scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee Integrity

01 Jun 2013-Journal of Business and Psychology (Springer US)-Vol. 28, Iss: 2, pp 159-174
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate the relationship between shared leadership, as a collective within-team leadership, and innovative behavior, as well as antecedents of shared leadership in terms of team composition and vertical transformational and empowering leadership.
Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between shared leadership, as a collective within-team leadership, and innovative behavior, as well as antecedents of shared leadership in terms of team composition and vertical transformational and empowering leadership.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical
Leadership and Employee Integrity
Julia E. Hoch
Published online: 25 September 2012
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationship between shared leadership, as a collective
within-team leadership, and innovative behavior, as well as
antecedents of shared leadership in terms of team compo-
sition and vertical transformational and empowering
leadership.
Design/Methodology/Approach Data were obtained from
a field sample of 43 work teams, comprising 184 team
members and their team leaders from two different com-
panies. Team leaders rated the teams’ innovative behavior
and their own leadership; team members provided infor-
mation on their personality and their teams’ shared
leadership.
Findings Shared and vertical leadership, but not team
composition, was positively associated with the teams’
level of innovative behavior. Vertical transformational and
empowering leadership and team composition in terms of
integrity were positively related to shared leadership.
Implications Understanding how organizations can
enhance their own innovation is crucial for the organiza-
tions’ competitiveness and survival. Furthermore, the
increasing prevalence of teams, as work arrangements in
organizations, raises the question of how to successfully
manage teams. This study suggests that organizations
should facilitate shared leadership which has a positive
association with innovation.
Originality/Value This is one of the first studies to pro-
vide evidence of the relationship between shared leadership
and innovative behavior, an important organizational out-
come. In addition, the study explores two important
predictors of shared leadership, transformational and
empowering leadership, and the team composition in
respect to integrity. While researchers and practitioners
agree that shared leadership is important, knowledge on its
antecedents is still in its infancy.
Keywords Shared leadership Innovative behavior
Team management Leadership Antecedents
The increased use of teams as an approach to accomplish
work in organizations has resulted in new challenges with
respect to management of these structures. One approach to
team management has been shared leadership, which is ‘a
dynamic interactive influence process among individuals in
groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the
achievement of group or organizational goals or both’
(Pearce and Conger 2003, p. 1). Shared leadership can be
described as internal, informal team leadership (Morgeson
et al. 2010) and requires the distribution of leadership
influence across different individuals (e.g., Carson et al.
2007). In contrast to vertical leadership, which describes
formal and hierarchical top–down leadership of external
team leaders (Carson et al. 2007; Ensley at al. 2003;
Morgeson et al. 2010), relatively little is known regarding
antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership.
A review of the literature indicates that shared leader-
ship has been demonstrated to enhance team and organi-
zational performance and team effectiveness (Ensley et al.
2006; Hmieleski et al. 2011; Pearce et al. 2004). As a
leadership approach, shared leadership is not mutually
J. E. Hoch (&)
School of Human Resources and Labor Relations,
Michigan State University, 412 South Kedzie,
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
e-mail: hochj@msu.edu
123
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:159–174
DOI 10.1007/s10869-012-9273-6

exclusive to other leadership forms and behaviors, but can
be engaged in simultaneously, with other leadership
approaches, such as vertical leadership. Shared leadership
has been shown to exceed effects of vertical leadership in
predicting team outcomes (Pearce and Sims 2002). So far,
beyond shared leaderships’ impact of team performance,
researchers have investigated few other outcome variables.
As shared leadership emerges mainly in team-based
work structures and is appropriate for dealing with changes
and competitive environments (Pearce 2004; Pearce and
Manz 2005) one possible outcome of shared leadership is
team innovative behavior (West and Farr 1989). Innovation
is important as it influences organizational capability to
adapt to change and remain competitive in changing sur-
roundings (West and Farr 1989). We expect that shared
leadership will play a role in facilitating the teams’ ability
to adapt to change and thus will be associated with team
innovative behavior. Therefore, an objective of this study is
to test whether innovation represents an outcome of shared
leadership.
As shared leadership is viewed as a key to organiza-
tional innovation, the question arises how the development
of shared leadership can be facilitated. So far, there is little
research about important antecedents of shared leadership
(e.g., Mayo et al. 2003; Mehra et al. 2006). Generally, at
least two types of antecedents of shared leadership can be
distinguished. First is the vertical leadership by the external
team leader. Second is the team composition with respect
to the attributes of the team members. While this has been
theoretically argued (e.g., Cox et al. 2003; Pearce and Sims
2000), scant empirical research has simultaneously
addressed the two areas of antecedents of shared leadership
(for an exception, see Carson et al. 2007). Specifically,
vertical team leadership in terms of transformational and
empowering leadership is considered to predict shared
leadership, as it may lead to the development of a collec-
tive vision, as well as teams’ self-management skills (both
likely predictors of shared leadership). Team composition
with regard to team members attributes includes integrity,
comprising responsibility and trustworthiness; the degree
to which team members engage in shared leadership may
be impacted by personality factors that influence prefer-
ences for loyalty, transparency and fairness, or equality,
rather than promoting one’s self-interest in achieving per-
sonal goals. Consequently, in addition to vertical trans-
formational and empowering leadership, we investigate
team member’s integrity as antecedent of shared
leadership.
Together, we present and test an input-process output
model (IPO) (Hackman 1987; Illgen et al. 2005; McGrath
1991), following and extending the assumptions of nomo-
logical network approach (Cronbach and Meehl 1955)on
antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership. Vertical
transformational and empowering leadership and team
member integrity are positioned as antecedents of shared
leadership and innovation is portrayed as the outcome of
shared leadership. Shared leadership is portrayed as an
indirect effect (Mathieu and Taylor 2006) between the
antecedents and outcome. We test the indirect influencing
role of shared leadership as a pathway in conveying the
impact of integrity and vertical transformational and
empowering leadership on team innovative behavior in a
sample of 43 face-to-face work teams.
Theoretical Background
Nomological Network on Shared Leadership
Along with the increased use of teams in organizations, the
question naturally arises regarding what forms of man-
agement are best suited for these structures and will pro-
mote the attainment of team performance outcomes such as
innovation (Currie et al. 2009; Fry and Kriger 2009;
Stewart and Manz 1995). Our belief is that shared leader-
ship, in which the team members lead each other to the
achievement of particular goals (Chou et al. 2008), repre-
sents an approach that may contribute to team innovative
behavior. While increasingly research has addressed the
impact of shared leadership with respect to predicting team
and organizational performance in different organizational
settings (Ensley et al. 2006
; Pearce and Sims 2002), limited
empirical research has investigated the impact of shared
leadership on team innovation.
Furthermore, only limited research has addressed the
impact of antecedents of shared leadership (e.g., Cox et al.
2003; Pearce and Sims 2000). The goal of this study was to
extend the prior literature on shared leadership by inves-
tigating both antecedents and outcomes of shared leader-
ship. Precisely, while the literature on shared leadership as
well as its antecedents and outcomes is still scarce (e.g.,
Cox et al. 2003; Pearce and Sims 2000), with respect to the
supervisors and team composition at least two different
types of antecedents have been proposed. As a basis for our
model development, following and extending the assump-
tions of nomological network approach (Cronbach and
Meehl 1955), we present and test an IPO model (Hackman
1987; Illgen et al. 2005; McGrath 1991) on antecedents and
outcomes of shared leadership. We present our model in
Fig. 1. Shared leadership is portrayed as an indirect effect
(Mathieu and Taylor 2006) explaining the relationship
between vertical transformational and empowering lead-
ership and team composition with innovation as a team
outcome.
160 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:159–174
123

Shared Leadership and Team Innovation
Shared leadership reflects a situation where multiple team
members engage in leadership and is characterized by
collaborative decision-making and shared responsibility for
outcomes. It has been described as a mutual influence
process carried on by members of a team where they lead
each other toward the achievement of goals (Day et al.
2004; Pearce and Conger 2003). Shared leadership is
conceived as a property of the group as a whole, ‘as a set
of functions which must be carried out by the group’ (Gibb
1954, p. 884) and it is generally characterized by the
spreading of leadership to multiple or all, rather than only a
few, team members. This was for example noted by Ensley
et al. (2006: 200), who described shared leadership as a
‘team process where leadership is carried out by the team
as a whole, rather than solely by a single designated indi-
vidual’ (Ensley et al. 2006, p. 220).
Carson et al. (2007, p. 1218) defined shared leadership
as an ‘emergent team property that results from the dis-
tribution of leadership influence across multiple team
members.’ A key aspect of shared leadership is that the
team members share their distinct knowledge and it is
through knowledge sharing that team members access and
build on each other’s ideas. Carson et al. (2007) state:
‘‘ shared leadership can provide organizations with
competitive advantage throughorganizational resources
brought to bear on complex tasks, in openness to reciprocal
influence from others, and in the sharing of information’
(Carson et al. 2007, p. 1217). Different team members
engage in shared leadership and their leadership works
together simultaneously or sequentially, additive or in a
compensatory way, across the different stages of a project
or the team life cycle.
Shared leadership describes an informal, internal team
leadership behavior by the team members (Morgeson et al.
2010). As such, shared leadership can be contrasted with
the external and formal team leadership by the sponsor,
coach or team advisor, the external and informal leadership
by the mentor and team champion, as well as the internal
and formal leadership provided by the project leader or
manager. Team members can informally engage in a
number of different internal team leadership behaviors (for
a complete review, see Morgeson et al. 2010, p. 10). Some
of these behaviors are: establishing expectations and
defining a collective mission, creating a supportive climate,
sense making, structuring the team task, providing feed-
back, and problem solving. Finally, providing resources, as
well as encouraging team self-management, are important
internal informal leadership functions.
Innovation
Organizational change and adaptation to new and fast-
changing surroundings, conversely, is crucial for today’s
organizations to remain competitive. Complex, knowledge-
based work, and adaptation to changing surroundings, fast
decision-making, and other proactive practices often
require teams, which are increasingly being used in orga-
nizations (Illgen et al. 2005; Kozlowski and Bell 2003;
Liden and Antonakis 2009; Stewart and Manz 1995).
Furthermore, to remain competitive, innovation is widely
viewed as essential for success and long-term survival
(Amabile 1988; Ancona and Caldwell 1992; Kanter 1988;
Mumford 2000). Team innovation has been described as
the creation of new and useful, or functional ideas, and
their application in organizational settings. Innovation
benefits the organization and innovative teams and orga-
nizations also tend to achieve higher levels of performance
(Balkin et al. 2001; West and Farr 1989).
Researchers have described innovation in organizations
as a complex process that comprises at least two different
stages, namely the generation of new and functional ideas
(also referred to as ‘creativity’’), and their implementation
in the organization (Amabile 1996; Huelsheger et al. 2009;
West 1990
). With regard to the second stage the two phases
of idea promotion and idea realization have been identified.
With regard to the overall team innovation process and its
stages, different individuals can perform different behav-
iors at different stages of the team innovation process.
Leadership
Behavior
Team Member
Integrity
Shared
Innovative
Vertical Trf. and
Emp. Leadership
Fig. 1 Input-Process-Output
Model of Shared Leadership
predicting Innovation, Vertical
Leadership and Employee
Integrity predicting Shared
Leadership
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:159–174 161
123

Generally, team innovation has been shown to relate to a
number of other group processes (Janssen 2000; Janssen
et al. 2004; Van der Vegt and Janssen 2003; West and Farr
1989). Findings from a recent meta-analysis (Huelsheger
et al. 2009) summarized the research on antecedents of
team innovation. Huelsheger et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis
points out the importance of team-level variables such as
team cohesion, conflict, vision, and support for innovation
as antecedents for innovation in teams. Precisely,
Huelsheger et al. (2009) found a stronger impact of pro-
cess-related variables and behaviors, such as vision, task
orientation, and external communication, as antecedents of
team innovation, and weaker effects of the impact of team
composition and structure. Accordingly, with regard to
shared leadership, we expect that the shared leadership
behaviors may be more important than the team composi-
tion, when it comes to predicting team innovation. Fur-
thermore, in line with this, it has been shown that external
team leaders can promote innovation, directly and indi-
rectly, for example, by implementing a climate that helps
the development, and is supportive, of new ideas (Amabile
et al. 2004; Edmondson 1999; Choi and Chang 2009;
Hunter and Cushenbery 2011) or by being indirectly sup-
portive of those who implement new ideas with a focus on
the organization, rather their own individual goals.
The first stage of the innovation process, creativity—or
idea generation—describes the creation of new ideas, tech-
niques or instruments as a component of innovation (Janssen
2000; Kanter 1988; Huelsheger et al. 2009). Through the
process of information sharing we assume that shared lead-
ership will lead to the increased generation of new ideas and
therefore enhance creativity. Implicit in this assumption is
the notion that more ideas will also lead to better ideas. But
an increased number of ideas could possibly lead to a lot of
bad ideas.
1
What is needed is for the team to critically discuss
and elaborate on the ideas generated and this process of
sharing ideas may lead to greater creativity. Generally,
within teams, new and creative ideas are more likely to
develop under supportive leadership or in a climate of sup-
port (e.g., Amabile et al. 2004; Hunter and Cushenbery
2011). Furthermore, the development of new and creative
ideas may also correlate with perceived self-efficacy (e.g.,
Bandura 1997) and group potency (e.g., Guzzo et al. 1993)as
it needs a critical reflection of the ‘status quo’ (one would
have to find out what is not going well before finding out
ways to improve things) in the team.
With respect to idea generation, shared leadership might
lead to processes of knowledge sharing of ‘distinct
knowledge backgrounds’ by the team members and may
‘‘ provide organizations with competitive advantage’
(Carson et al. 2007, p. 1217). In other words, if team
members have diverse knowledge and information and
these will be shared, this will lead to a competitive
advantage for the team and for the complex task of inno-
vation. Information sharing will be encouraged by a sup-
portive social climate and collective goals (Morgeson et al.
2010).
Under higher levels of shared leadership, team members
are more likely to contribute ideas and make their unique
information accessible to the other team members. This is
beneficial for two reasons. First, as the team members
sharing the lead will contribute their ideas, the team as a
whole will possess more ideas and develop higher levels of
creativity and idea generation. Second, as team members
present information, the team members might also build
upon their ideas. This may be reflected in informal internal
leadership behaviors of planning and providing feedback,
as well as sense making and developing problem solutions
(Morgeson et al. 2010). When it comes to shared leadership
this will lead to higher levels of creativity and idea
generation.
The second stage of the implementation of new ideas
comprises idea promotion, which involves mobilizing
support for innovative ideas and acquiring approval for
those ideas within the organization, and idea realization,
which involves transforming innovative ideas into useful
applications, and acquiring the support necessary for the
new idea (Janssen 2000; Kanter 1988; Scott and Bruce
1994). Idea promotion has been related to group processes
as well (for overview, Huelsheger et al. 2009). Precisely, it
might be through their stronger ties, team identification,
and focus on the collective goal(s) (Kouzes and Posner
2009) that team members might more likely engage in
developing each other (i.e., shared collective empowering
and self-leadership; Pearce and Manz 2005) and leading
each other in reaching their collective goals. Thus, shared
and collective forms of team empowerment will likely
encourage team innovation (Spreitzer et al. 1999).
Next, internal informal leadership by team members
aimed at the promotion of each other’s respective ideas is
more likely when the team is working under a shared and
collective vision, and when the team is working toward the
common goals (e.g., Carson et al. 2007; Morgeson et al.
2010). Thus, informal internal leadership (Morgeson et al.
2010, p. 10) might also be helpful in developing a climate
of social support and shared mission. Teams that are higher
in collective efficacy and group potency are more likely to
support each other’s ideas (Solansky 2008). Based on
Morgeson et al. (2010), these functions may be reflected in
such as problem solving and providing resources, as well as
developing a climate of mutual respect and support.
Idea realization involves transforming innovative ideas
into useful applications in the wider organization (e.g.,
1
The author expresses appreciation to an anonymous reviewer for
this idea.
162 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:159–174
123

Janssen et al. 2004). Collective goals (e.g., Kouzes and
Posner 2009) will be more likely achieved, if a unified
team, rather than a group of several scattered individuals,
jointly pursues the goals, rather than each pursuing their
own individual goals (Pearce et al. 2008). If the team works
together and shares resources (e.g., Morgeson et al. 2010)
the team, as a whole, will be more effective. In regards to
idea realization, mutually providing each other with feed-
back and resources, training and developing and encour-
aging the teams’ self-development, are expected to be
helpful. Consequently, training, development, and encour-
aging team members to work together toward problem
solving and achieving the team goals are important internal
leadership functions (e.g., Morgeson et al. 2010). The
realization of ideas that are pursued by a group are more
likely to succeed, than an idea that is held by a single
individual, as the team is more likely to have a larger
influence network.
Together we expect that shared leadership will lead to
higher levels of team innovation. Under lower levels of
shared leadership, conversely, lower team innovation will
result. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1 Shared leadership will be associated with
innovative behavior in teams.
Antecedents of Shared Leadership, Shared Leadership
as Mediator
While shared leadership might enhance team innovation
and foster organizational competitiveness, the question
arises regarding how shared leadership can be facilitated. A
criticism in the literature is that little research has empiri-
cally addressed antecedents of shared leadership (Carson
et al. 2007; Cox et al. 2003; Pearce and Conger 2003). We
expect that both team leader and team member factors will
affect the occurrence of shared leadership. Drawing from
nomological network (Cronbach and Meehl 1955) and IPO
model approach (Hackman 1987; Illgen et al. 2005;
McGrath 1991), we conceptualize shared leadership as a
mediating variable, indirectly affecting the relationship
between vertical leadership and team composition on team
innovation.
Team Leaders’ Vertical Transformational and Empowering
Leadership and Shared Leadership
Vertical leadership describes the leadership by the external
or internal, formally appointed team leader (Ensley et al.
2006; Morgeson et al. 2010). Two important vertical
leadership behaviors are empowering leadership and
transformational leadership (e.g., Pearce and Sims 2002). A
central aspect of vertical leadership is that it is a formally
recognized leadership role. As such, vertical transforma-
tional and empowering leadership are not restricted to the
team leader having to be external to the team, it can also
occur with regard to an internal, appointed team leader.
This is contrasted with internally and informally shared
transformational and empowering leadership by the team
members. As one group of factors that may enhance shared
leadership, vertical transformational and empowering
leadership behaviors have been discussed. Vertical trans-
formational and empowering team leaders can encourage
shared leadership (Carson et al. 2007; Pearce et al. 2008).
Several theoretical frameworks (e.g., Cox et al. 2003;
Pearce and Sims 2000) conceptualized vertical transfor-
mational and empowering leadership as an antecedent of
shared leadership. For example, Pearce et al. (2008) argued
that vertical transformational and empowering leadership
exhibits behaviors that empower employees and encour-
ages shared leadership. Similarly, Carson et al. (2007)
found that external coaching is an important predictor of
shared leadership. However, although some studies have
supported this link (e.g., Pearce et al. 2008
), too often in
this research the two forms of leadership are juxtaposed
(e.g., Pearce and Sims 2002). The two behaviors of vertical
leadership that are expected to influence shared leadership
are the leaders’ empowering and transformational
leadership.
Empowering leadership may directly or indirectly
influence shared leadership, for example by fostering the
development of team member individual self-leadership
and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997; Manz and Sims 1991;
Pearce and Manz 2005). Manz and Sims (1987), in their
seminal work on self-managing teams, stated that tradi-
tional participative leadership differs from empowering
leadership as participation relates to the delegation of
decision authority, whereas empowering fosters the
development of the employees.
A further distinction that is important is the one between
individual and team empowerment. Empowering of indi-
viduals can be conducted through developing their self-
management skills. Pearce and Sims (2002) suggested that
behaviors such as encouraging-independent action, oppor-
tunity-thinking, self-development, or self-reward are likely
to develop individual followers. Team empowering, con-
versely, has been defined as ‘increased task motivation that
is due to team members’ collective, positive assessments of
their organizational tasks’ (Kirkman et al. 2004: 176).
Empowering of teams can be conducted by fostering team
collaboration, working together as a team, and encouraging
team members to sharing the lead with others who are
members in the same team. Accordingly, empowering
leadership may directly create shared leadership (Ensley
et al. 2006; Neck and Houghton 2006; Pearce and Sims
2002), or it may indirectly influence shared leadership, i.e.,
J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:159–174 163
123

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study meta-analytically cumulated 42 independent samples of shared leadership and examined its relationship to team effectiveness, revealing an overall positive relationship and providing directions for future research to move forward in the study of plural forms of leadership.
Abstract: A growing number of studies have examined the "sharedness" of leadership processes in teams (i.e., shared leadership, collective leadership, and distributed leadership). We meta-analytically cumulated 42 independent samples of shared leadership and examined its relationship to team effectiveness. Our findings reveal an overall positive relationship (ρ = .34). But perhaps more important, what is actually shared among members appears to matter with regard to team effectiveness. That is, shared traditional forms of leadership (e.g., initiating structure and consideration) show a lower relationship (ρ = .18) than either shared new-genre leadership (e.g., charismatic and transformational leadership; ρ = .34) or cumulative, overall shared leadership (ρ = .35). In addition, shared leadership tends to be more strongly related to team attitudinal outcomes and behavioral processes and emergent team states, compared with team performance. Moreover, the effects of shared leadership are stronger when the work of team members is more complex. Our findings further suggest that the referent used in measuring shared leadership does not influence its relationship with team effectiveness and that compared with vertical leadership, shared leadership shows unique effects in relation to team performance. In total, our study not only cumulates extant research on shared leadership but also provides directions for future research to move forward in the study of plural forms of leadership.

475 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Using a field sample of 101 virtual teams, this research empirically evaluates the impact of traditional hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership on team performance.
Abstract: Using a field sample of 101 virtual teams, this research empirically evaluates the impact of traditional hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership on team performance. Building on Bell and Kozlowski's (2002) work, we expected structural supports and shared team leadership to be more, and hierarchical leadership to be less, strongly related to team performance when teams were more virtual in nature. As predicted, results from moderation analyses indicated that the extent to which teams were more virtual attenuated relations between hierarchical leadership and team performance but strengthened relations for structural supports and team performance. However, shared team leadership was significantly related to team performance regardless of the degree of virtuality. Results are discussed in terms of needed research extensions for understanding leadership processes in virtual teams and practical implications for leading virtual teams.

458 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide meta-analytic support for the positive relationship between shared leadership and team performance, using 50 effect sizes from both published and unpublished studies (team n = 3,198), using a random effects model, finding that the theoretical foundation and associated measurement techniques used to index shared leadership significantly moderated effect size estimates.

402 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper reviewed and synthesized the empowering leadership literature and, as a result, suggest two new provocative lines of inquiry directing future research, and set an agenda for the next decade of research on empowering leadership.
Abstract: We review and synthesize the empowering leadership literature and, as a result, suggest two new provocative lines of inquiry directing future research. Based on a set of testable propositions, we first encourage researchers to answer the question of why empowering leadership occurs. Second, we encourage researchers to explore less positive and unintended, negative outcomes of empowering leadership. To identify opportunities for future work along these two lines, we use four theoretical perspectives including (1) person–situation interactions, (2) followership theory, (3) contingency approaches to leadership, and, (4) the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect. As a result, we set an agenda for the next decade of research on empowering leadership.

223 citations


Cites background from "Shared Leadership and Innovation: T..."

  • ...In addition to performance-based outcomes, empowering leadership is positively associated with team behaviors, such as shared leadership (Hoch, 2013), knowledge creation (Menguc, Auh, & Uslu, 2013), learning (Yun, Faraj, & Sims, 2005), and effective planning processes (Rapp, Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2010)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The present study proposes that leader humility facilitates shared leadership by promoting leadership-claiming and leadership-granting interactions among team members and proposes that team proactive personality strengthens the impact of leader humility on shared leadership.
Abstract: The present study was designed to produce novel theoretical insight regarding how leader humility and team member characteristics foster the conditions that promote shared leadership and when shared leadership relates to team effectiveness. Drawing on social information processing theory and adaptive leadership theory, we propose that leader humility facilitates shared leadership by promoting leadership-claiming and leadership-granting interactions among team members. We also apply dominance complementary theory to propose that team proactive personality strengthens the impact of leader humility on shared leadership. Finally, we predict that shared leadership will be most strongly related to team performance when team members have high levels of task-related competence. Using a sample composed of 62 Taiwanese professional work teams, we find support for our proposed hypothesized model. The theoretical and practical implications of these results for team leadership, humility, team composition, and shared leadership are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

207 citations


Cites background or result from "Shared Leadership and Innovation: T..."

  • ..., antecedents) and the boundary conditions for its effectiveness is still limited in at least two fundamental ways (Carson et al., 2007; D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, in press; Drescher et al., 2014; Hoch, 2013; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014)....

    [...]

  • ...Since then, studies have explored how vertical leadership and team characteristics influence shared leadership separately (Hoch, 2013)....

    [...]

  • ...…to promote shared leadership by inspiring team members to elevate their commitment, give more effort, and “step up” to claim leadership influence (Hoch, 2013; Pearce & Sims, 2002), leader humility, we argue, contributes to the development of shared leadership by facilitating both leadership…...

    [...]

  • ...To begin with, existing research has focused on the influence of the formal team leader, specifically showing that the support from the formal leader helps to facilitate shared leadership (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Hoch, 2013)....

    [...]

  • ...Although previous studies have suggested that supervisory support such as empowerment and transformational leadership (Hoch, 2013) may encourage team members to “step up” and take on leadership roles, we argue that leader humility can play a more critical role in shaping shared leadership because it facilitates and legitimizes both leadership-claiming and leadership-granting acts among team members....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article seeks to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ, and delineates the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena.
Abstract: In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.

80,095 citations


"Shared Leadership and Innovation: T..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...To test our hypotheses, we conducted direct and indirect effects tests with model analysis using SEM with AMOS (Arbuckle 2003) adhering to general assumptions (Baron and Kenny 1986; Jung and Avolio 2000; Kenny 1979; Mathieu and Taylor 2006)....

    [...]

Book
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: SelfSelf-Efficacy (SE) as discussed by the authors is a well-known concept in human behavior, which is defined as "belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments".
Abstract: Albert Bandura and the Exercise of Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control Albert Bandura. New York: W. H. Freeman (www.whfreeman.com). 1997, 604 pp., $46.00 (hardcover). Enter the term "self-efficacy" in the on-line PSYCLIT database and you will find over 2500 articles, all of which stem from the seminal contributions of Albert Bandura. It is difficult to do justice to the immense importance of this research for our theories, our practice, and indeed for human welfare. Self-efficacy (SE) has proven to be a fruitful construct in spheres ranging from phobias (Bandura, Jeffery, & Gajdos, 1975) and depression (Holahan & Holahan, 1987) to career choice behavior (Betz & Hackett, 1986) and managerial functioning (Jenkins, 1994). Bandura's Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control is the best attempt so far at organizing, summarizing, and distilling meaning from this vast and diverse literature. Self-Efficacy may prove to be Bandura's magnum opus. Dr. Bandura has done an impressive job of summarizing over 1800 studies and papers, integrating these results into a coherent framework, and detailing implications for theory and practice. While incorporating prior works such as Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) and "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency" (Bandura, 1982), Self-Efficacy extends these works by describing results of diverse new research, clarifying and extending social cognitive theory, and fleshing out implications of the theory for groups, organizations, political bodies, and societies. Along the way, Dr. Bandura masterfully contrasts social cognitive theory with many other theories of human behavior and helps chart a course for future research. Throughout, B andura' s clear, firm, and self-confident writing serves as the perfect vehicle for the theory he espouses. Self-Efficacy begins with the most detailed and clear explication of social cognitive theory that I have yet seen, and proceeds to delineate the nature and sources of SE, the well-known processes via which SE mediates human behavior, and the development of SE over the life span. After laying this theoretical groundwork, subsequent chapters delineate the relevance of SE to human endeavor in a variety of specific content areas including cognitive and intellectual functioning; health; clinical problems including anxiety, phobias, depression, eating disorders, alcohol problems, and drug abuse; athletics and exercise activity; organizations; politics; and societal change. In Bandura's words, "Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (p. 3). People's SE beliefs have a greater effect on their motivation, emotions, and actions than what is objectively true (e.g., actual skill level). Therefore, SE beliefs are immensely important in choice of behaviors (including occupations, social relationships, and a host of day-to-day behaviors), effort expenditure, perseverance in pursuit of goals, resilience to setbacks and problems, stress level and affect, and indeed in our ways of thinking about ourselves and others. Bandura affirms many times that humans are proactive and free as well as determined: They are "at least partial architects of their own destinies" (p. 8). Because SE beliefs powerfully affect human behaviors, they are a key factor in human purposive activity or agency; that is, in human freedom. Because humans shape their environment even as they are shaped by it, SE beliefs are also pivotal in the construction of our social and physical environments. Bandura details over two decades of research confirming that SE is modifiable via mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and interpretation of physiological states, and that modified SE strongly and consistently predicts outcomes. SE beliefs, then, are central to human self-determination. STRENGTHS One major strength of Self-Efficacy is Bandura's ability to deftly dance from forest to trees and back again to forest, using specific, human examples and concrete situations to highlight his major theoretical premises, to which he then returns. …

46,839 citations


"Shared Leadership and Innovation: T..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Empowering leadership may directly or indirectly influence shared leadership, for example by fostering the development of team member individual self-leadership and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997; Manz and Sims 1991; Pearce and Manz 2005)....

    [...]

  • ...…may directly create shared leadership (Ensley et al. 2006; Neck and Houghton 2006; Pearce and Sims 2002), or it may indirectly influence shared leadership, i.e., by fostering the development of the team member’s individual self-leadership skills (Manz 1986) and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997)....

    [...]

  • ...Furthermore, the development of new and creative ideas may also correlate with perceived self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura 1997) and group potency (e.g., Guzzo et al. 1993) as it needs a critical reflection of the ‘‘status quo’’ (one would have to find out what is not going well before finding out ways…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a general formula (α) of which a special case is the Kuder-Richardson coefficient of equivalence is shown to be the mean of all split-half coefficients resulting from different splittings of a test, therefore an estimate of the correlation between two random samples of items from a universe of items like those in the test.
Abstract: A general formula (α) of which a special case is the Kuder-Richardson coefficient of equivalence is shown to be the mean of all split-half coefficients resulting from different splittings of a test. α is therefore an estimate of the correlation between two random samples of items from a universe of items like those in the test. α is found to be an appropriate index of equivalence and, except for very short tests, of the first-factor concentration in the test. Tests divisible into distinct subtests should be so divided before using the formula. The index $$\bar r_{ij} $$ , derived from α, is shown to be an index of inter-item homogeneity. Comparison is made to the Guttman and Loevinger approaches. Parallel split coefficients are shown to be unnecessary for tests of common types. In designing tests, maximum interpretability of scores is obtained by increasing the first-factor concentration in any separately-scored subtest and avoiding substantial group-factor clusters within a subtest. Scalability is not a requisite.

37,235 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The present interpretation of construct validity is not "official" and deals with some areas where the Committee would probably not be unanimous, but the present writers are solely responsible for this attempt to explain the concept and elaborate its implications.
Abstract: Validation of psychological tests has not yet been adequately conceptualized, as the APA Committee on Psychological Tests learned when it undertook (1950-54) to specify what qualities should be investigated before a test is published. In order to make coherent recommendations the Committee found it necessary to distinguish four types of validity, established by different types of research and requiring different interpretation. The chief innovation in the Committee's report was the term construct validity.[2] This idea was first formulated by a subcommittee (Meehl and R. C. Challman) studying how proposed recommendations would apply to projective techniques, and later modified and clarified by the entire Committee (Bordin, Challman, Conrad, Humphreys, Super, and the present writers). The statements agreed upon by the Committee (and by committees of two other associations) were published in the Technical Recommendations (59). The present interpretation of construct validity is not "official" and deals with some areas where the Committee would probably not be unanimous. The present writers are solely responsible for this attempt to explain the concept and elaborate its implications.

9,935 citations


"Shared Leadership and Innovation: T..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...As a basis for our model development, following and extending the assumptions of nomological network approach (Cronbach and Meehl 1955), we present and test an IPO model (Hackman 1987; Illgen et al. 2005; McGrath 1991) on antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership....

    [...]

  • ...Together, we present and test an input-process output model (IPO) (Hackman 1987; Illgen et al. 2005; McGrath 1991), following and extending the assumptions of nomological network approach (Cronbach and Meehl 1955) on antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership....

    [...]

  • ...Based on the basic assumption of input, process output (IPO) models for team processes (Hackman 1987; Illgen et al. 2005; McGrath 1991) our goal was to extend the nomological network (Cronbach and Meehl 1955) on shared leadership....

    [...]

  • ...Drawing from nomological network (Cronbach and Meehl 1955) and IPO model approach (Hackman 1987; Illgen et al. 2005; McGrath 1991), we conceptualize shared leadership as a mediating variable, indirectly affecting the relationship between vertical leadership and team composition on team innovation....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors introduce the construct of team psychological safety, a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking, and test it in a multimethod field study.
Abstract: This paper presents a model of team learning and tests it in a multimethod field study. It introduces the construct of team psychological safety—a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking—and models the effects of team psychological safety and team efficacy together on learning and performance in organizational work teams. Results of a study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, measuring antecedent, process, and outcome variables, show that team psychological safety is associated with learning behavior, but team efficacy is not, when controlling for team psychological safety. As predicted, learning behavior mediates between team psychological safety and team performance. The results support an integrative perspective in which both team structures, such as context support and team leader coaching, and shared beliefs shape team outcomes.

6,953 citations

Frequently Asked Questions (8)
Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Shared leadership and innovation: the role of vertical leadership and employee integrity" ?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between shared leadership, as a collective within-team leadership, and innovative behavior, as well as antecedents of shared leadership in terms of team composition and vertical transformational and empowering leadership. Team leaders rated the teams ’ innovative behavior and their own leadership ; team members provided information on their personality and their teams ’ shared leadership. This study suggests that organizations should facilitate shared leadership which has a positive association with innovation. This is one of the first studies to provide evidence of the relationship between shared leadership and innovative behavior, an important organizational outcome. In addition, the study explores two important predictors of shared leadership, transformational and empowering leadership, and the team composition in respect to integrity. Furthermore, the increasing prevalence of teams, as work arrangements in organizations, raises the question of how to successfully manage teams. 

Together, the results underscore the value of devoting further research attention to shared leadership, antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership, and the indirect role shared leadership plays in contributing to important organizational outcomes such as innovative behavior. 

training, development, and encouraging team members to work together toward problem solving and achieving the team goals are important internal leadership functions (e.g., Morgeson et al. 2010). 

Team members, who are more reliable, trust their fellow team members, and have a tendency to behave more ethically, fair and in a transparent manner, are more likely to be associated with the occurrence of shared leadership. 

Examples where vertical transformational leadership has been shown to impact collective team outcomes, through collective within-team behaviors, include studies that have demonstrated that transformational leadership behaviors increase work outcomes via intrinsic motivation and goal commitment (Piccolo and Colquitt 2006), trust and value congruence (Jung and Avolio 2000), and team potency and cohesion (Bass et al. 2003). 

transformational leadership has been found to be positively related to team reflexivity, which is similar to group learning (Schippers et al. 2008). 

Manz and Sims (1987), in their seminal work on self-managing teams, stated that traditional participative leadership differs from empowering leadership as participation relates to the delegation of decision authority, whereas empowering fosters the development of the employees. 

As one group of factors that may enhance shared leadership, vertical transformational and empowering leadership behaviors have been discussed.