as
information-processing systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 272-285.
Dyer, W.G. (1987) Team building: Issues and alternatives 2nd
edn, USA : Addison-Wesley.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The important of vertical and shared
leadership within new venture top management teams: Implication for the performance
of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217-231.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological review, 57, 271-282.
Fields, D.L. (2002). Taking the measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational
Research and Diagnosis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Friedrich, T.L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M.J., Ruark, G.A., & Munford, M.D. (2009). A framework
for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team
expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 933-958.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Group in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Gray-Toft,P., & Anderson, J. (1981). The nursing stress scales: development of an instrument.
Journal of behavioral assessment, 3,11-23.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership quarterly, 13, 423-451.
Gross, P.R. (1989). Stress and burnout in ministry: a multivariate approach. Lutheram Theological
Journal, 23, 27-31.
Page 20 of 50ANZAM 2011
-21-
Guzzo, R.A., & Dickson, M .W. (1996). Teams in organization: recent research on performance and
effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate
Data Analysis Sixth Edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Harris, A. (2006). Opening up the ‘Black Box’ of leadership practice: Taking a distributed leadership
perspectives. Leadership and Management, 34, 37-45
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46, 172-188.
Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school
improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 46, 659- 689.
Hiller, N.J., Day, D.V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team
effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 387-397.
Hollander, E.P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford
Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
Jamal, M. (1985). Relationships of job stress to job performance: A study of managers and blue-collar
workers. Human Relations, 38, 409-424.
Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and Type-A behavior to employees' job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and turnover motivation.
Human Relations, 43, 727-738.
Jordan, M.H., & Field, H. S. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team
performance : A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Research, 33, 121-
150.
Koval, J. P. & Mills, E.W. (1971). Stress in the minister, IDOC Internazionale. 33, 3-13.
Latane, B., William, K., & Harkins, S (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes
and consequences of social loafing, Journal of Applied personality and social
Psychology. 37, 822-832.
Page 21 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-22-
Lussier, R.N., & Achua, C.F. (2000). Leadership. Theory Application Skill Development. Ohio:
South-Western College Publishing Thomson Learning.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro,S.J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In: Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.) Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed Leadership in teams: The
network of leadership perception and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
232-245.
Parker, D.F., & Decotiis, T.A (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance. 32, 160-177.
Pearce, C.L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform
knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 47-57.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J.A. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the how’s and why’s of
leadership. California: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive directive,
transactional, transformational and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice. 6, 172-197.
Politis, J. D. (2005). Dispersed leadership predictor of the work environment for creativity and
productivity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8. 182-204.
Raeda, F.A. (2004). Job Stress, Job Performance, and Social Support among Hospital Nurses, Journal
of Nursing Scholarship. 36, 73–78.
Rosenbach, W.E.,& Taylor, R.L. (2005). Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence, 5th Ed.
Cambridge Massachusette:Westview Press.
Sanders, J.O. (2006). Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer. Chicago
Illinois: Moody Publish.
Page 22 of 50ANZAM 2011
-23-
Sashkin, M & Sashkin M. (2003). Leaderhip that matters: the critical factors for making a difference
in people’s lives and organization’s success, California:Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sayles, L.R. (1958). The Behavior of Industrial Work Groups. New York: Wiley.
Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamic: The social psychology of small group behavior. New York,
USA: McGraw Hill.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the
effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group &
Organizational Management, 27, 66-69.
Spooner, S.H., Keenan, R. & Card, M. (1997). Determining if shared leadership is being practiced:
evaluation methodology. Nurse Administration Quarterly, 22, 47-57.
Steers,R.M. (1989). An introduction to organizational behaviour, Englewood Cliffs, USA:
Prentice Hall
Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (1992). Teams: Their Training and Performance, CT: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Tushman and Nadler, 1979. Special boundary roles in the innovation process, Administrative Science
Quarterly. 22, 587-605.
Wallace, M. (2002). Modeling distributed leadership and management effectiveness: primary school
senior management teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement. 13, 163-86.
Watson, W.E. Kumar,K.,& Michaelsen ,L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on
interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task
groups. Academy of management Journal. 36, 590-601.
Wendt, H., Euwema, M.C., Emmerik, H.V. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures.
The leadership quarterly, 20, 358-370.
Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1992). Excessive role demand and subsequent performance. Journal of
organizational behavior, 13, 519-529.
Page 23 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-24-
Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and metal health. American Sociological Review.
55, 209-223.
Wood, M. S., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team
member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2, 251-272
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organization. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
12, 451-483.
Page 24 of 50ANZAM 2011
-2-
Table 1: Means, standard deviations and correlation matrix of the study (N = 223 teams)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Capable Management .81
2 Reward Equity .72** .81
3 Communication Leadership .75** .72** .78
4 Credible Leadership .76** .62** .77** .82
5 Care Leadership .73** .66** .79** .78** .87
6 Enabling Leadership .77** .60** .78** .78** .82** .83
7 Confident Leadership .72** .63** .76** .66** .80** .81** .82
8 Follower Center Leadership .69** .64** .72** .65** .62** .69** .69** .77
9 Visionary Leadership .64** .60** .68** .62** .62** .71** .69** .81** .80
10 Culture building Leadership .78** .67** .79** .83** .79** .83** .74** .75** .73** .85
11 Interpersonal Attraction .45** .41** .53** .55** .57** .58** .53** .43** .41** .60** .76
12 Commitment to Task .57** .50** .65** .60** .69** .68** .65** .51** .58** .67** .67** .64
13 Group Pride .66** .51** .64** .67** .69** .73** .70** .57** .57** .71** .66** .69** .83
14 Time Stress .25** .30** .31** .21** .22** .24** .25** .46** .41** .32** .20** .29** .24** .67
15 Anxiety -.02 .11 .08 .06 .00 .02 .04 .29** .23** .12 .04 .00 .05 .70** .59
16 Staff Satisfaction .59** .44** .47** .56** .51** .55** .51** .46** .44** .60** .44** .47** .61** .40** .18** .78
17 Output Effectiveness .51** .38** .49** .62** .50** .57** .46** .42** .39** .58** .61** .47** .53** .22** .04 .67 .73
Mean 3.72 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.86 3.76 3.78 3.66 3.61 3.74 3.83 3.82 3.88 3.44 3.41 3.77 3.68
Std. .40 .36 .32 .37 .38 .39 .36 .35 .36 .38 .38 .43 .41 .36 .37 .45 .38
Note. Diagonal entries are scales reliability. N= 230 teams * p < .05, ** p < 0.01 level.
Page 25 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-2-
Table 2 Measurement Model Results (Second-order)
Construct/Indicator Standardized
factor loading
Standard
Error (S.E)
Critical Ratio
(C.R)
R2
Shared Leadership (Second-order)
Collective Transaction Leadership Behavior 0.92 a 0.85
Collective Transformational Leadership Behavior 0.99 0.05 16.86 0.98
Collective Transformation Leadership Characteristic 0.98 0.05 17.46 0.96
Collective Transaction Leadership Behavior
Capable Management 0.92 a 0.84
Reward Equity 0.78 0.05 14.92 0.61
Collective Transformational Leadership Behavior
Communication Leadership 0.87 a 0.75
Credible Leadership 0.89 0.06 18.73 0.80
Care Leadership 0.89 0.06 19.09 0.80
Enabling Leadership 0.92 0.06 20.18 0.85
Collective Transformation Leadership Behavior
Confident Leadership 0.90 a 0.81
Follower Center Leadership 0.78 0.06 15.27 0.61
Visionary Leadership 0.77 0.06 14.71 0.59
Culture Building Leadership 0.94 0.06 18.37 0.89
Job Stress
Time Stress 0.78 a 0.63
Anxiety 0.86 0.09 12.52 0.73
Team Effectiveness
Output Effectiveness 0.65
Staff Satisfaction 0.68
Cohesiveness
Interpersonal Attraction 0.74 a 0.54
Commitment to Task 0.80 0.10 12.90 0.64
Group Pride 0.88 0.10 12.58 0.77
a path for each construct is set to 1 Therefore no S.E. or t value are given * p < .05
Table 3: Fit of Structural Model
Page 26 of 50ANZAM 2011
-3-
Model χ2 df Ρ CMIN/DF GFI CFI RMR RMSEA
Mediated Model with group cohesiveness and
job stress partially mediating the effect of shared
leadership and team effectiveness
107.73 63 .09 1.20 .95 .99 .004 .03
RMSEA root mean squared error of approximation; GFI goodness of fit index; CFI comparative fit index; RMR root mean square residual
Table 4 Summary of direct, indirect and total effects associated with each variable in the path analysis
Explanatory variables Shared leadership Group Cohesiveness Job Stress
DE IE TE DE IE TE DE IE TE
Team Effectiveness .44* .31 .75* .35* - .35* .02 - .02
Job Stress .06 - .06
Group Cohesiveness .89** - .89**
*p<.05 **p <0.01
Input Output
Shared Leadership Team Effectiveness
Job Stress
H1(+)
H2(+) H3(-)
H4(-)
Immediate Outcome
Contextual variablesTask Complexity
Task Interdependency
Group Cohesiveness
H6(+)H4(+) H5(+)
Figure 1: Relationships, effects of shared leadership on team effectiveness mediated model through
job stress and group cohesiveness
Page 27 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-4-
Collective
Transaction
Leadership
Behavior
Collective
Transformation
Leadership
Behavior
Collective
Transformational
Leadership
Characteristic
Capable
Management
Reward
Equity
Communication
Leadership
Credible
Leadership
Care
Leadership
Enable
Leadership
Confident
Leadership
Follower Center
Leadership
Visionary
Leadership
Cultural Building
Leadership
Shared
Leadership
Team
Effectiveness
Job Stress
Time Stress
Anxiety
OutputEffectiveness
Staff Satisfaction
0.75*
.02.06
.99
.98
.92
.61
.62
.85
.72
.86
.89
.88
.91
.88
.77
.75
.92
.86.78
Group
Cohesiveness
Interpersonal Attraction
GroupPride
.35*.89**
Commitment to Task
.80.74 .88
.84
.61
.75
.80
.80
.85
.81
.61
.89
.59
.54 .64 .77
.63 .73
.65
.68
Figure 2: Structure equation model of shared leadership and team effectiveness mediated by job stress
and group cohesiveness
Page 28 of 50ANZAM 2011
-1-
INTRODUCTION
Many Asian companies are faced with business challenges brought about by disruptive and
rapid change spurred on by uneven growth and uncertain business environment. Many laggard
companies are found to lack organization with the skills and knowledge to respond to the change in
business complexities and uncertainties. On the other hand, progressive organizations have begun to
respond to these changes by becoming more nimble – shifting their central power to a localized and
distributed structure to foster greater sharing of leadership and responsibilities among teams to better
respond to and cope with these challenges. Such shift is consistent with the emerging theory of shared
leadership – that the single leadership theory is outmoded and has many shortfalls in an environment
that is undergoing disruptive and rapid change. Therefore, this development for shared leadership
capacity in Asian management could better enhance organization survival and success. It empowers
people in organization to manage themselves and their teams to respond and adapt to complex change.
Such team empowerment is observed to assume both formal and informal leadership roles. In
establishing such shift and structure, these organizations will have to take into consideration of the
associated challenges – where leadership is distributive and shared, team dynamics such as peer
influence and peer pressure would create more job demand among team members. As job scope
expands and becomes ambiguous under shared leadership settings, an individual within the team
would be challenged and experiences stress, consequently affecting team. The goal of this study is to
investigate such organization phenomenon that embraces shared leadership in the team structure.
Healthcare industry provides a setting in which to study this phenomenon. The nursing work
environment is team-based (work in team formed through roster and therefore not necessarily same
team members all the time), patient-centric (primary focus on patient care but in-patient period is
typically short), case-dependent (nurses are required to know the patient case), high stress situations
(sometimes have to deal with crisis, especially in emergency ward). The study incorporates the
approaches of shared leadership, how it could affect group cohesiveness and individual job stress,
which in turn, affecting team. It is a detailed examination and modeling of the effect of shared
leadership on intermediated outcome, group cohesiveness and job stress, and consequently on team
effectiveness. Although many studies have pointed towards the positive aspects of shared leadership as
an organizational cure, the inter-relationship and interplay of these parameters have been less well
understood and explored such as the implications of job stress that might arise, under the shared
leadership setting, due to higher demand for integration, and peer influence.
Page 29 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-2-
The concept and theoretical development of shared leadership
Early study of leadership mainly focus on behaviors of the appointed leader of the group (Bass,
1990), but later Yukl (1998) introduce a different perspective of leadership by focusing the importance
of context and emphasizing a distributed form of leadership. According to Gronn (2002), leadership
paradigm can be viewed in two aspects: focused and distributed. First, the dominant paradigm reflects
assumptions embedded in “transactional” perspectives on leadership, focusing individual as a leader,
leading through interpersonal influence over consideration of followers. The transition paradigm shifts
toward visionary, charismatic and inspirational leadership, where inspiration and motivation are
source of influence that inspired the followers (Avery, 2004). However, visionary, charismatic and
transformational leadership paradigm still focused on single leader. Much of the leadership literature
has been devoted to these approaches and has investigated individual leadership traits, and behaviors
and transformation as their primarily focus (Bass, 1990). Second, emerging paradigm presumes that
leadership is distributed among members in the team, termed in various ways, e.g., distributed (Gronn,
2002), collaborative (Wallace, 2002), diverse (Bennet, Wise, Woods & Harvey, 2003), organic (Avery,
2004), shared (Pearce & Conger, 2003), collective (Hiller, Day & Vance, 2006; Friedrich, Vessey,
Schuelke, Ruark & Mumford, 2009). The key assumption of shared leadership from social exchange
theory describing leader position in the organization can be distributed to all organizational members
and that every member in the organization can be a leader in different circumstances (Harris, 2006).
Where the functions of leadership are shared, team members are also the source of collaboration and
influence (Wood & Fields, 2007). Important components essential to form shared leadership team in
the extent literature are (i) collective form of leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003), and (ii) peer as
agent of distributed influence among one another (Pearce & Conger, 2003), and (iii) shared vision that
place common value among in members (Avery, 2004).
Collective form of leadership. Recent studies have emphasized on the distinction of
understanding leader of the team relative to leaders in the team. Concept of shared leadership looks
beyond single actor, but describes that those leadership can be shared across the structure of team
depending on situation and context. Shared leadership offers a concept of new practice at team level,
where behaviors are enacted by multiple individuals rather than by those in formal leadership roles
(Bligh et al., 2006) In addition, sense of empowerment for multiple individual leading the team is
necessary to help individual experience sense of shared leadership (Spooner, Keenan & Card, 1997).
Page 30 of 50ANZAM 2011
-3-
Peers as agents of influence. Shared leadership is an influence process, which may frequently
include peer influence in addition to upward and downward hierarchical influence (Pearce & Conger,
2003). Although vertical leaders continues to play a significant role in developing and maintaining the
teams, the important difference of shared leadership lies in the agent of influence, which are often the
peers. Pearce and Conger (2003) describe lateral influence among peers would typify the experience
of leadership under conditional of shared leadership. Zaccaro et al. (2001) in his study also notes that
previous theories of leadership tend to minimize the contributing influences of peers. Such
minimization could lead to a reduction of our understanding of collective decision-making behavior of
a group. Given this, there will be a limit of understanding on the contribution of members within team.
Shared vision. A common vision among team and set of values are essential in maintaining
group striving for shared leadership (Avery, 2004). Shared vision is intent of the member, within the
team to generate a clear organizational purpose and promote necessary changes in the organization so
that team can achieve its desired future outcomes. Collective form of leadership and peer influence
alone are not sufficient to hold shared leadership team to emerge over time. Shared leadership team
requires guiding principle, a shared vision derived from team members, to uphold and sustain the
friction from collective from of leadership and peers pressure.
Shared leadership is described as “a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals
in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of the group or
organizational goals or both”. This influence process often involves peer or lateral influence and at
other times involves upward or downward hierarchical influence” (Pearce & Conger, 2003: 286).
Friedrich et al., (2009) describes collective leadership as a dynamic leadership process in which a
defined leader or leaders selectively utilize skills and expertise within a network and effectively
distributed leadership roles as the situation or problem at hand required. In this paper, the definition of
shared leadership would refer to a team property whereby leadership is distributed and peers create
lateral influence among team member with the objectives to enact team behaviors to achieve goal.
Organizational context and healthcare setting
Organization context, that exhibits task complexity, multiple exchange relationships among
members would find the good use of shared leadership such as, nurse team (Spooner et al, 1997), new
product development team (Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2003), cross functional team, creative business team
(Politis, 2005). Organization context, in which, works exhibit (i) task interdependence, (ii) task
complexity and creativity, and operates under (iii) environment uncertainty can therefore subscribe to
Page 31 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-4-
the use of shared leadership (Gladstein, 1984; Pearce, 2004). Task interdependence. It is the degrees to
which goal accomplishment depends on one another to accomplish the task and level on
interdependence varies as work require multiple tasks with different skill sets (Campion et al, 1993).
Pearce (2004) concludes that the more interdependent the task, the greater the need for shared
leadership. Previous studies reveal that team outperforms individuals on task involving greater
integration and interconnectedness (Lateen et al., 1979). Liden et al. (1979) find task interdependence
moderates the relationship between group that are empowered with decision-making and team
performance. Therefore, under higher task interdependence work environment, shared leadership
setting is more appropriated team setting that has higher affect on team performance (Bligh et al.,
2006). Task complexity and creativity. When task become more complex or demand high creativity,
integrated team under shared leadership setting is more appropriated. The more complex the task, it is
unlikely that any one could have skills or capabilities to address all problems (Pearce, 2004). In fast
pace business environment, team required skills and knowledge that are more specialized to address
many aspects of complex decision. Therefore, shared leadership would be beneficial to this type of
organizational context. Environment uncertainty. It defines as a situation in which the team
experiences little information about its external environment that is in a state of flux and
unpredictability. Under high uncertainty environment, shared leadership would be beneficial. However,
team working in a routine known engagement, shared leadership would prove to provide little benefit.
It can therefore be deduced that because shared leadership structure facilitates multiple exchange
relationships among members (Liden, 1979), it will be relevant to the context of high task
interdependence and uncertainty and prove effective for team faced with high task complexity or high
creative task (Gladstein, 1984). Therefore, organization context, healthcare setting, where task
interdependence, task complexity and environment uncertainty co-exists would provide an interesting
setting to study shared leadership and performance outcome. In the following section, a conceptual
framework is described to serve as groundwork for research on shared leadership and its relations to
team effectiveness.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The study of shared leadership–performance relation is structured around Input-Process-
Output (IPO) framework. IPO framework has been used to guide team research for decades, however,
substantial studies have focused on the relationship between process and output, and few have
investigated relationship among input, process and output (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996, Marks, Mathieu
Page 32 of 50ANZAM 2011
-5-
& Zaccaro, 2001). In this study, shared leadership serves as enabler affecting change in group
cohesiveness, but also increases high job stress. Team effectiveness would serve as an outcome of this
framework, which includes performance outcomes, describing quantity and quality of the work, and
attitudinal outcomes, describing individual attitude toward team and peers such as team satisfaction.
In shared leadership setting, peer interaction would increase influence upon one another,
potentially leading each to take leadership role in its tasks. Greater empowerment and autonomy
inherent to share leadership role within each member would have positive effects on team performance
and satisfaction (Wood & Field, 2007). As shared leadership starts to develop and take shape,
inevitably at the same time, high role ambiguity and workload shared within team will increase
individual job stress. This could lead to impede team performance. However, shared leadership is also
an enabler affecting high level of group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness serves as mediators helping
to synchronize action among members, increasing collaboration process, leading toward team
effectiveness. Given these requisite, the interaction of shared leadership, job stress and group
cohesiveness will serve directly to shape the condition of team performance. Figure 1 provides a
framework displaying the effects of shared leadership, and team effectiveness mediated through job
stress and group cohesiveness.
- Insert in figure 1 -
HYPOTHESES
In reviewing the components of the proposed framework, I would describe key elements
affecting team effectiveness, includes shared leadership, job stress, group cohesiveness, and then
followed by a set of hypotheses relating to specific variables within the model components.
Shared leadership and team effectiveness. Shared leadership increases the ability of a team to
shared leader roles to a specific member with the needed expertise for a situation. The result of shared
leadership my increase group effectiveness and accountability as each increased interdependent and
reliance on each others (Colbeck, Campbell, and Bjorklund, 2000). Team effectiveness can be broadly
defined into different perspectives in term of attitudinal outcomes and behavior outcomes. Many
empirical studies have recently begun to focus beyond formal appointed leadership and emphasize
more on relationship between collective forms of leadership and team performance (Carson, Tesluk &
Marrone, 2007; Day et al., 2006; Ensley et al.,2006; Friedrich et al.,2009; Mehra et al., 2006; Pearce &
Sims 2002). Previous conceptualizations studies have led to conclude direct linkage between shared
leadership behaviors and aspects of team performance in various contexts. Politis (2005) concludes
Page 33 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-6-
that dispersed leadership is positively related with the stimulant dimensions of creativity in work
environment. Hiller et al., (2006) also find improvement of supervisory effectiveness in construction
industry through collective leadership enactment within teams. Carson et al. (2007) report evidences
indicating that shared leadership team demonstrates high level of team performance among groups of
MBA students. Wood & Field (2007) find that shared leadership with high teamwork encouragement
provides better outcomes than those with lower teamwork effort. In their longitudinal study on school
improvement, Heck & Hallinger (2009) report significant effects of distributed leadership on change
in the schools’ academic capacity and indirect effects on student growth rates in math. These
conclusions from empirical studies indicate strong and consistent link between shared leadership and
subsequent outcomes, team performance. Therefore, this study predicts a direct linkage between
shared leadership and team effectiveness.
H1: Shared leadership in team will be positively related to team effectiveness.
Consequences of shared leadership
Job stress as consequence of shared leadership. In this framework, job stress is an
intermediate outcome of shared leadership. Psychologist distinguishes between two forms of stress:
chronic stress and acute stress. Acute stress refers to “discrete observable events, which are thought to
be threatening because they represent change” (Wheaton 1990:210). Chronic stress refers to
“continuous and persistent conditions in the social environment resulting in a problematic level of
demand on the individual’s capacity to perform adequately in social role (Wheaton 1990:210). In this
paper, Job stress refers to chronic stress, which will refer to psychological response of individual in
which individual capability cannot copes with persistent job demand that required by team (Wood &
Fields, 2007). Under shared leadership setting, peers assert influence over one other, demanding
output. Those members without sufficient abilities to meet role expectation may feel threatening, thus
resulting high level of individual job stress. Few empirical studies investigate linkage between shared
leadership and job stress (Gross, 1989; Wood & Field 2007). Gross (1989) indicates that over
engagement in activities that exceed the abilities of a member, similar to context under shared
leadership setting, contributes to job stress. Wood & Field (2007) also find that shared leadership has
immediate effects on team member perception of job role conflict and role ambiguity in turn, affecting
job stress. High levels of shared leadership are related negatively to job stress. This study predicts a
direct linkage between shared leadership and job stress. Previous research has confirmed that job
stress significantly reduced performance of work teams (Chen, 2009; Cohen, 1980; Jamal, 1985;
Page 34 of 50ANZAM 2011
-7-
Raeda, 2004; Westman & Eden, 1990 Wood & Field, 2007). Cohen (1980) indicates that cadet with
moderate stress performs better than do those with high or low level of stress. In his research on blue-
collar workers, Jamal (1985) reports negative linear relationship between stressors and measures of job
performance and finds organization commitment to be an important moderator of the stress
performance relationship. In a later study of officer-cadets, Westman & Eden (1990) also find high job
stress experience associated with substantially lower performance for various tasks. Chen (2009), In
his recent study, investigates the relationship between job stress and job performance of police officers
and finds officers perceived job stress are caused by tasks and contextual performance and concludes
higher job stress leads to lower job performance and vice versa. However, Raeda (2004), in his study
on the effect of job-related stress on job performance, reveals that hospital nurse who report moderate
level of job stress perform less well than did those who report low or high work stress. The study
indicated curvilinear relationship between job stress and job performance. These empirical findings
indicate strong and consistent link between job stress and performance. This study predicts a direct
linkage between job stress and team performance and also predict that job stress as a key variable that
has direct influence and mediate the relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness.
H2a: Shared leadership will be positively related to job stress
H2b: Job stress will be negatively related to team effectiveness.
H2c: Job stress will mediate negatively to the relationship between Shared leadership and team
effectiveness.
Group cohesiveness as consequence of shared leadership. The emerging leadership function
that responds to the rising demand of team-based structure is the ability to motivate the team to
connect and bond with one another and to manage the team to perform the task more effectively
(Wendt, Euwema, & Emmerik, 2009). Group cohesiveness is the extent to which members are
attracted to a team and desire to remain in it (Shaw 1981). It is described as the sum of all forces
acting on individuals to remain in the team. Previous research finds amplified empirical evidences on
existing relationship between group cohesiveness-performance and suggests strong interaction among
leadership, group cohesiveness and performance (Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986; Jung & Sosik 2002;
Jordan et al, 2002; Wendt et al., 2009). Dobbin & Zaccaro (1986) point out that the most salient
characteristics of highly cohesive group are less inter-member friction, higher member trust, and
greater interpersonal coordination. More important, group cohesiveness increases group energy to
devote more on maintenance activities managing co-ordination or conflict of the group, rather than,
Page 35 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-8-
spend more on task-related activities, solving problem on task. Day et al. (2006) describe that today
the shift in implication of leadership function should be about ability to manage and understand the
linkage between leadership and team productivity. These empirical findings show the impact of
leadership on group cohesiveness and group cohesiveness is a variable that mediates the relationship
between shared leadership and team performance. Therefore, exploration study of linkage between
leader’s effects on group cohesiveness and later its impact to team effectiveness is crucial part of
leadership study.
H3a: Shared leadership will be positively related to group cohesiveness.
H3b: Group cohesiveness will be positively related to team effectiveness.
H3c: Group cohesiveness will mediate the relationship between Shared leadership and team
effectiveness.
METHODS
Participants and data collection
The survey is administered in 10 major hospitals in Bangkok. The data is collected from 800
full time nurses, comprised into 223 teams with response rate of 85%. Size of team ranges from 4 to 6.
The age of the participant in majority (67%) range between 21 and 35 years old and 93% reported
having at least bachelor degree. On average, nurse has nearly 8 years of nurse experiences. The largest
number of team represented is collected from medicine dept (18%) and surgery dept (13%).
Variables and measures
The instrument includes a number of attitudes and team behavior questions related to shared
leadership characteristics, job stress, group cohesiveness, job satisfaction and output effectiveness.
Shared leadership: “The Leadership Profile” (TLP) 50-item developed by Rosenbach &
Taylor (2005) grouped into three scales: collective transactional leadership behaviors, collective
transformation leadership behaviors, and collective transformational leadership characteristics. Job
stress: “Job stress scales” 13-item developed by Parker & Decotiis (1983) measures along two
dimensions, time stress and anxiety. Group cohesiveness: “Group cohesiveness scale” 8-item adapted
from Dionne (2000) measures three dimensions, interpersonal attraction, commitment to the task, and
group pride. Team effectiveness: Team effectiveness is measured along two dimensions, output
effectiveness 5-item developed by Manz & Sims (1987) and staff satisfaction used 7-item developed
by Campion, Paper and Medsker (1993). All items in this studies are measured on 5-point Likert
scales with anchors from 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”. Since the study investigates
Page 36 of 50ANZAM 2011
-9-
at the team level as unit of analysis, data is collected at individual level and group into team level by
average to form a scale. I also use items parcels as indicators in the confirmatory factory analytic
(CFA) and structural model tests to reduce the number of parameters to be estimated. In addition, team
level internal consistencies for all of scales are calculated using the average items response per team as
input. A number of demographic and team composition items are included in the questionnaire.
RESULTS
Results of Structural Equation Analysis
To test the causal hypotheses, I use SPSS v.18 to review descriptive statistic and calculate
Pearson product moment correlations. I also use AMOS v. 7.0 to test relationship of all variables
simultaneously because AMOS can calculate the relationship simultaneously and incorporate several
measures of underlying constructs. Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) is used to handle
missing data in the model. Two model, measurement and structural model are specified in AMOS
input. The measurement model defines the relationships between the observed variable and underlying
construct and structural model defines the hypothesis relation among constructs.
-Insert Table 1-
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, correlation analysis, and reliability of the study
variables. Results presented in the correlation matrix support some of the hypothesis. As hypothesize,
collective shared leadership characteristics are significant and positively correlate with staff
satisfaction and output effectiveness, therefore, providing initial support for H1. Collective shared
leadership characteristics are significant and positively correlate with time stress but not anxiety;
therefore, H2a is partially supported. Time stress is significant and positive correlate with both staff
satisfaction and output effectiveness; however, anxiety is not correlated with both staff satisfaction and
output effectiveness; therefore, H2b is partially supported.
Finally, collective shared leadership characteristics are significant and positively correlate
with cohesiveness dimension: interpersonal attraction, commitment to task and group pride, therefore,
providing strong support for H3a. Group cohesiveness scales: interpersonal attraction, commitment to
task and group pride are also significant and positively correlate with both staff satisfaction and
output effectiveness; therefore H3b. is strongly supported. All reliability is relatively high > 0.7 except
that of job stress dimension, including time stress and anxiety. The reliability of job stress dimension
is 0.67 and 0.59 respectively.
- Insert table 2-
Page 37 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-10-
Confirmatory factor model results. Table 2 presents standardized factor loadings, standard
error, critical ratio and R2 for all variables. The data shows standardized factor loadings for all
constructs, which are generally high ranging from 0.77-0.83 and statistically significant. Larger R-
squared value indicates reliable indicators of their associated latent factor. Critical ratio operates as a
z-statistic ranged from 12.52-20.18. I also report the Goodness of fit index (GFI) and Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) to gauge model fit. The guidelines for estimate model fit are as following. GFI and CFI
with value less than < .9 is considered indicative of “relatively good fit for the model”. SRMR, a
measure of standard root mean square residual, with value of less than <.08 is considered a “good fit”.
RMSEA, a measure of root mean squared error of approximation with values less than < .07 is
considered a “relatively good fit for the model” (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). I
first examine the measurement model with loading of indicator on latent variable shared leadership.
The measurement model is tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 7.0. The CFA
results support three scales dimension of shared leadership: Collective Transaction Leadership
Behavior, Collective Transformational Leadership Behavior and Collective Transformation
Leadership Characteristic model fit. Acceptable model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit statistics.
χ2 (22, N = 223) statistic for CFA model is 33.36, p>0.05; GFI = 0.972, CFI = 0.99 and RMR = 0.002
Root mean squared error (RMSEA) = 0.05. The CFA results support job stress model fit: Acceptable
model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit statistic. χ2 (50, N = 223) statistic for CFA model is 66.75,
p>0.05; GFI = 0.953, CFI = 0.98 and RMR = 0.03 Root mean squared error (RMSEA) = 0.04. The
CFA results support three scales dimension of group cohesiveness: interpersonal attraction,
commitment to task and group pride model fit. Acceptable model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit
statistic. χ2 (15, N = 223) statistic for CFA model is 13.21, p>0.05; GFI = 0.985, CFI = 0.99 and RMR
= 0.005 Root mean squared error (RMSEA) = 0.00. The CFA results support Team effectiveness
model fit. Acceptable model fits are indicated by Goodness of fit statistic. χ2 (38, N = 223) statistic for
CFA model is 52.39, p>0.05; GFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.99 and RMR = 0.024 Root mean squared error
(RMSEA) = 0.04
-Insert table 3-
Causal equation model results. To investigate the influence of shared leadership on team
effectiveness and possible mediating role of job stress and group cohesiveness, Structure equation
modeling analyses (SEM) are used. The framework represents the full recursive structural equation
depicted that hypothesized causal relationships among latent factors. I hypothesize shared leadership
Page 38 of 50ANZAM 2011
-11-
to have a direct effect on job stress and group cohesiveness and team effectiveness. In addition, I
hypothesize job stress to have direct effect on team effectiveness and mediate the effect of shared
leadership on team effectiveness. Finally, I also hypothesize group cohesiveness to have direct effect
on team effectiveness and mediate the effect of shared leadership on team effectiveness. Fit statistic
for structural model presented in Table 3 demonstrates a satisfactory fit to the data with χ2 (63,
N=223) statistic is 107.73, GFI = .95 CFI =.99, RMR = .004 and RMSEA = .03.
Figure 2 summarizes the standardized path coefficients and Z-value of the causal model. I
examine the path coefficients between the indicator variables and their respective underlying
constructs in the hypotheses. In table 4, the structure model (SEM) results show total effect of shared
leadership on team effectiveness of .75, direct effect of .44 and indirect effect of .31. Total effect path
is significant with p < 0.05, confirming Hypothesis H1. The path coefficient for shared leadership and
job stress is not significant (.06, p> .05). Therefore, shared leadership does not show predicted
increase in job stress. The path coefficient for job stress and team effectiveness is also not significant
(.02, p>.05). Shared leadership create direct effect of .75 on team effectiveness, but the effect does not
mediated by increasing level of job stress among team member. There is no drop in total effect of
shared leadership on team effectiveness, which indicates that there is no indirect effect cause by job
stress. Therefore, the results reject hypothesis H2a, H2b and H2c.
The total effect path coefficient for shared leadership and group cohesiveness is .89 and
significant with p<.05. Therefore, shared leadership shows the predicted increase in group
cohesiveness. The total effect path coefficient for cohesiveness and team effectiveness is .35, with
p<.05. Shared leadership creates direct effect (.44) on team effectiveness and the effect mediated by
increasing level of group cohesiveness among team member. The increase effect of .31 between
shared leadership and team effectiveness indicates indirect effect caused by group cohesiveness.
Therefore, the results support hypothesis H3a, H3b and H3c.
-Insert Figure 2- -Insert Table 4-
Discussion
Shared leadership and team effectiveness. I explore the relationship between shared leadership
and the result of team performance outcome from nurse team. I find that the effect of shared leadership
is directly related to team effectiveness. The model shows that higher levels of shared leadership
directly relates to team effectiveness. The hypothesis (H1) is supported and is consistent with previous
Page 39 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-12-
research highlighting the significance of using shared leadership as a platform to enhance team
performance and team satisfaction.
Job stress as negative effect of shared leadership. The hypothesis (H2a) is the extent to which
nurses engaged in shared leadership would cause high level of individual job stress. It is assumed that
under shared leadership setting, peer influencing may increase workload and role uncertainty among
members, leading to a high level of individual job stress. Contrary to the original hypothesis of this
study, it is found that higher level of shared leadership does not create high level of individual job
stress. The result does not support my early prediction of the effect of shared leadership on job stress;
therefore, hypothesis H2a is rejected. The results also reject both hypothesis (H2b) predicting that high
level of job stress causes poor team effectiveness and hypothesis (H2c) predicting that the effect of
shared leadership is reduced due to increasing level of high job stress among team member. The
effect of job stress on team effectiveness in this study is not consistent with previous research could be
explained by the overall effect of shared leadership and the characteristic of the nurse team. It was
initially hypothesized that under shared leadership, peer influencing may create high workload and
role uncertainty among members and would significantly affect individual job stress and lead to high
group stress. However, in this sample, nurses have an average of eight years of experiences working
within team. It can be deduced that adequate role definitions have already been implicit and assumed,
so there are no role ambiguity among in members. As a result, job stress may have been either
internalized or normalized. In addition, data gathered from nurse working in more subtle situation
might not experience work stress. Under a shared leadership setting, the mismatches between
expectations and actual job activities may be resolved through increase interaction among peer (Wood
& Fields, 2007). The result suggests that the benefits of shared leadership with increased interaction
could greatly overcome the pressure or stress caused by peer influence among team members.
Shared leadership and group cohesiveness. The hypothesis (H3a) is the extent to which nurse
engaged in shared leadership increase strong group bonding among the members. Overall, the model
indicates higher level of shared leadership is related positively to group cohesiveness. The effect is
strong; therefore, hypothesis H3a is also support. The study tests the effect of group cohesiveness and
team effectiveness. The result also supports hypothesis (H3b) predicting that high level of group
cohesiveness results in better team effectiveness. The study also tests the mediating effect of group
cohesiveness on the relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness. The result reveals
that group cohesiveness acts as a linking agent between shared leadership and team effectiveness. It
Page 40 of 50ANZAM 2011
-13-
supports the final hypothesis (H3c) predicting that the effect of shared leadership is increased due to
higher level of group cohesiveness among team member. The result of this study shows consistency
with previous research demonstrating strong links between group cohesiveness-performance and
suggests strong interaction among leadership, group cohesiveness and team performance. Members
within highly cohesive team would create higher desires to live up to the expectations of the team,
therefore resulting in better team performance. However, with strong group cohesiveness, there is a
danger of compromise and decisions driven by team member.
Future research
Shared leadership is a promising leadership concept and construct, but it is still at a
developmental stage. This study is an initial attempt to define model of intermediated effect of shared
leadership on team effectiveness using two mediating variables: job stress and group cohesiveness,
however, they are not exhaustive components. Other critical dimensions of mediating variable
underlying shared leadership and team effectiveness relationship are worth investigating. The
following are issues for future research on shared leadership that could improve our understanding of
the implication of shared leadership. First, we need to further studies to determine its relevance and
applicability to different organizational context such as what types of organizational contexts that
would be receptive to the use of share leadership, and facilitate shared leadership formation. Second,
since shared leadership is the study of team approach, various levels of analysis are needed in the
research design of team study, data collection, and analytical techniques. Multilevel analysis on
individual perspective and group perspective could shed further lights in shared leadership and
performance model. Third, negative effect of team dynamics such as role ambiguity and role conflict
caused by shared leadership is worth investigating. In shared leadership setting, increase role
ambiguity and role conflict is expected and team is unable to respond to the expectations of one or
more members of the team. Steers (1989) suggests that job satisfaction is lower in larger teams and
cohesiveness and communication diminish with increased team size. Larger team members may also
engage in social loafing. This occurs when an individual feels that the needed effort will be shared by
the team’s member and that he or she can count on others to take up any necessary slack (Latane et al,
1979). Fourth, the effect of team composition in shared leadership team. The proper composition of a
team with a diverse background and skill base would lead to an increase in information processing
capacity, and thus be more able to achieve its goals and objectives over team with homogeneous
background and skill. Teams composed of highly similar individual who hold common beliefs and
Page 41 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-14-
have much the same abilities are likely to view a task from a single perspective. Such commonality
can be productive, but it may also mean the lack of a critical perspective for looking at certain
problems (Dyer 1987). However, strong homogeneity tends to be more beneficial in situations where
team task are relatively simple and focused. In contrast, team diversity teams to provide better results
in situation where team tasks are complex and highly varied. Therefore, addressing the issues in future
research could improve the model abstraction and generalization that would help guide practitioners in
identifying appropriate factors and determine environment to promote the team development.
Conclusion
The concept of single leadership theory emphasizing on an individual leading the organization
is becoming less applicable in a rapid changing and dynamic environment. Leadership can no longer
rely on individual set of traits and behaviors. The emerging view of leadership is leaning towards the
model where multiple individuals with diverse set of skills and abilities would act as team of leaders
and replace the traditional sole leader (Friedrich et al., 2009). The study indicates that importance of
adopting shared leadership, which may challenges and stretch an individual team member in terms of
ability and capacity. The result of the study reveals benefit of shared leadership through better group
cohesion and high team effectiveness, which out weight any peer pressure caused by shared leadership
setting. Therefore, it is worth to encourage team to adopt shared leadership to promote team
performance. Furthermore, it is worth investigating the effect of shared leadership in organizational
context with different level of high task interdependence, high task complexity, and environment
uncertainty. However, it is important to explore other side effects such as counter-action arising from
the impact of shared leadership such as individual psychological effect that is brought about by high
job demand on and anxiety of an individual that has yet to align with other team members.
Page 42 of 50ANZAM 2011
-15-
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W., & Jung, D. I. (1999). A preliminary validation of the
Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Manuscript in preparation. Binghamton
University.
Avery, G. (2004). Understanding Leadership. London: Sage.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership, 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.
Beehr, T. A., Newman, J.E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A
facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personal psychology, 31, 665-699.
Bennet, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003), Distributed Leadership. NCSL, Nottingham.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L., & Kohles, J.C. (2006). The important of self- and shared leadership in team
based knowledge work a meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 296-318.
Campion, M. A., Paper. L. M & Medsker. G. J. (1993). Relations between work team characteristics
and effectiveness: Implications for designing effectiveness work groups. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 823-849.
Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E., & Marrone, J.A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of
antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal. 50, 1217-
1234.
Chen, Y. (2009). Job stress and performance: A study of police officers in central Taiwan. Social
Behavior & Personality: An International Journal. 37. 1341-1356.
Cohen, S. (1980). After effects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of
research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 88-108.
Colbeck, C.L., Campbell, S.E. & Bjorklund, S.A. (2000). Group in the dark. Journal of Higher
Education. 71, 60-81.
Cox, J.F., Pearce, C.L., and Perry, M.L., (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed
influence in the innovation process: how shared leadership can enhance new product
development team dynamics and effectiveness, in Pearce, C.L. Conger, J.A. (Eds),
Shared leadership: Refraining the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
California. 48-76
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold
of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211-216.
Page 43 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-16-
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, E. L., & Spanglerm,W.D. (2004). Transformational
leadership and team performance, Journal of Organizational Change. 17, 177-193.
Driver, M., & Streufert, S. (1969). Integrative complexity: An approach to individuals and groups as
information-processing systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 272-285.
Dyer, W.G. (1987) Team building: Issues and alternatives 2nd
edn, USA : Addison-Wesley.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The important of vertical and shared
leadership within new venture top management teams: Implication for the performance
of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217-231.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological review, 57, 271-282.
Fields, D.L. (2002). Taking the measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational
Research and Diagnosis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Friedrich, T.L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M.J., Ruark, G.A., & Munford, M.D. (2009). A framework
for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team
expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 933-958.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Group in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Gray-Toft,P., & Anderson, J. (1981). The nursing stress scales: development of an instrument. Journal
of behavioral assessment, 3,11-23.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership quarterly, 13, 423-451.
Gross, P.R. (1989). Stress and burnout in ministry: a multivariate approach. Lutheram Theological
Journal, 23, 27-31.
Guzzo, R.A., & Dickson, M .W. (1996). Teams in organization: recent research on performance and
effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis Sixth Edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Harris, A. (2006). Opening up the ‘Black Box’ of leadership practice: Taking a distributed leadership
perspectives. Leadership and Management, 34, 37-45
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46, 172-188.
Page 44 of 50ANZAM 2011
-17-
Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school
improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 46, 659- 689.
Hiller, N.J., Day, D.V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team
effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 387-397.
Hollander, E.P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford
Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
Jamal, M. (1985). Relationships of job stress to job performance: A study of managers and blue-collar
workers. Human Relations, 38, 409-424.
Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and Type-A behavior to employees' job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and turnover motivation.
Human Relations, 43, 727-738.
Jordan, M.H., & Field, H. S. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team
performance : A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Research, 33, 121-
150.
Koval, J. P. & Mills, E.W. (1971). Stress in the minister, IDOC Internazionale. 33, 3-13.
Latane, B., William, K., & Harkins, S (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and
consequences of social loafing, Journal of Applied personality and social Psychology.
37, 822-832.
Lussier, R.N., & Achua, C.F. (2000). Leadership. Theory Application Skill Development. Ohio:
South-Western College Publishing Thomson Learning.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro,S.J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In: Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.) Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed Leadership in teams: The
network of leadership perception and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
232-245.
Parker, D.F., & Decotiis, T.A (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance. 32, 160-177.
Pearce, C.L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform
knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 47-57.
Page 45 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-18-
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J.A. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the how’s and why’s of
leadership. California: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive directive,
transactional, transformational and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice. 6, 172-197.
Politis, J. D. (2005). Dispersed leadership predictor of the work environment for creativity and
productivity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8. 182-204.
Raeda, F.A. (2004). Job Stress, Job Performance, and Social Support among Hospital Nurses, Journal
of Nursing Scholarship. 36, 73–78.
Rosenbach, W.E.,& Taylor, R.L. (2005). Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence, 5th Ed.
Cambridge Massachusette:Westview Press.
Sanders, J.O. (2006). Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer. Chicago
Illinois: Moody Publish.
Sashkin, M & Sashkin M. (2003). Leaderhip that matters: the critical factors for making a difference
in people’s lives and organization’s success, California:Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sayles, L.R. (1958). The Behavior of Industrial Work Groups. New York: Wiley.
Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamic: The social psychology of small group behavior. New York, USA:
McGraw Hill.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the
effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group &
Organizational Management, 27, 66-69.
Spooner, S.H., Keenan, R. & Card, M. (1997). Determining if shared leadership is being practiced:
evaluation methodology. Nurse Administration Quarterly, 22, 47-57.
Steers,R.M. (1989). An introduction to organizational behaviour, Englewood Cliffs, USA: Prentice
Hall
Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (1992). Teams: Their Training and Performance, CT: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Tushman and Nadler, 1979. Special boundary roles in the innovation process, Administrative Science
Quarterly. 22, 587-605.
Page 46 of 50ANZAM 2011
-19-
Wallace, M. (2002). Modeling distributed leadership and management effectiveness: primary school
senior management teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement. 13, 163-86.
Watson, W.E. Kumar,K.,& Michaelsen ,L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy
of management Journal. 36, 590-601.
Wendt, H., Euwema, M.C., Emmerik, H.V. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures.
The leadership quarterly, 20, 358-370.
Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1992). Excessive role demand and subsequent performance. Journal of
organizational behavior, 13, 519-529.
Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and metal health. American Sociological Review.
55, 209-223.
Wood, M. S., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team
member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2, 251-272
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organization. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12,
451-483.
Page 47 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-2-
Table 1: Means, standard deviations and correlation matrix of the study (N = 223 teams)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Capable Management .81
2 Reward Equity .72**
.81
3 Communication Leadership .75**
.72**
.78
4 Credible Leadership .76**
.62**
.77**
.82
5 Care Leadership .73**
.66**
.79**
.78**
.87
6 Enabling Leadership .77**
.60**
.78**
.78**
.82**
.83
7 Confident Leadership .72**
.63**
.76**
.66**
.80**
.81**
.82
8 Follower Center Leadership .69**
.64**
.72**
.65**
.62**
.69**
.69**
.77
9 Visionary Leadership .64**
.60**
.68**
.62**
.62**
.71**
.69**
.81**
.80
10 Culture building Leadership .78**
.67**
.79**
.83**
.79**
.83**
.74**
.75**
.73**
.85
11 Interpersonal Attraction .45**
.41**
.53**
.55**
.57**
.58**
.53**
.43**
.41**
.60**
.76
12 Commitment to Task .57**
.50**
.65**
.60**
.69**
.68**
.65**
.51**
.58**
.67**
.67**
.64
13 Group Pride .66**
.51**
.64**
.67**
.69**
.73**
.70**
.57**
.57**
.71**
.66**
.69**
.83
14 Time Stress .25**
.30**
.31**
.21**
.22**
.24**
.25**
.46**
.41**
.32**
.20**
.29**
.24**
.67
15 Anxiety -.02 .11 .08 .06 .00 .02 .04 .29**
.23**
.12 .04 .00 .05 .70**
.59
16 Staff Satisfaction .59**
.44**
.47**
.56**
.51**
.55**
.51**
.46**
.44**
.60**
.44**
.47**
.61**
.40**
.18**
.78
17 Output Effectiveness .51**
.38**
.49**
.62**
.50**
.57**
.46**
.42**
.39**
.58**
.61**
.47**
.53**
.22**
.04 .67 .73
Mean 3.72 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.86 3.76 3.78 3.66 3.61 3.74 3.83 3.82 3.88 3.44 3.41 3.77 3.68
Std. .40 .36 .32 .37 .38 .39 .36 .35 .36 .38 .38 .43 .41 .36 .37 .45 .38
Note. Diagonal entries are scales reliability. N= 230 teams * p < .05, ** p < 0.01 level.
Page 48 of 50ANZAM 2011
-2-
Table 2 Measurement Model Results (Second-order)
Construct/Indicator Standardized
factor loading
Standard
Error (S.E)
Critical Ratio
(C.R)
R2
Shared Leadership (Second-order)
Collective Transaction Leadership Behavior 0.92 a 0.85
Collective Transformational Leadership Behavior 0.99 0.05 16.86 0.98
Collective Transformation Leadership
Characteristic 0.98 0.05 17.46 0.96
Collective Transaction Leadership Behavior
Capable Management 0.92 a 0.84
Reward Equity 0.78 0.05 14.92 0.61
Collective Transformational Leadership
Behavior
Communication Leadership 0.87 a 0.75
Credible Leadership 0.89 0.06 18.73 0.80
Care Leadership 0.89 0.06 19.09 0.80
Enabling Leadership 0.92 0.06 20.18 0.85
Collective Transformation Leadership
Behavior
Confident Leadership 0.90 a 0.81
Follower Center Leadership 0.78 0.06 15.27 0.61
Visionary Leadership 0.77 0.06 14.71 0.59
Culture Building Leadership 0.94 0.06 18.37 0.89
Job Stress
Time Stress 0.78 a 0.63
Anxiety 0.86 0.09 12.52 0.73
Team Effectiveness
Output Effectiveness 0.65
Staff Satisfaction 0.68
Cohesiveness
Interpersonal Attraction 0.74 a 0.54
Commitment to Task 0.80 0.10 12.90 0.64
Group Pride 0.88 0.10 12.58 0.77 a path for each construct is set to 1 Therefore no S.E. or t value are given * p < .05
Table 3: Fit of Structural Model
Model χ2 df Ρ CMIN/DF GFI
CFI RM
R RMSEA
Mediated Model with group cohesiveness
and job stress partially mediating the
effect of shared leadership and team
effectiveness
107.7
3 63 .09 1.20 .95 .99 .004 .03
RMSEA root mean squared error of approximation; GFI goodness of fit index; CFI comparative fit index; RMR root mean square residual
Table 4 Summary of direct, indirect and total effects associated with each variable in the path analysis
Explanatory variables Shared leadership Group Cohesiveness Job Stress
DE IE TE DE IE TE DE IE TE
Team Effectiveness .44* .31 .75* .35* - .35* .02 - .02
Job Stress .06 - .06
Group Cohesiveness .89** - .89**
*p<.05 **p <0.01
Page 49 of 50 ANZAM 2011
-3-
Input Output
Shared Leadership Team Effectiveness
Job Stress
H1(+)
H2(+) H3(-)
H4(-)
Immediate Outcome
Contextual variablesTask Complexity
Task Interdependency
Group Cohesiveness
H6(+)H4(+) H5(+)
Figure 1: Relationships, effects of shared leadership on team effectiveness mediated model through
job stress and group cohesiveness
Collective
Transaction
Leadership
Behavior
Collective
Transformation
Leadership
Behavior
Collective
Transformational
Leadership
Characteristic
Capable
Management
Reward
Equity
Communication
Leadership
Credible
Leadership
Care
Leadership
Enable
Leadership
Confident
Leadership
Follower Center
Leadership
Visionary
Leadership
Cultural Building
Leadership
Shared
Leadership
Team
Effectiveness
Job Stress
Time Stress
Anxiety
OutputEffectiveness
Staff Satisfaction
0.75*
.02.06
.99
.98
.92
.61
.62
.85
.72
.86
.89
.88
.91
.88
.77
.75
.92
.86.78
Group
Cohesiveness
Interpersonal Attraction
GroupPride
.35*.89**
Commitment to Task
.80.74 .88
.84
.61
.75
.80
.80
.85
.81
.61
.89
.59
.54 .64 .77
.63 .73
.65
.68
Figure 2: Structure equation model of shared leadership and team effectiveness mediated by job stress
and group cohesiveness
Page 50 of 50ANZAM 2011
Recommended