8/17/2019 5.shared

1/21

Team Performance Management: An International JournalModerators of shared leadership: work function and team autonomy

Maj S. Fausing Hans Jeppe Jeppesen Thomas S. Jønsson Joshua Lewandowski Michelle C. Bligh

Article information:To cite this document:Maj S. Fausing Hans Jeppe Jeppesen Thomas S. Jønsson Joshua Lewandowski Michelle C. Bligh, (2013),"Moderators oshared leadership: work function and team autonomy", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19Iss 5/6 pp. 244 - 262Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038

Downloaded on: 09 March 2016, At: 19:10 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1588 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Julia E. Hoch, (2014),"Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams", Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 29 Iss 5 pp. 541-564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2012-0053

Michelle C. Bligh, Craig L. Pearce, Jeffrey C. Kohles, (2006),"The importance of self- and shared leadership in teambased knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp.296-318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663105

Hakan Erkutlu, (2012),"The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadership andteam proactivity", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 1/2 pp. 102-119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211207734

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:456666 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038

8/17/2019 5.shared

2/21

Moderators of shared leadership:work function and team autonomy

Maj S. Fausing, Hans Jeppe Jeppesen and Thomas S. Jønsson Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University,

 Aarhus, Denmark, and 

 Joshua Lewandowski and Michelle C. BlighSchool of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences,

Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California, USA

Abstract

Purpose   – Previous studies show that sharing leadership in teams offers potential performancebenefits across various contexts. This paper aims to investigate moderators of the effectiveness of 

shared leadership. In particular, it seeks to explore the moderating effects of team work function – manufacturing versus knowledge team work – and team autonomy.

Design/methodology/approach  – In order to test the hypotheses, the authors conductedhierarchical regression analyses and ran moderated two-way regression analyses using a fieldsample of 552 employees comprising 81 teams in a Danish manufacturing company.

Findings – Contrary to expectations, the results demonstrated a non-significant relationship betweenshared leadership and team performance. However, as expected, work function significantlymoderated this relationship such that shared leadership exhibited a negative relationship withmanufacturing team performance and a positive relationship with knowledge team performance.Moreover, team autonomy was positively related to performance, and it significantly moderated therelationship between shared leadership and team performance.

Research limitations/implications   – The study provides a potentially useful framework forunderstanding boundary conditions for the effectiveness of shared leadership. However, since the

design of the study is cross-sectional, direct causation cannot be inferred. Moreover, the study tookplace within a single organization in a Danish context and, therefore, care must be taken ingeneralizing the findings without additional evidence from further research.

Originality/value  – To the authors’ knowledge, the study is the first to obtain evidence whichindicates that the success of shared leadership may depend on the team work function and the level of team autonomy.

Keywords Shared leadership, Team autonomy, Technology dimensions, Team performance,Leadership, Team working, Denmark, Manufacturing industries

Paper type  Research paper

1. IntroductionA shift in the nature of work from production to knowledge work has implied that

work tasks are becoming increasingly complex and ambiguous. Concomitantly, theworkforce is becoming more skilled and educated (Pearce and Manz, 2005). However, inorder to meet the needs of the changing workforce and to leverage employee skills andknowledge, organizations have to rethink their ways of organizing, managing, andtraining (Drucker, 2008; Gronn, 2002). Moreover, demands for innovation and thecomplexity and dynamics facing organizations imply that no single employee or leaderhas all the relevant and appropriate knowledge in every situation (Pearce and Conger,2003; Pearce et al., 2009; Perry et al., 1999). Particularly, this has resulted in an increase

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

TPM19,5/6

244

Team Performance Management

Vol. 19 No. 5/6, 2013

pp. 244-262

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1352-7592

DOI 10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038

8/17/2019 5.shared

3/21

in the application of team work since the 1990 s (Marks and Richards, 2012; Muelleret al., 2000) and following this, an increased tendency to decentralize decision-makingand offer employees more discretion (Burke et al., 2011; Morgeson et al., 2010; Zaccaroet al., 2001). As a consequence of technical and structural changes, it may be critical

that organizations shift attention away from traditional, hierarchical leadership modelsdominated by command and control and adopt new leadership models that fit a teamcontext, take advantage of the expertise employees possess (Day   et al., 2004; 2006;Drucker, 2008; Pearce, 2010), and allow them to apply their skills autonomously andinterdependently.

Scholars suggest that actively sharing leadership responsibilities within a team isparticularly effective in knowledge-based work (Bligh et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2003; Dayet al., 2006). Shared leadership is a social, horizontal influence process in whichleadership emanates from and is distributed among team members (Carson  et al., 2007;Pearce and Conger, 2003). Thus, shared leadership provides the context for integratingand bringing into action the dispersed ideas, expertise, and skills of multipleindividuals (Bligh et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2003; Friedrich et al., 2009) rather than relyingsolely on a single hierarchical team leader (Perry   et al., 1999). Consequently,organizations can realize their knowledge potential and remain competitive, andemployees can utilize their skills and competencies and experience larger purpose andmeaningfulness in their jobs.

Growing attention has been devoted to the theoretical and empirical exploration of shared leadership in teams, while substantial behavioral, cognitive, and performancebenefits of shared leadership have been uncovered across organizational contexts(Wassenaar and Pearce, 2012). In particular, studies suggest that shared leadership isan especially important predictor of team performance when compared to verticalleadership (Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce  et al., 2004). However, isshared leadership applicable in all contexts or do the benefits of shared leadership

apply exclusively to knowledge work? And, can we identify important moderators of the effectiveness of shared leadership belonging to the nature of team work?

Most shared leadership studies have been conducted among knowledge workers(Carson et al., 2007; Carte et al., 2006; Choi, 2009; Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce et al., 2004),including management teams (Ensley  et al., 2006; Pearce and Sims, 2002) and studentsamples (Bergman et al., 2012; Boies  et al., 2010; Hooker and Csikszentmihalyi, 2003;Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; Small and Rentsch, 2010), while there seems to be a lackof studies that compare the potentially differential effects of shared leadership inknowledge versus manufacturing teams. Furthermore, although several theoreticalframeworks and scholars within the shared leadership literature stress the importanceof exploring moderators of shared leadership (e.g. Avolio et al., 2009; Bligh et al., 2006;Carson et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2003; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and

Conger, 2003), in order to account for different strengths in the relationship betweenshared leadership and performance (Hoch  et al., 2010b), few studies have actually doneso. In the current paper, we argue that team work function – in terms of knowledgeversus manufacturing work – and team autonomy are two relevant and criticalmoderators of the relationship between shared leadership and team performance. Sinceshared leadership is defined as an emergent process, where leadership rotates to theindividuals with the most relevant skills and expertise in a given situation (Carsonet al., 2007; Pearce and Conger, 2003), team autonomy as well as diverse and dispersed

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

245

8/17/2019 5.shared

4/21

knowledge among team members provides the necessary platform for sharedleadership to emerge successfully.

The purpose of the present study is, therefore, to examine the potential moderatingeffects of knowledge work as opposed to manufacturing work and of team autonomy

on the relationship between shared leadership and manager rated team performance.

2. Shared leadership and team performanceOverall, shared leadership is a type of collective leadership (Yammarino  et al., 2012). Itthus bears many similarities to and is often used interchangeably with notions such as,for example, distributed leadership (Bolden, 2011; Gronn, 2002), collective teamleadership (Hiller et al., 2006), informal leadership (Neubert, 1999), emergent leadership(Carte  et al., 2006), and rotating leadership (Erez  et al., 2002) that also view leadershipas emanating from the interaction of multiple individuals within or acrossorganizational levels. In particular, shared leadership involves horizontallyemergent, actively distributed, and rotating leadership behaviors and roles within a

team context (Carson et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2003; Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce and Conger,2003; Perry et al., 1999). Following this, shared leadership is commonly operationalizedas team members’ perceptions of other team members’ leadership behaviors including,for example, transformational, transactional, directive, and empowering leadership(Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and Sims, 2000; 2002). In comparison, distributed leadershipinvolves dispersion and distribution of leadership and responsibility throughout anorganization and not only in a team context (Bolden, 2011; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Yukl,2008). Shared leadership is defined as “a dynamic, interactive influence process amongindividuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievementof group or organizational goals or both” (Pearce and Conger, 2003, p. 1). Thus, insteadof having only one team leader, which may restrict the information and knowledgeexchange (Neubert, 1999), shared leadership involves the active and mutual

engagement of several individuals in the influence and leadership processes (Carsonet al., 2007; Pearce and Sims, 2000; 2002). The emergence of multiple leaders in the teamimplies the existence of divergent perspectives and a greater amount of informationexchanged and shared (Neubert, 1999). Consequently, sharing leadership in a teammay facilitate knowledge sharing and create opportunities for knowledge creationbeyond the opportunities of individuals working independently. In this way, sharedleadership can be viewed as essential in raising team performance, especially incomplex team work.

The potential performance benefits of shared leadership is supported by initialresearch that demonstrates positive relationships between shared leadership and teamperformance across a wide range of contexts (e.g. Carson  et al., 2007; Carte et al., 2006;Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2004; Small and Rentsch, 2010).

Thus, building on theory and on existing studies, we propose that:

 H1.   Shared leadership and team performance are positively related.

However, not every context and team allows for effective enactment and use of sharedleadership. Bligh   et al.   (2006) similarly maintain that shared leadership may not besuitable for every team environment. We therefore investigated the possiblemoderating effects of team work function – in terms of manufacturing andknowledge teams – and of team autonomy.

TPM19,5/6

246

8/17/2019 5.shared

5/21

3. Moderators of shared leadership3.1 Shared leadership and work functionWith the rise of the knowledge worker (Drucker, 1995, 1999) and the consequentincreased complexity, the composition of the workforce has changed, organizational

structures have flattened, and organizations are faced with new demands andchallenges. Drucker (1999) argues that the biggest managerial challenge of thetwenty-first century is raising the productivity of knowledge workers. However, do thesame managerial practices apply to knowledge and manufacturing workers of today?

Even though positive relationships between shared leadership and teamperformance are uncovered in previous studies, shared leadership may not be anadvantage in all work settings. In particular, the tasks and work conditions facingknowledge workers are often much more multi-faceted, complex, and unfamiliar and inthis way fundamentally different from the conditions and tasks of manufacturingworkers (Bligh et al., 2006; Drucker, 1999; Pearce, 2010). Pearce (2010) similarly arguesthat the nature of knowledge work requires that knowledge workers are managed quitedifferently than manufacturing workers.

In order to conceptualize the differences reflected in manufacturing versusknowledge team work we draw on Perrow’s (1967) model of technology, which offers abasis for comparing organizations/work units. Technology is defined as “the workdone in organizations” (Perrow, 1967, p. 194), and it represents two continuousdimensions: the number of exceptions and the degree of analyzability. The number of exceptions refers to the degree of familiarity and predictability, with many exceptionsinvolving high unfamiliarity and few exceptions implying high familiarity (Perrow,1967). Analyzability, on the other hand, ranges from analyzable tasks that arecharacterized by specific procedures to handle the tasks to unanalyzable tasks thatrequire problem-solving and an active search for solutions (Daft and Macintosh, 1981).

Perrow (1967) further proposed a continuum of routine non-routine work, which

contains exceptions and analyzability. An example of routine work is assembly linework (Perrow, 1967; Withey   et al., 1983), which tends to be characterized by fewexceptions and well understood, analyzable tasks that are typically performed bymanufacturing workers/teams. This categorization is further supported by Hopp  et al.(2009) who classify blue collar tasks as routine and physical, which implies that theycan be specified in advance and that they do not require extensive knowledge. Incomparison, non-routine work (e.g. research and development, strategic planning) isdefined by its high complexity, many exceptions, and unanalyzable tasks (Perrow,1967), which usually characterize knowledge work. Hopp  et al.  (2009) similarly arguethat white collar tasks, which include knowledge work, are defined by intellectual andcreative tasks that depend on the use of knowledge and generation of new solutions.However, knowledge work may also be characterized by many exceptions, while at the

same time being analyzable because of specific procedures for solving tasks, whichmay be the case for certain kinds of made-to-order engineering (Perrow, 1967).

Building on Perrow’s typology and Hopp et al.’s (2009) task classifications, we arguethat effects of shared leadership vary for knowledge and manufacturing teams owingto their diverse work and task conditions. Specifically, sharing leadership may be moresuitable to non-routine work characterized by many exceptions and unfamiliar worksituations, since these work conditions generally benefit from the sharing of information and contributions from multiple individuals. Pearce and Manz (2005)

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

247

8/17/2019 5.shared

6/21

similarly argue that shared leadership is most important when teams work oncomplex, intellectual tasks that require continuous innovation and knowledge creation.Conversely, traditional leadership models may be more suitable for routine tasks thatare characterized by less complexity and more familiarity and certainty (Pearce and

Manz, 2005). Furthermore, employees may react badly to sharing control andleadership, if tasks are easily analyzable, predictable, and/or routine (Pearce, 2004).This remains possible due to their sentiment that these processes may become tootime-consuming and impractical, if they can perform their tasks somewhatindependently without much input from other team members.

A single case study by Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen (2012) suggested that sharingleadership in a manufacturing setting can be challenging. Furthermore, Neubert (1999)failed to find a significant relationship between team performance and the proportionof informal leaders in an exploratory study of 21 manufacturing teams. Hiller  et al.(2006), on the other hand, found that collective leadership was positively related to 12out of 24 supervisor ratings of team effectiveness in traditional work teams. Theysimilarly argued that collective leadership in terms of shared enactment of leadership

roles should benefit all kinds of teams due to “an increased capacity for getting thingsdone, regardless of the task” (Hiller   et al., 2006, p. 388). However, Neubert (1999),Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen (2012), and Hiller  et al.  (2006), who investigated exclusivelymanufacturing teams, did not compare shared leadership in relation to manufacturingversus knowledge teams performance.

Accordingly, the effects of sharing leadership in knowledge versus manufacturingteams have yet to be investigated and demonstrated. We therefore propose thefollowing hypothesis:

 H2.   Team work function moderates the relationship between shared leadershipand team performance such that shared leadership and team performance arepositively related for knowledge teams, whereas shared leadership and team

performance are negatively related for manufacturing teams.

3.2 Shared leadership and team autonomyIn their review of team work, Rasmussen and Jeppesen (2006) found that teamautonomy was a defining and constituent characteristic of teams. In general, teamautonomy reflects discretion over work tasks and conditions and, thus, impliesincreased freedom and opportunities to make decisions and plan activities within thelimits of the team (Stewart, 2006; Stewart and Manz, 1995). Consequently, in order tofully gain the advantages of working in a team and to leverage team memberknowledge and skills, teams have to be assigned with a certain degree of teamautonomy, in order to shape team tasks and conditions.

Different models for facilitating the understanding of the nature of team work have

been elaborated and proposed. Thompson and Wallace (1996) argue that normative,governance, and technical dimensions are important in the conceptualization andapprehension of team work. The governance dimension involves autonomy and thedesign of leadership and, thus, seems particularly relevant and interesting for thepresent purposes, since it emphasizes the interplay between leadership and autonomyand their importance. Gulowsen (1979) further clarifies the different dimensions inautonomy. This clarification has inspired other researchers to create scales for workautonomy (e.g. Breaugh, 1999; Little, 1988; Murakami, 1997). In particular, building on

TPM19,5/6

248

8/17/2019 5.shared

7/21

the work by Gulowsen (1979), Murakami (1997) provided a detailed operationalizationof autonomy. However, in Murakami’s (1997) cross-national study of team autonomy in19 automobile plants, it appears that besides specific dimensions of autonomy(e.g. selection of team leader and new members, distribution of work, time flexibility,

methods of production, and production goals), the particular level of team autonomywas important. Team autonomy is, thus, characterized both by different dimensionsand by different levels of intensity.

Team autonomy has been included in various studies particularly in relation toteam performance, team member attitudes and behaviors, and internal team processes(e.g. Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Delarue et al., 2008; Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen, 2012; Rolfsenand Langeland, 2012; Salas   et al., 2004; Van Mierlo   et al., 2006). Moreover, in ameta-analysis of team design features and team performance, Stewart (2006) found apositive relationship between team autonomy and team performance. Stewart andManz (1995) equally argue that influence and participation in teams lead to higher teamperformance and team satisfaction. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:

 H3.   Team autonomy and team performance are positively related.We further maintain that team autonomy is an important condition in relation to thesuccess of shared leadership processes in teams, since the experience of teamautonomy may enhance the likelihood that the team members engage themselves in themutual influence processes that constitute shared leadership. Following this, sharedleadership may be more effective when team members actually perceive that they havethe necessary team autonomy to share the lead, to influence each other, and to makedecisions collectively. In a similar vein, Perry  et al. (1999, p. 37) emphasize that sharedleadership is unlikely in teams “without power and authority to manage themselves.”Moreover, according to Yukl (2013), influence is at the core of leadership. Similarly,shared leadership is defined as a mutual influence process (Pearce and Conger, 2003).We therefore argue that the success of shared leadership processes depends on acertain degree of experienced influence and autonomy in the team such that the teammembers have the freedom to lead each other and to solve their tasks and plan theiractivities autonomously within the team. Building on this, we propose the followinghypothesis:

 H4.   Team autonomy moderates the relationship between shared leadership andteam performance such that this relationship is more positive when teamautonomy is higher rather than lower.

4. Methods4.1 SampleSurvey data were collected from a field sample consisting of 552 employees from aDanish manufacturing company. Of the 763 surveys distributed to all employees, 562usable surveys were returned yielding a response rate of 74 percent. However, teamswith fewer than three respondents were eliminated from the sample, which resulted inthe exclusion of five teams and ten individuals leaving us with 552 team members and81 teams. Teams were formally established entities with external team leaders, whowere not part of the teams, but who interacted with the teams on a daily basis.Accordingly, team leader responses were not included in the analyses, since the teamleaders were not a formal part of the teams and thus did not take part in solving team

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

249

8/17/2019 5.shared

8/21

tasks, but merely served as supervisors. Teams varied considerably in size from 3 to 24team members, with a mean of 10.89 ðSD  ¼  4:56Þ: Average team tenure was 2.66 yearsðSD  ¼  2:68Þ;   while the average tenure in the organization was 5.45   ðSD ¼  4:79Þ:Among the team members, whose age ranged from 19 to 66 years with a mean of 41.51

years  ðSD  ¼  9:16Þ; 63 percent of the members were male and 37 percent were female.

4.2 ProcedureIn order to ensure that the content of the items were accurately presented in the Danishitems (Brislin, 1986), survey items were translated from English into Danish and thenback-translated into English by several independent individuals. Prior to the surveyadministration in the entire organization, we conducted a pilot study with three teamsðn  ¼  32Þ:  In the pilot phase, the wordings of items were tested and the scales weretested for reliability.

Surveys were administered at the company during paid work hours over the courseof three weeks, either electronically or through paper-pencil (for employees with no

access to a computer).

4.3 MeasuresThe present study is part of a larger study on teams, influence, and leadership. Since allthe included measures (except for work function) were measured with reference to theteam, the measures were aggregated to the team level and analyses were conducted onthe team level. Accordingly, each individual rated the team on differentattributes/dimensions and then we averaged these scores across team members andassigned each team member with their team’s score in order to reflect the team. In orderto justify aggregation, we checked for adequate within-team agreement, rwg   (Jameset al., 1993). The Cronbach’s alpha ( a ) measure was used to test for internalconsistency/reliability for each scale and ranged from 0.79 to 0.95 establishing a good

reliability of the scales.4.3.1 Shared leadership. Hoch et al.’s (2010a) short version of the shared and vertical

leadership questionnaire originally developed by Pearce and Sims (2002) was used tomeasure shared leadership behaviors. However, for the present purpose, only the subscales pertaining to shared leadership were included. The questionnaire encompassessix shared leadership subscales, including transformational leadership   ða  ¼  0:79Þ;transactional leadership   ða  ¼  0:79Þ;   directive leadership   ða  ¼  0:95Þ;   individualempowering leadership   ða  ¼  0:88Þ;   team empowering leadership   ða  ¼  0:84Þ;   andaversive leadership ða  ¼  0:89Þ with four to six items each. An item example for sharedtransformational leadership is “My team colleagues seek a broad range of perspectives,when solving problems.” Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The wordings of the items for shared

aversive leadership were slightly altered in the Danish version, in order to ensurediversity in the items, since the Danish language is less comprehensive than English.However, the main theoretical components of the subscale and the construct weremaintained.

To test the factor structure of the questionnaire in the present sample, we conducteda second order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the six shared leadership subscales. Results of the CFA showed that the sub factor aversive leadership did not loadsubstantially on the shared leadership scale  ðb  ¼ 20:20Þ: It was, therefore, omitted in

TPM19,5/6

250

8/17/2019 5.shared

9/21

a subsequent factor analysis. This factor analysis confirmed the factor structure of shared leadership with sub factors loading beyond 0.70, except from directiveleadership, which loaded 0.54. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.85.

In order to test for the aggregation of scores to the team level, we further calculated

rwg  for all the subscales. The rwg  for the overall shared leadership scale was 0.84 andthe rwg    scores for the shared leadership subscales ranged from 0.62 to 0.86(transformational leadership ¼  0:86;   transactional leadership  ¼  0:75;   directiveleadership  ¼  0:62;   individual empowering leadership ¼  0:68;   team empoweringleadership  ¼  0:78Þ;   indicating a moderate to strong interrater agreement (LeBretonand Senter, 2008), which provided good basis for aggregation of scores.

4.3.2 Work function. Based on company records of team tasks and work function,individuals and teams were coded as manufacturing (“0”) or knowledge (“1”)workers/teams. Of the teams, 37 were manufacturing teams and the remaining 44teams were knowledge teams. Building on company records as well as informationfrom shop stewards, HR, and the production manager, we obtained informationregarding team conditions and tasks. In particular, manufacturing teams were paid by

the hour and primarily worked at assembly and production lines and their work taskswere mostly routine and characterized by few exceptions, high predictability, andanalyzability. Knowledge teams, on the other hand, were salaried office workers andincluded various kinds of teams such as administrative teams, supply chainmanagement teams, production engineering teams, product development teams,human resources teams, IT teams, finance teams, and quality improvement teams.Tasks within these teams varied considerably according to the nature of the team(e.g. engineering, finance etc.); however, in general, their tasks were characterized bymany exceptions, unpredictability, and more or less unanalyzable/uncertain tasks.Educational level also varied considerably between manufacturing and knowledgeteams. Of the employees, 84 percent in manufacturing teams were unskilled or skilledworkers. In comparison, 75 percent of the employees in knowledge teams had amedium-length or long education and only 2 percent were unskilled.

4.3.3 Team autonomy.  Team autonomy was measured using a seven-item scaleadapted from Gulowsen (1979) and Murakami (1997), in order to encompass bothknowledge and manufacturing work. The scale measures the experience of havingdiscretion and being able to influence and plan one’s task, work, and team conditionsas a team. Responses were indicated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (None)to 5 (Much). The items that concern the overriding question of How much influence doyou experience that your team has on? Include:

. Planning of the work tasks in the team?

. The distribution of work tasks among the team members?

. How working time is organized and scheduled?

. Setting of the performance goals for the team?

. Who should be members of the team?

. How leadership is handled in the team?

. The development of work tasks and functions in the team?

In order to validate the scale, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis, withprincipal axis factoring (see Fabrigar   et al., 1999). One factor emerged with factor

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

251

8/17/2019 5.shared

10/21

loadings ranging from 0.61 to 0.76. To further test the factor structure of teamautonomy, we conducted a confirmative factor analysis. The resultant modeldemonstrated a satisfactory fit:   x 2ð11Þ ¼ 31:810;   p   ,   0.001,   x 2=df  ¼ 31:81=11  ¼2:892;   CFI  ¼  0:986;   TLI  ¼  0:972;   RMSEA  ¼  0:059 (90 percent CI: 0.035-0.083).

Moreover, all factor loadings were significant (  p , 0.001) and ranged from 0.54 to 0.79.The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.85, which further supported good internalreliability of the scale. The scale was aggregated to the team level based in anacceptable rwg  score (James  et al., 1993; LeBreton and Senter, 2008) of 0.75.

4.3.4 Team performance.  Team performance was measured using the company’sannual performance rating system based on company records, which diminishes therisks of common method bias due to same source bias (Podsakoff  et al., 2003). The teamperformance score builds on the immediate manager’s assessment of whatemployees/teams have achieved (i.e. abilities to deliver the expected businessresults) and how they have achieved it (i.e. the behaviors displayed in delivering andreaching expected results). In our case, the immediate manager was the external,formal team leader, who was not an inherent part of the team, but who interacted with

the team on a daily basis. The team performance score was indicated on a scale from 80to 135. The scores ranged from 83 to 133, with a mean score of 105.28  ðSD ¼  8:72Þ:

4.3.5 Control variables. As team size, organizational tenure, and team tenure variedconsiderably among teams and team members, we included these variables as controlsin the analyses, in order to account for their potential influences in relation to theincluded variables. Team size was based on company records, whereas organizationaltenure and team tenure were based on self-reported measures.

4. Test of hypothesesFollowing the procedure suggested by Aiken and West (1991), we standardized allcontrol and predictor variables, in order to avoid potential problems with collinearity.

After this, we created the interaction terms. We conducted three separate regressionanalyses, in order to test the hypotheses independently. However, in all analyses, wecontrolled for the influence of the control variables – team size, mean teamorganizational tenure, and mean team tenure – in the first step of the analyses. Thefirst regression model tested the main effect of shared leadership on team performance.In the second regression model, the two predictors, shared leadership and workfunction, were entered in the second step followed by the interaction term SharedLeadership   £  Work Function in the third step. In the third model, shared leadershipand team autonomy were entered in the second step followed by the interaction teamShared Leadership   £  Team Autonomy in the third step.

5. ResultsMeans, SDs, and correlations are provided in Table I. We conducted hierarchicalregression analyses and ran moderated two-way regression analyses to test ourhypotheses. Table II shows the results of the regression analyses. In the first regressionmodel, we tested   H1   and, thus, the direct effect of shared leadership on teamperformance. Contrary to expectations, shared leadership was not significantly relatedto team performance   ðb  ¼  0:07;   p   .   0.10). The non-significant effect of shared leadership on team performance was confirmed in the second regressionmodel  ðb  ¼ 20:06; p .0.10). However, as proposed in H2 , we found a significant and

TPM19,5/6

252

8/17/2019 5.shared

11/21

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Work function 0.52 0.50

1. Team size 10.89 4.58 –  2. Organizational tenure 5.50 2.62 0.21 * * *

3. Team Tenure 2.68 1.36 0.03 0.54 * * *

4. Shared leadership (composite) 3.24 0.27 -0.16 * * * 0.13 * * 0.09 *

5. Team autonomy 3.02 0.47 -0.15 * * * -0.04 0.11 * * 0.64 * * *

6. Team performance 105.28 8.72 0.07 0.04 0.09 * 0.05 0.21 * * *  – 

Note:   * p ,   0.05,   * * p ,  0.01,   * * * p ,  0.001. Work function: 0  ¼  manufacturing teams,1 ¼  knowledge teams. n  ¼  552 individuals in 81 teams

Table I.Means, standard

deviations, andintercorrelations

Variables entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

 Model 1Team size 0.09 0.10 *

Team tenure 0.09 0.10Organizational tenure   20.02   20.03Shared leadership 0.07D R  2  0.01

 R  2  0.01 0.02 F    2.46 2.49 *

 Model 2 Team size 0.09 0.08 0.09 *

Team tenure 0.09 0.09 0.07Organizational tenure   20.02 0.05 0.06Shared leadership 0.06   20.06Team work function 0.15 * * 0.14 * *

Shared leadership   £   Team work function 0.17 * *

D R  2  0.02 0.02 R  2  0.03 0.05 F    3.71 * * 4.51 * * *

 Model 3Team size 0.09 0.11 * 0.08Team tenure 0.09 0.05 0.04Organizational tenure   20.02 0.03 0.03

Shared leadership   20.12*

20.19 * *Team autonomy 0.31 * * * 0.35 * * *

Shared leadership   £   Team autonomy 0.19 * * *

D R  2  0.06 0.03 R  2  0.07 0.11 F    8.33 * * * 10.34 * * *

Note:   n ¼  552 individuals in 81 teams. Dependent variable: Team performance. Standardizedregression weights are shown.   * p ,  0.05,   * * p ,  0.01,   * * * p ,  0.001

Table II.Hierarchical regressionanalyses and moderated

hierarchical regressionanalyses: shared

leadership, team workfunction, and team

autonomy predictingteam performance

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

253

8/17/2019 5.shared

12/21

positive interaction effect of shared leadership and work function on team performanceðb  ¼  0:17;   p ¼  0:01Þ   in the second model. This interaction explained a significantamount of the variance in team performance above and beyond control variables andmain effects  ð R 2 ¼ 0:05; F ð1; 526Þ ¼ 4:51; p ,  0.001). To better interpret the form of 

the interaction, we plotted it graphically in Figure 1 (Aiken and West, 1991). Theregression lines in the graph were plotted under the condition of low and high sharedleadership using one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively. Asshown in Figure 1, the form of the interaction further confirmed hypothesis 2, as sharedleadership exhibited a positive relationship with team performance for knowledgeworkers, whereas shared leadership was negatively related to team performance formanufacturing workers.

In the third regression model, we tested   H3   and   H4. As proposed in   H3, teamautonomy and team performance were significantly and positively related  ðb  ¼  0:31; p  ,  0.001). Contrary to what we hypothesized, the third regression model showedthat shared leadership and team performance were significantly negatively related

ðb  ¼2

0:12;   p  ,

  0.05), when we control for the effects of team autonomy. Thissuggests the importance of team autonomy, when implementing shared leadership.Together with team autonomy, shared leadership explained a significant amountof variance above and beyond the control variables   ð R 2 ¼ 0:07;   F ð2; 527Þ ¼ 8:33; p   ,   0.001). As suggested in   H4, team autonomy significantly moderated therelationship shared leadership and team performance   ðb  ¼  0:19;   p   ,   0.001). InFigure 2, we graphed this moderation under the conditions of low and high sharedleadership (one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively). As can beseen in Figure 2, the relationship between shared leadership and team performancevaried considerably under conditions of high and low team autonomy. As expected,shared leadership and team performance were more negatively related, whenautonomy was low rather than high. However, Figure 2 also shows that shared

leadership and team performance were not positively related, when team autonomywas one SD above the mean value. This suggests that in the present sample, shared

Figure 1.Shared leadership andteam work functionpredicting teamperformance

TPM19,5/6

254

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=303&h=178

8/17/2019 5.shared

13/21

leadership is only an advantage, when teams experience very high levels of teamautonomy. The interaction between team autonomy and shared leadership explained asignificant amount of variance in team performance above and beyond the controlvariables and main effects  ð R 2 ¼ 0:11; F ð1; 526Þ ¼ 10:34; p ,   0.001).

The control variables entered in the first step of the analyses in all three modelswere not significant in model 3. However, in model 1 ( b  ¼  0.10,   p   ,   0.05) and 2ðb  ¼  0:09;   p   ,   0.05) team size was positively and significantly related to teamperformance. In order to account for possible biased results due to the presence of control variables, we repeated all regression steps without including control variablesfollowing the advice of Becker (2005). These analyses did not produce any deviatingresults, which potentially strengthens the robustness of our findings.

To summarize our findings,  H1  was not supported, whereas  H2 ,  H3, and H4  wereall supported.

6. DiscussionThe present study contributes to our understanding of important potential moderatorsof the function and effectiveness of sharing leadership in teams. In sum, our resultsindicate a non-significant relationship between shared leadership and teamperformance. However, the results further suggest that this relationship ismoderated by both work function and team autonomy, which implies that teamwork conditions are crucial to the success and application of shared leadership.

Moreover, the results suggest that team autonomy is directly and positively related toteam performance.

While previous research almost exclusively demonstrates positive relationshipsbetween shared leadership and team performance (e.g. Carson  et al., 2007; Choi, 2009;Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2004; Small and Rentsch, 2010),our study fails to find a significant direct effect of shared leadership on teamperformance. This suggests that shared leadership may not always make a differencein a team context. However, the non-significant main effect of shared leadership on

Figure 2.Shared leadership and

team autonomy predictingteam performance

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

255

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038&iName=master.img-002.jpg&w=301&h=177

8/17/2019 5.shared

14/21

team performance similarly stresses the importance of considering moderators of thisrelationship. As predicted, we find a moderating effect of team work function on therelationship between shared leadership and team performance. This suggests that thediversity in the nature of tasks due to different team work functions potentially creates

different conditions for the success of shared leadership. Our study is, to ourknowledge, the first to obtain evidence and to confirm the theoretical predictions(e.g. Bligh et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2003; Pearce, 2004) that the effects of shared leadershipin teams may vary depending on team work function and consequently the degree of routineness, the number of exceptions, and the degree of analyzability and complexity.Therefore, while knowledge worker teams – whose tasks vary and may be unfamiliar

 – seem to benefit from sharing leadership; our results indicate that shared leadershipmay be detrimental to manufacturing team performance and, thus, to teams withsomewhat routine, familiar, and predictable tasks that do not necessarily requireknowledge and inputs from multiple individuals. Kerr and Jermier’s (1978) Substitutes for Leadership   similarly predicts that unambiguous and routine tasks diminish theneed for leadership and, thereby, also the effectiveness of actively sharing leadership.On the other hand, Pearce and Sims (2002) argue that shared leadership may act as aneffective substitute for more formalized leadership in knowledge work. Consequently,shared leadership may not always be effective and advantageous. In a similar vein,Wegge   et al.   (2012) emphasize that shared leadership in some instances may havenegative effects.

Our results further support the significance of providing team autonomy as ourfindings confirm a significant and positive relationship between team autonomy andteam performance. Accordingly, providing a team with discretion, control, andinfluence over tasks and conditions may facilitate the enactment of team memberknowledge and, thus, increase team performance. Moreover, our study demonstratesthe importance of team autonomy in relation to effective shared leadership processes

since we find that team autonomy significantly moderates the relationship betweenshared leadership and team performance. In particular, our results suggest that thedegree of autonomy influences teams with high levels of shared leadership since theseteams perform significantly better when they experience high compared to low levelsof team autonomy (cf. Figure 2). Conversely, the level of team autonomy does notimpact performance for teams with low levels of shared leadership. We may interpretthis to suggest that for teams who share leadership, low levels of team autonomyinhibit team members’ possibilities to effectively lead one another to higher levels of performance, since they lack the necessary discretion and influence. On the other hand,if team members do not share leadership, team autonomy is less important. Eventhough our findings indicate that shared leadership still may have a negative impacton team performance under conditions of high team autonomy, it may be that very

high levels of team autonomy help in applying and distributing responsibilities,competencies, and leadership in the team and thus in facilitating shared leadershipprocesses. Team autonomy, thus, seems to be a crucial factor in determining theeffectiveness and appropriateness of shared leadership in a team setting.

Overall, our results indicate that the relationship between shared leadership andteam performance is not necessarily a positive and straight forward one. In particular,we find that it is significantly moderated by both team work function and teamautonomy.

TPM19,5/6

256

8/17/2019 5.shared

15/21

6.1 Practical implicationsThe present study provides a potentially useful framework for understandingboundary conditions for the effectiveness and usefulness of shared leadership.Specifically, our results suggest the importance of considering team work function and

the level of actual experienced team autonomy in relation to shared leadershipprocesses. Consequently, shared leadership does not seem to be applicable tomanufacturing teams that face somewhat routine, predictable, and familiar tasks. Onthe other hand, shared leadership may be effective in knowledge teams where mutualinteraction and information sharing is crucial to solve often unfamiliar andunpredictable tasks. Moreover, if organizations want to maintain effective sharedleadership processes, they have to ensure work conditions that allow team members toinfluence their team conditions and to apply their knowledge and skills autonomously.

6.2 LimitationsWhile our study has several strengths and offers various promising contributions, it is

not without limitations. The design of our study is cross-sectional for which reason it isnot possible to infer direct causation. In addition, the present study is a field studyconducted in a Danish manufacturing context. It may be that this context variesconsiderably from contexts in other countries. Therefore, without evidence fromfurther studies, this potentially limits the generalizability of the present study.However, the sub-organization that we investigated is part of a larger globalorganization, which may mitigate the effects of the specific Danish context.

Another limitation is that we did not control for the effects of team compositionvariables such as experience, ability, and diversity, which may affect the relationshipbetween shared leadership and team performance (Perry  et al., 1999). Moreover, ourcorrelation coefficients and effect sizes are generally low and also somewhat lower thanprevious work on shared leadership (e.g. Carson et al., 2007; Hoch et al., 2010b, Pearce

and Sims, 2002), which implies that care must be taken when making conclusions andfurther research is needed to uncover the implications of shared leadership in variouscontexts. Furthermore, the low, though significant, interaction effects imply thatshared leadership does not account for all the variance in team performance. Theresidue variance in this study may be explained by other variables that affect sharedleadership and team performance such as, for example, team composition (Perry et al.,1999), motivation (Hooker and Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), and team potencySivasubramaniam   et al., 2002. It also suggests that the nature of shared leadershipis multi-causal, which points to the necessity of further exploring antecedent andboundary conditions for the effectiveness of shared leadership.

6.3 Future research

Future research can benefit from investigating the leadership structure of sharedleadership, in order to detangle and clarify the dynamics of and interplay amongdifferent leadership dimensions inherent in the construct. For example, it may be thatsome leadership behaviors are more effective than others depending on team contextand the specific tasks of the team. Moreover, it would be relevant to further clarify thetheoretical and empirical relationships among shared leadership and other types of team leadership such as rotating leadership (Erez  et al., 2002) and informal leadership(Neubert, 1999).

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

257

8/17/2019 5.shared

16/21

Future shared leadership research should also address the development of sharedleadership over time by conducting longitudinal studies. For example, it seems likelythat the importance of moderators on the effectiveness of shared leadership fluctuatesover time. Moreover, the level of team autonomy may similarly be affected by the level

of shared leadership such that the two interact and facilitate one another over time. It isalso likely that the different dimensions of team autonomy serve different functions inrelation to shared leadership and, thus, are related to different outcomes. In addition,the relationship and dynamics between shared leadership and varying types of complexity and routineness – beyond that represented by team work function – isanother interesting area for future research.

7. ConclusionsThe present study qualifies the relevance of shared leadership in a team context andprovides an initial understanding of conditions that affect the relationship betweenshared leadership and team performance. Surprisingly, we find a non-significantrelationship between shared leadership and team performance. However, we also findthat this relationship is moderated by team work function and team autonomy. Morespecifically, our results indicate that sharing leadership is a performance advantage inknowledge teams, but a disadvantage in manufacturing teams. In addition, we findthat team autonomy positively and significantly moderates the relationship betweenshared leadership and team performance such that team performance suffers in teamswith low levels of team autonomy combined with high levels of shared leadership. Ourresults, therefore, suggest that in order to facilitate performance, team basedorganizations should pay attention to the level of formalization of shared leadershipdepending on the nature of tasks in the team. Moreover, managers should provideteams that share leadership with high levels of autonomy in order to facilitate teamperformance.

References

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991),   Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, andfuture directions”,  Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 421-449.

Becker, T.E. (2005), “Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizationalresearch: a qualitative analysis with recommendations”,   Organizational Research

 Methods, Vol. 8, pp. 274-289.

Bergman, J.Z., Rentsch, J.R., Small, E.E., Davenport, S.W. and Bergman, S.M. (2012), “The sharedleadership process in decision-making teams”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 152No. 1, pp. 17-42.

Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L. and Kohles, J.C. (2006), “The importance of self- and shared leadership inteam based knowledge work”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 296-318.

Boies, K., Lvina, E. and Martens, M.L. (2010), “Shared leadership and team performance in abusiness strategy simulation”,  Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 195-202.

Bolden, R. (2011), “Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and research”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 251-269.

Breaugh, J.A. (1999), “Further investigating of the work autonomy scales: two studies”, Journal of  Business and Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 357-373.

TPM19,5/6

258

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.60.110707.163621&isi=000262615800017http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1094428105278021&isi=000230090100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1094428105278021&isi=000230090100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00224545.2010.538763&isi=000302608800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940610663105http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1866-5888%2Fa000021&isi=000287232000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2011.00306.x&isi=000293910700002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1022926416628&isi=000078120000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1022926416628&isi=000078120000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1022926416628&isi=000078120000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1022926416628&isi=000078120000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1022926416628&isi=000078120000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00224545.2010.538763&isi=000302608800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2011.00306.x&isi=000293910700002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1094428105278021&isi=000230090100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1094428105278021&isi=000230090100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1866-5888%2Fa000021&isi=000287232000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.60.110707.163621&isi=000262615800017http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940610663105

8/17/2019 5.shared

17/21

Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and

Berry, J.W. (Eds)  Field Methods in Cross-cultural Research, Cross-cultural Research and

Methodology Series, Vol. 8, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 137-164.

Burke, C.S., DiazGranados, C.S. and Salas, E. (2011), “Team leadership: a review and look ahead”,

in Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Jackson, B., Grint, K. and Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds),   The Sage Handbook of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 338-352.

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), “Shared leadership in teams: an investigation

of antecedent conditions and performance”,   Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 50

No. 5, pp. 1217-1234.

Carte, T.A., Chidambaram, L. and Becker, A. (2006), “Emergent leadership in self-managed

virtual teams: a longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors”,

Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 15, pp. 323-343.

Choi, S. (2009), “The emergence of shared leadership from organizational dimensions of local

government”,  International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 94-114.

Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), “What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from

the shop floor to the executive suite”,  Journal of Management , Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-290.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. and Conger, J.A.

(Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the How’s and Why’s of Leadership, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 48-76.

Daft, R.L. and Macintosh, N.B. (1981), “A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality

of information processing in organizational work units”,  Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 207-224.

Day, D.V., Gronn, P. and Salas, E. (2004), “Leadership capacity in teams”,   The Leadership

Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 857-880.

Day, D.V., Gronn, P. and Salas, E. (2006), “Leadership in team-based organizations: on thethreshold of a new era”,  The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 211-216.

Delarue, A., Van Hootegem, G., Proctor, S. and Burridge, M. (2008), “Teamworking and

organizational performance: a review of survey-based research”,  International Journal of  Management Reviews, Vol. 2, pp. 127-148.

Drucker, P.F. (1995),  Management in Time of Great Change, Penguin Putnam, New York, NY.

Drucker, P.F. (1999), “Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge”,   California

 Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 79-94.

Drucker, P.F. (2008),   The Age of Discontinuity. Guidelines to Our Changing Society, 8th ed.,

Transaction Publishers, London.

Ensley, M.D., Hmieleski, K.M. and Pearce, C.L. (2006), “The importance of vertical and shared

leadership within new venture top management teams: implications for the performance of teams”,  The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 217-231.

Erez, A., LePine, J.A. and Elms, H. (2002), “Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on

the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment”,  Personnel 

 Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 929-948.

Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. and Strahan, E.J. (1999), “Evaluating the use of 

exploratory factor analysis in psychological research”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 3,

pp. 272-299.

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

259

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F20159921&isi=000250488800019http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10726-006-9045-7&isi=000239084000003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639702300303&isi=A1997XN79900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781452229539.n3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2392469&isi=A1981LT76100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2392469&isi=A1981LT76100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2004.09.001&isi=000225921100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2004.09.001&isi=000225921100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2006.02.001&isi=000238587800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2007.00227.x&isi=000255481900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2007.00227.x&isi=000255481900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165987&isi=000079048900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165987&isi=000079048900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2006.02.002&isi=000238587800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x&isi=000179975600007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x&isi=000179975600007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1082-989X.4.3.272&isi=000082696900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F20159921&isi=000250488800019http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2006.02.001&isi=000238587800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639702300303&isi=A1997XN79900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1082-989X.4.3.272&isi=000082696900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165987&isi=000079048900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165987&isi=000079048900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2004.09.001&isi=000225921100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2004.09.001&isi=000225921100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x&isi=000179975600007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x&isi=000179975600007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2392469&isi=A1981LT76100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10726-006-9045-7&isi=000239084000003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2006.02.002&isi=000238587800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2007.00227.x&isi=000255481900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2007.00227.x&isi=000255481900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781452229539.n3

8/17/2019 5.shared

18/21

Fitzsimons, D., James, K.T. and Denyer, D. (2011), “Alternative approaches for studying shared

and distributed leadership”,   International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13,pp. 313-328.

Friedrich, T.L., Vessey, W.B., Schuelke, M.J., Ruark, G.A. and Mumford, M.D. (2009), “A

framework for understanding collective leadership: the selective utilization of leader andteam expertise within networks”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 933-958.

Gronn, P. (2002), “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13,pp. 423-451.

Gulowsen, J. (1979), “A measure of work-group-autonomy”, in Davis, L.E. and Taylor, J.C. (Eds),

 Design of Jobs, 2nd ed., Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 206-218.

Hiller, N.J., Day, D.V. and Vance, R.J. (2006), “Collective enactment of leadership roles and team

effectiveness: a field study”,  The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 387-397.

Hoch, J.E., Dulebohn, J. and Pearce, C.L. (2010a), “Shared Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ):

developing a short scale to measure shared and vertical leadership in teams”, paper

presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Conference,

Atlanta, GA, 8-10 April.Hoch, J.E., Pearce, C.L. and Welzel, L. (2010b), “Is the most effective team leadership shared? The

impact of shared leadership, age diversity, and coordination on team performance”,

 Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 105-116.

Hooker, C. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003), “Flow, creativity, and shared leadership: rethinking

the motivation and structuring of knowledge work”, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds),

Shared Leadership: Reframing the How’s and Why’s of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA, pp. 217-234.

Hopp, W.J., Iravani, S.M.R. and Liu, F. (2009), “Managing white-collar work: an

operations-oriented survey”,   Productions and Operations Management , Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 1-32.

Ingvaldsen, J.A. and Rolfsen, M. (2012), “Autonomous work groups and the challenge of inter-group coordination”,  Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 861-881.

 James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), “rwg : an assessment of within-group interrater

agreement”,   Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 306-309.

Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978), “Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement”,

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,  Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 375-403.

LeBreton, J.M. and Senter, J.L. (2008), “Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and

interrater agreement”,  Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 815-852.

Little, L. (1988), “The Group Participation Index: a measure of work group autonomy”,  Human Resource Management Australia, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 23-33.

Marks, A. and Richards, J. (2012), “Developing ideas and concepts in teamwork research: where

do we go from here?”,  Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 228-234.Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S. and Karam, E.P. (2010), “Leadership in teams: a functional approach

to understanding leadership structures and processes”,   Journal of Management , Vol. 36No. 1, pp. 5-39.

Mueller, F., Proctor, S. and Buchanan, D. (2000), “Teamworking in its context(s): antecedents,

nature and dimensions”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1387-1424.

Murakami, T. (1997), “The autonomy of teams in the car industry – a cross national comparison”,

Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 749-758.

TPM19,5/6

260

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2011.00312.x&isi=000293910700006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2009.09.008&isi=000272117300006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2802%2900120-0&isi=000178168800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2006.04.004&isi=000239679800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1866-5888%2Fa000020&isi=000284353400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781452229539.n10http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1937-5956.2009.01002.x&isi=000263982600002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0018726712448203&isi=000305837400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.78.2.306&isi=A1993KY24100016http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0030-5073%2878%2990023-5&isi=A1978FZ99200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0030-5073%2878%2990023-5&isi=A1978FZ99200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1094428106296642&isi=000259372200010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01425451211217743http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206309347376&isi=000273070500001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000089962200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000071128500008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2011.00312.x&isi=000293910700006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206309347376&isi=000273070500001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0030-5073%2878%2990023-5&isi=A1978FZ99200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781452229539.n10http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01425451211217743http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.78.2.306&isi=A1993KY24100016http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1866-5888%2Fa000020&isi=000284353400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2802%2900120-0&isi=000178168800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000071128500008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0018726712448203&isi=000305837400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2009.09.008&isi=000272117300006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000089962200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1094428106296642&isi=000259372200010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1937-5956.2009.01002.x&isi=000263982600002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2006.04.004&isi=000239679800005

8/17/2019 5.shared

19/21

Neubert, M.J. (1999), “Too much of a good thing or the more the merrier? Exploring the

dispersion and gender composition of informal leadership in manufacturing teams”, Small Group Research, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 635-646.

Pearce, C.L. (2004), “The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to

transform knowledge work”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-57.

Pearce, C.L. (2010), “Leading knowledge workers: beyond the era of command and control”, in

Pearce, C.L., Maciariello, J.A. and Yamawaki, H. (Eds),  The Drucker Difference. What theWorld’s Greatest Management Thinker Means to Today’s Business Leaders , McGraw Hill,New York, NY.

Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003),   Shared Leadership: Reframing the How’s And Why’s of  Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Pearce, C.L. and Manz, C.C. (2005), “The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge

work”,  Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 130-140.

Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (2000), “Shared leadership: toward a multi-level theory of leadership”,

Team Development , Vol. 7, pp. 115-139.

Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (2002), “Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of theeffectiveness of chance management teams: an examination of aversive, directive,

transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors”,   Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 172-197.

Pearce, C.L., Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (2009), “Where do we go from here? Is shared leadership

the key to team success?”,  Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 234-238.

Pearce, C.L., Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M. (2004), “Leadership, social work and virtual teams: the relativeinfluence of vertical versus shared leadership in the non-profit sector”, in Riggio, R.E. and

Smith-Orr, S. (Eds),   Improving Leadership in Non-profit Organizations, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA, pp. 180-203.

Perrow, C. (1967), “A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations”,   AmericanSociological Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 194-208.

Perry, M.L., Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (1999), “Empowered selling teams: how shared leadership

can contribute to selling outcomes”,  Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management ,Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 35-51.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases

in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,

 Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Rasmussen, T.H. and Jeppesen, H.J. (2006), “Teamwork and associated psychological factors: a

review”,  Work & Stress,  Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 105-128.

Rolfsen, M. and Langeland, C. (2012), “Successful maintenance practice through teamautonomy”,  Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 306-321.

Salas, E., Stagl, K.C. and Burke, C.S. (2004), “25 years of team effectiveness in organizations:

research themes and emerging needs”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19, John Wiley& Sons, New York, NY, pp. 47-91.

Sivasubramaniam, N., Murray, W., Avolio, B.J. and Jung, D. (2002), “Longitudinal model of the

effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance”,   Group and Organization Management , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 66-96.

Small, E.E. and Rentsch, J.R. (2010), “Shared leadership in teams: a matter of distribution”,

 Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 203-211.

Moderatorsof shared

leadership

261

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F104649649903000507&isi=000082982900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F104649649903000507&isi=000082982900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAME.2004.12690298http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.orgdyn.2005.03.003&isi=000229662700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1089-2699.6.2.172&isi=000176722000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1089-2699.6.2.172&isi=000176722000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.orgdyn.2009.04.008&isi=000268943500007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2091811&isi=A1967ZA10900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2091811&isi=A1967ZA10900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.88.5.879&isi=000185539000008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F02678370600920262&isi=000241154500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F02678370600920262&isi=000241154500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01425451211217725http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601102027001005&isi=000176962900005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601102027001005&isi=000176962900005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1866-5888%2Fa000017&isi=000287232000006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.orgdyn.2005.03.003&isi=000229662700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601102027001005&isi=000176962900005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601102027001005&isi=000176962900005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F104649649903000507&isi=000082982900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F104649649903000507&isi=000082982900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.88.5.879&isi=000185539000008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.orgdyn.2009.04.008&isi=000268943500007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1089-2699.6.2.172&isi=000176722000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1089-2699.6.2.172&isi=000176722000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01425451211217725http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2091811&isi=A1967ZA10900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2091811&isi=A1967ZA10900002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAME.2004.12690298http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1027%2F1866-5888%2Fa000017&isi=000287232000006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F02678370600920262&isi=000241154500002

8/17/2019 5.shared

20/21

Stewart, G.L. (2006), “A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features andteam performance”,  Journal of Management , Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 29-54.

Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1995), “Leadership for self-managing work teams: a typology andintegrative model”,  Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 747-770.

Thompson, P. and Wallace, T. (1996), “Redesigning production through team working. Casestudies from Volvo Truck Corporation”, International Journal of Operations & Production

 Management , Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 103-118.

Van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C.G., Vermunt, J.K., Kompier, M.A.J. and Doorewaard, J.A.M.C. (2006),“Individual autonomy in work teams: the role of team autonomy, self-efficacy, and socialsupport”,   European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3,pp. 281-299.

Wassenaar, C.L. and Pearce, C.L. (2012), “The nature of shared leadership”, in Day, D.V. andAntonakis, J. (Eds),   The Nature of Leadership, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 363-389.

Wegge, J., Jeppesen, H.J. and Weber, W.G. (2012), “Broadening our perspective: we-leadership isboth less romantic and more democratic”,  Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5

No. 4, pp. 418-420.

Withey, M., Daft, R.L. and Cooper, W.H. (1983), “Measures of Perrow’s work unit technology: anempirical assessment and a new scale”,  The Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 26No. 1, pp. 45-63.

Yammarino, F.J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K. and Shuffler, M.L. (2012), “Collectivisticleadership approaches: putting the we in leadership science and practice”,  Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 382-402.

Yukl, G. (2008), “How leaders influence organizational effectiveness”, The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 19, pp. 708-722.

Yukl, G. (2013),  Leadership in Organizations, 8th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.

Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L. and Marks, M.A. (2001), “Team leadership”,   The Leadership

Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 451-483.

About the authorsMaj S. Fausing is a PhD candidate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Maj S. Fausingis the corresponding author and can be contacted at: maj@psy.au.dk

Hans Jeppe Jeppesen is a Professor in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Thomas S. Jønsson is an Associate Professor in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Joshua Lewandowski is a PhD candidate in Organizational Behavior.Michelle C. Bligh is an Associate Professor in Organizational Behavior.

TPM19,5/6

262

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:  reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details:  www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206305277792&isi=000235135800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001872679504800702&isi=A1995RJ07100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579610109875&isi=A1996UK16100008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579610109875&isi=A1996UK16100008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579610109875&isi=A1996UK16100008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320500412249&isi=000240986700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2012.01472.xhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256134&isi=A1983QD37500003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2012.01467.xhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2012.01467.xhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2008.09.008&isi=000261366300006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2801%2900093-5&isi=000174278500005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2801%2900093-5&isi=000174278500005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256134&isi=A1983QD37500003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579610109875&isi=A1996UK16100008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579610109875&isi=A1996UK16100008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2012.01472.xhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001872679504800702&isi=A1995RJ07100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2008.09.008&isi=000261366300006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206305277792&isi=000235135800002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2012.01467.xhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1754-9434.2012.01467.xhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320500412249&isi=000240986700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2801%2900093-5&isi=000174278500005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2801%2900093-5&isi=000174278500005

8/17/2019 5.shared

21/21

This article has been cited by:

1. Jeffery D. Houghton, Craig L. Pearce, Charles C. Manz, Stephen Courtright, Greg L. Stewart. 2014.Sharing is caring: Toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership. Human Resource Management Review . [CrossRef ]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.12.001