D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016) - A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership-Team Performance Relations PDF

525205
research-article2014
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314525205Journal of ManagementD’Innocenzo et al. / Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations
Journal of Management
Vol. 42 No. 7, November 2016 1964–1991
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314525205
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared

Leadership–Team Performance Relations
Lauren D’Innocenzo
John E. Mathieu
University of Connecticut
Michael R. Kukenberger
Rutgers University
Using 50 effect sizes from both published and unpublished studies (team n = 3,198), we provide
meta-analytic support for the positive relationship between shared leadership and team perfor-
mance. Employing a random effects model, we found that the theoretical foundation and associ-
ated measurement techniques used to index shared leadership significantly moderated effect
size estimates. Specifically, as compared to studies that conceptualized and employed assess-
ments of overall shared leadership from members (i.e., an aggregation approach), network
conceptions and measures of shared leadership evidenced higher effect sizes. Both network
density and (de)centralization approaches to the study of shared leadership–performance rela-
tions exhibited significant and higher effect sizes than did the aggregation-based studies.
Analyses also revealed lower average effect sizes when the sample studied was in the classroom/
lab as compared to the field. Task complexity significantly moderated the shared leadership,
with lower effect sizes observed with more complex tasks. No significant influence of team task
interdependence was observed. We highlight the relative value of employing social network
theories and measures as compared to aggregate theories and measures of shared leadership.
Directions for future research and application are discussed.
Keywords: shared leadership; meta-analysis; networks; teams
Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Deborah E. Rupp. The authors would like to
acknowledge Fred Oswald, Blair Johnson, and two anonymous reviewers for both comments on previous drafts
and help in shaping our ideas for this manuscript.
Corresponding author: Lauren D’Innocenzo, School of Business, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road,
Unit1041, Storrs, CT 06269, USA.
E-mail: lauren.dinnocenzo@business.uconn.edu
1964
D’Innocenzo et al. / Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations 1965
Over the last two decades, there has been a growing advocacy of the benefits of adopting
shared leadership as a means of enhancing team performance. For example, Pearce and Manz
(2005) submitted that shared leadership is often advantageous as it is “ever more difficult for
any leader from above to have all of the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to lead all
aspects of knowledge work” (p. 132). Indeed, many studies have demonstrated the positive
influence of using shared leadership and argued that it yields higher team-level performance
benefits than do traditional hierarchical leadership structures (Avolio, Jung, Murry, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999).
But that has not always been the case (e.g., Bowers & Seashore, 1966), and the extent to
which shared leadership relates to team performance is unclear. Moreover, as research
evolves, the fundamental question of what exactly shared leadership is takes on more
prominence.
Traditional definitions of leadership are not necessarily clear or consistent (Bass & Bass,
2009), and what it takes to be a leader, as well as who is a leader “in any given social context,
is ambiguous, dynamic, and contextual” (DeRue & Ashford, 2010: 630). Overlaying the idea
that leadership is somehow shared by team members only further complicates an already
ambiguous situation. Over the years, the literature has become quite disjointed with a prolif-
eration of nomenclature and conceptualizations. For example, shared leadership (Avolio et
al., 1996; Boies, Lvina, & Martens, 2010; Carson et al., 2007), distributed leadership (Bolden,
2011; Gibb, 1954; Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006), collective leadership (Friedrich,
Vessey, Schulke, Ruark, & Mumford, 2011; Hiller, Day, & Vance, 2006), team leadership
(Chen & Lee, 2007; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio,
& Jung, 2002), informal leadership (Neubert, 1999), and peer leadership (Bowers & Seashore,
1966; Gerstner, 1998) have all been advanced as ways to conceptualize and understand how
leadership may emanate from, and be shared by, team members (Morgeson et al., 2010).
Recently, scholars have attempted to clarify the boundaries of shared leadership by defin-
ing the complex adaptive process that occurs between leaders and followers in teams (DeRue,
2011) and offering a typology of collective leadership (Contractor, DeChurch, Carson,
Carter, & Keegan, 2012). These propositions leverage the nature of contemporary work in
organizations and embrace the perspective that leadership is an emergent and dynamic pro-
cess whereby multiple individuals can take on leadership roles according to the needs of the
group (Morgeson et al., 2010). Specifically, these studies stress the importance of team mem-
ber interactions (DeRue, 2011), leadership roles, time, and distributions (Contractor et al.,
2012) in understanding shared leadership.
While researchers grapple with how to define and articulate a theory of shared leadership,
it is imperative to appreciate that shared leadership conceptions diverge from traditional
leadership theories. Specifically, traditional theories have focused on leaders’ downward
influence on their followers (Pearce, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2003) through formal authority
and power. However, we know that leadership is more complex than a unidirectional line
pointing down toward subordinates (e.g., leader-member exchange; Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995) and more complex than using a team as a simple sum of its components (e.g., Contractor
et al., 2012). Despite this understanding, most researchers discuss shared leadership by draw-
ing on hierarchical, individualized, and unidirectional theories (DeRue, 2011). Interestingly,
a close inspection of the various definitions of shared leadership suggest that the way in
which researchers define the phenomenon may in fact influence the nature of its observed
1966 Journal of Management / November 2016
relationship with team performance. It is this realization that served as motivation for our
analysis.
We have two primary objectives for the current study. First, although many authors cite
the positive benefits of shared leadership, the magnitudes of such effects and whether they
are consistent across studies and different conceptualizations of shared leadership remain as
open questions. We use meta-analytic techniques to address these questions with the expec-
tation that shared leadership will evidence significant positive relationships with team per-
formance, but we also anticipate that such effects will not be uniform across studies. Second,
we suggest that the types of underlying theories guiding shared leadership investigations and
their associated measurement protocols will influence the magnitude of observed effects
with team performance. That is, as theory and measurement get closer to embracing the com-
plexities of different forms of shared leadership, we anticipate seeing stronger relationships
with team performance. Specifically, we will discuss and analyze aggregation, dyadic
exchanges, and distribution theories and measurement strategies of shared leadership.
Aggregate theories and measurement strategies position the source of leadership as an undif-
ferentiated whole of members and typically use the team mean of a behavioral Likert-type
scale. Dyadic exchanges focus on team member linkages or ties between each other (com-
monly measured as a density score) and suggest that these one-on-one relationships combine
to form a team’s leadership network. Distribution theories suggest that the placement (or
centrality) of a team’s leadership influence is the driving force behind its leadership struc-
ture. At a high level, these theories fundamentally differ in terms of the team’s source of
leadership influence as well as the target of leadership influence. We advance and test
hypothesized differences using meta-analytic findings while controlling for methodological
features of the empirical investigations.
Shared Leadership Theoretical Background

Shared Leadership Defined
As evidenced by the numerous definitions presented in Table 1, it is important to deter-
mine what exactly is meant by shared leadership when synthesizing the extant literature.
Accordingly, as a first step in our analysis, we reviewed the various definitions of shared
leadership and identified five salient themes throughout: (a) locus of leadership, (b) formality
of leadership, (c) equal and nonequal distribution, (d) temporal dynamics, and (e) the involve-
ment of multiple roles and functions.
The first two themes (i.e., locus and formality of leadership; Morgeson et al., 2010) refer
to the sources of leadership. The locus-of-leadership dimension suggests that team leadership
can originate from one of two sources: outside the team (i.e., external) or within the team
(i.e., internal). The formality of leadership reflects whether the leader’s authority is formal-
ized in the organization (i.e., formal) or whether there is no direct leader responsibility (i.e.,
informal). In line with previous work (Morgeson et al., 2010) and existing definitions of
shared leadership, it is generally assumed that shared leadership is an informal and internal
process. However, we suggest that some shared leadership designs may be formally desig-
nated and should not necessarily be precluded. For example, in their study of dynamic dele-
gation, Klein, Ziegert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed Trauma Resuscitation Units and
found that rather than leadership existing within a specific person, leadership was formally
Table 1
Representative Definitions of Shared Leadership by Theoretical Distinction
Date Authors Definition Used Theoretical Distinction
2002 Sivasubramanium, Murry, Collective influence of members in a team on Aggregation

Avolio, & Jung each other; how members of a group evaluate
the influence of the group as opposed to one
individual within or external to the group
2006 Ensley, Hmieleski, & Team process where leadership is carried out by Aggregation
Pearce the team as a whole rather than solely by a single
designated individual
2011 Gupta, Huang, & Yayla Team’s capability for collectively engaging in Aggregation
transformational leadership behaviors; leadership
as a collective process, such that the team
influences, inspires, and motivates team members
2002 Erez, LePine, & Elms Leadership can be shared over time whereby team Centralization
members share (albeit not at once) in responsibilities
involved in the leadership role . . . by clarifying who
is to perform specific role behaviors (i.e., leader and
member)
2006 Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Shared, distributed phenomenon in which there can Centralization
Robertson be several (formally appointed and/or emergent)
leaders
2009 Mendez A dynamic property that is not owned by any Centralization
particular team member but flows among multiple
people and adapts to the characteristics of the
situation
1998 Gerstner Viewed as a network of dyadic working Density
relationships between work group members
2007 Carson, Tesluk, & “An emergent team property that results from Density
Marrone the distribution of leadership influence across
multiple team members”
2012 Zhou The distribution of leadership influence across Density
multiple team members
vested in three positions: attending surgeon, surgical fellow, and admitting resident. While
this leadership structure was considered more formal, shared leadership existed because mul-
tiple individuals were seen as leaders in these specific roles. A second example exists in the
case of rotated leadership. Erez, LePine, and Elms (2002) studied classroom project teams
who were tasked with various assignments over the course of a semester. Rather than assign-
ing a team leader, students were told to choose different team members to lead the various
assignments over time. Thus, over the life cycle of the team, multiple leaders emerged, yet
those leaders were formally chosen by team members to lead different tasks. Both of these
situations involve leadership from multiple individuals in a team and constitute shared lead-
ership albeit without the “informal” designation.
The third theme, equal and nonequal distributions, refers to the extent to which team
members participate in leadership. While the first two themes are fairly consistent across
studies, this dimension varies. Specifically, in studies employing aggregate theories of shared
leadership, definitions generally position the phenomenon as emanating from an undifferen-
tiated set of members. That is, shared leadership is a “team-as-a-whole” phenomenon, and
the unique contributions of team members, whether they are leading different functions or
shifting responsibilities, are not considered. In contrast, studies employing social network
approaches (i.e., dyadic exchange and centralization) suggest that the unique influences of
team members are important and should be considered as a basis for construct definition (see
Table 1 for examples). Although approaches vary across studies, it is our position that shared
leadership involves unique influences of team members (Carson et al., 2007; Contractor et
al., 2012; Mayo, Meindl, & Pastor, 2003) where leadership is distributed rather than
combined.
The fourth theme we identified was the temporal or dynamic quality of shared leadership.
In their typology of collective leadership, Contractor and colleagues (2012) highlight time as
a core aspect of the phenomenon. The time component suggests that shared leadership is not
static (Friedrich et al., 2011) and that leadership roles can be assumed by different team
members either at the same time (Kukenberger, 2012) or at various points during the team’s
life cycle (Erez et al., 2002). The final theme, the involvement of multiple roles and func-
tions, acknowledges that leadership is not a unidimensional construct, but rather, there are
various functions and responsibilities of leaders (Contractor et al., 2012; Kukenberger, 2012;
Morgeson et al., 2010; Yukl, 1989). Acknowledging that multiple leadership responsibilities
exist creates a mechanism by which leadership responsibilities can be distributed among
team members to facilitate task completion. Based on these themes, we propose the follow-
ing integrative definition: Shared leadership is an emergent and dynamic team phenomenon
whereby leadership roles and influence are distributed among team members.
Shared Leadership and Team Performance

The idea of multiple leaders dates back at least to Follett’s (1924) assertion that one should
look for guidance on the basis of individuals’ knowledge of the situation at hand and not
necessarily to the designated leader. Later, Gibb (1954) described distributed leadership as
groups comprised of leaders who perform multiple group functions. Despite these early
works, research in this area remained fairly stagnant until the late 1990s. While there were
some theoretical developments in shared leadership, relatively few empirical studies appeared
during that period. However, Avolio and colleagues (1996) rekindled interest in the topic and
demonstrated a positive relationship between shared leadership and team performance.
Since the mid-1990s, the topic of shared leadership has garnered substantial attention in
the research community (e.g., Avolio et al., 1996; Carson et al., 2007; Pearce & Sims, 2000,
2002; Seers, 1996) and in applied contexts (e.g., Pearce, 2004; Pearce & Manz, 2005; Pearce,
Manz, & Sims, 2008). Even though this topic has been empirically advanced by a relatively
small number of researchers, there have been dozens of qualitative studies, over 100 theoreti-
cal models, and a handful of literature reviews, along with increased attention in mainstream
practitioner outlets (e.g., Goldsmith, 2010). Despite its growing popularity, the science sup-
porting the value of shared leadership is unclear. While most shared leadership scholars
claim that it relates positively with team performance, a closer examination of the literature
reveals inconsistent results that may, in fact, be the result of theoretical and conceptual
differences.
Research on shared leadership has often found beneficial results such that it is positively
related to team performance (Avolio et al., 1996; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012) and a better
predictor of team performance than vertical leadership (Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006;
Pearce & Sims, 2002). Additionally, Taggar, Hackett, and Saha (1999) found a positive cor-
relation between emergent leadership behaviors, whatever their origin, and team perfor-
mance. Recently, Gupta, Huang, and Niranjan (2010) demonstrated support for the positive
impact of shared leadership on team performance using a longitudinal design. Collectively,
these studies and others illustrate positive relationships between shared leadership and per-
formance outcomes.
However, shared leadership does not always produce positive team results. In the first
empirical study of shared leadership, Berkowitz (1953) examined manufacturing conference
groups and the extent of functional differentiation of the leader (i.e., chairman) from other
behavioral leaders among group members. Results indicated that when the chairman was the
sole behavioral leader in the group, the group was more satisfied and more productive than
when group members engaged in behavioral leadership. Bowers and Seashore (1966)
explored peer leadership in the form of support, goal emphasis, work facilitation, and interac-
tion facilitation as related to team performance. Across all dimensions, peer leadership
exhibited negative effects. More recently, Boies et al. (2010) found that shared leadership
identified using transformational leadership had negative effects on team performance.
Despite the inconsistencies noted above, on balance, we believe that shared leadership
will relate positively with team performance. Leadership, whatever its source, is a critical
driver of team effectiveness (Morgeson et al., 2010), and we believe that shared leadership
will likely relate positively to team performance. Katz and Kahn (1978) suggested that when
team members offer leadership, they will bring more resources to the task, share more infor-
mation, and experience higher commitment with the team. Collectively, these consequences
should lead to higher levels of team performance. Additionally, when team members receive
influence or are open to the influence of others, it can generate higher levels of team func-
tioning in terms of respect and trust. Teams that exhibit these characteristics have also exhib-
ited higher levels of performance (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro,
2001). This premise aligns with the empirical evidence (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Erez et al.,
2002; Pearce & Sims, 2002) and the basic argument that when team members offer their
leadership to others, they should better execute team functioning and thereby higher perfor-
mance. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1: Shared leadership will be positively related to team performance.
Theories of Shared Leadership

Generally speaking, we anticipate shared leadership to be positively related to team per-
formance. However, given the inconsistency of previous results, we also anticipate that the
effect sizes will likely be heterogeneous across samples. To explain such variance, we con-
sider different theoretical approaches to the study of shared leadership. We use these theories
to review and code previous studies, advance hypotheses concerning their relative predictive
value, and then test our hypotheses using meta-analytic techniques.
Leadership has often been conceptualized as a top-down process where researchers isolate
a single leader. However, Carson and colleagues (2007) argued that “shared leadership origi-
nates with individual members of a team engaging in activities that influence the team and
other team members in areas related to direction, motivation, and support” (pp. 1218-1219).
Furthermore, DeRue (2011) suggested that shared leadership is a complex, adaptive process
that involves a series of leading and following interactions. Broadly speaking, individuals
who assume leadership roles give direction, motivation, and support to their teammates,
whereas “follower” roles can be conceptualized as members who receive direction, motiva-
tion, and support. Specifically, team members take on these roles through a leader-identity
claiming and granting process where who is a leader and who is a follower is constructed
through a social process rather than an overall assessment of leadership through absolute
measures across teams. However, few studies to date have adopted such an approach. Below,
we discuss three major theoretical explanations for shared leadership and the subsequent
impact of theoretical decisions on the shared leadership–team performance relationship.
Sharing leadership using aggregation. Most empirical studies on shared leadership

employ aggregation theories and rationales. Aggregate theories of shared leadership shift the
source of leadership from an external individual to an undifferentiated whole of members.
These models of shared leadership are akin to composition models, which rely on within-unit
consensus (agreement) or consistency (reliability) to justify the aggregation of team-level
constructs (Mathieu & Chen, 2011). These have also been referred to as referent-shift mea-
sures (Chan, 1998), whereby the normal (e.g., single external leader) referent of measures
is replaced by another focus (e.g., leadership from team members). This approach makes no
differentiation in terms of who or which members from the team are exhibiting leadership;
rather, the idea is to change the focus from what an external person does to what the team as
a whole provides in terms of leadership. However, our current theoretical understanding of
shared leadership suggests that it is a much more complex phenomenon than overall leader-
ship from members (Carson et al., 2007; DeRue, 2011; DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Uhl-Bien,
2006). Nevertheless, the majority of past shared leadership investigations have adopted this
referent-shift conception and used average scores, per team, as an index of shared leadership.
Although the aggregation approach provides a rough gauge of the leadership from team
members, we believe that it may be deficient for at least two reasons. First, while understand-
ing the influence from the team as a whole is important, we believe it provides only a small
glimpse into the influence and complexities of sharing leadership. In other words, this refer-
ent-shift approach essentially asks participants to mentally aggregate different dyadic mem-
ber relations and to derive an overall estimate of how much leadership is occurring within the
team (Crawford & LePine, 2013). Consequently, important details and nuances are likely to
be glossed over in the process. For instance, a team member may focus on two strong leaders
on the team and rate the collective as high on shared leadership. Alternatively, a team mem-
ber may focus on a single team member who engages in social loafing and acts as the “bad
apple in the bunch” and report poor shared leadership. Furthermore, different members may
focus on different components. As a result, the unique influences of individual team mem-
bers or relationships between team members are obscured when using the aggregation
approach (Crawford & LePine, 2013; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Murase,
Doty, Wax, DeChurch, & Contractor, 2012).
Second, most studies that employ aggregation conceptualizations of shared leadership
have adopted inherently hierarchical leadership themes, such as transformational, transac-
tional, aversive, directive, and/or empowering leadership (Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce &
Sims, 2002; Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002) to describe leader-
ship behaviors among team members. However, the fundamental tenets of these behavioral
leadership theories are grounded in the hierarchical system of leadership. For example, trans-
actional leadership has its roots in expectancy theory and centers on “motivating subordinate
performance” through reinforcing behaviors (Pearce & Manz, 2005: 174). Transformational
leadership in a team setting suggests that leaders “can influence . . . individual followers at
lower levels” (Yammarino, 1994: 26), implying a hierarchical structure. While some may
argue that one can adapt hierarchical dimensions for a shared leadership setting, DeRue
(2011) explains that current leadership theories may not be able to sufficiently explain situa-
tions outside of downward leadership influence, for example, situations when “subordinates”
emerge into leader roles (i.e., “leading up”) or where team members lead each other (i.e.,
“leading across;” DeRue, 2011). In other words, the very nature of shared leadership behav-
iors may differ from those of traditional vertical leadership. For example, peers will not have
the same power or authority to lead (cf. Hollander & Offermann, 1990) or may lead in fun-
damentally different areas (Kukenberger, 2012). Accordingly, we suggest that shared leader-
ship effects on team performance gathered using aggregate theories and techniques will yield
smaller effect sizes as compared to other methods because they are unable to illuminate the
complexities of shared leadership.
Sharing leadership using social network approaches. Scholars have recently advanced
social network approaches to study shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007; Mehra et al.,
2006), which begin to model the patterns of relationships among interconnected team mem-
bers. In general, a network is a set of individuals (i.e., actors) and the relationships (i.e., ties)
between them (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Ties can be measured using binary (i.e., leader
or not) or valued (i.e., measured on a scale) items with different implications for both tech-
niques. Specifically, binary ties assess the presence of a tie, whereas a valued assessment
evaluates the strength of the relationship (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). Use of these different
functions will be determined based on conceptualization of the shared leadership construct.
Social network approaches (i.e., sociometric approach) are akin to configural constructs
or compilational models, which do not assume a convergence of attitudes but, rather, embrace
discontinuity and a complex nonlinear emergence of constructs (Mathieu & Chen, 2011).
This methodology assumes that each dyadic subgroup combines to form the overall group.
Additionally, it allows leadership to be viewed and studied as a shared activity while incor-
porating the reciprocal, recursive influence processes among multiple members (Yukl, 1989).
This rationale follows recent work by DeRue (2011), who described leadership processes as
a series of leading-following double interacts that take on distinct patterns of interaction over
time. Accordingly, social network theory provides a natural theoretical and analytical
approach to studying the relational influence structure in teams (Carson et al., 2007; Mehra
et al., 2006).
Mayo and colleagues (2003) note that using a social network perspective in shared leader-
ship research (a) begins with the assumption that social actors are embedded in a complex
web of relationships and (b) has developed conceptual and methodological tools to describe
and analyze social structures (e.g., Carley, Pfeffer, Reminga, Storrick, & Columbus, 2012;
Ripley, Snijders, & Preciado, 2011). Specifically, social network analysis allows for the
study of multiple sources of leadership influence and the ability to model patterns of influ-
ence within a team while preserving rich data about the actual distribution of such influences
(Mehra et al., 2006). In contrast to aggregation approaches, where members rate the team’s
overall level of shared leadership, the network approach requires each team member to rate
all other members in terms of their respective leadership influence. Accordingly, this
approach allows for a much more nuanced view into the “black box” of shared leadership.
Dyadic exchange: Density. The most common index used to leverage the network mea-
surement in shared leadership has been density (Carson et al., 2007; Mehra et al., 2006).
Density of a network is the proportion of possible links that are actually present in the net-
work (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In a binary relationship, the density of a network takes the
number of existing ties and divides by the maximum number of ties. If all ties are present,
the network is said to be complete (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Valued ratings of density
provide a different assessment of the network by determining the strength of ties across all
possible ties. In shared leadership studies utilizing density, ties between team members exist
when one team member perceives another as exerting leadership influence in the team. For
example, Carson and colleagues (2007) asked every team member to rate each of his or her
teammates (1, not at all, to 5, to a very great extent) on the following question: “To what
degree does your team rely on this individual for leadership?” As such, the density of the
shared leadership network increases as more team members provide leadership (cf. Spar-
rowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001).
Using a density or dyadic exchange rationale begins to embrace the complexities of shar-
ing leadership. However, it should be noted that density amounts to an aggregation measure
because it is essentially a mean score of dyadic relationships. Still, we submit that using a
density score will provide a better estimate of shared leadership than aggregate methods. In
particular, deriving density indices from a network approach removes the mental arithmetic
that referent-shift approaches require of respondents. Therefore, some areas of potential bias
are removed or attenuated (Crawford & LePine, 2013). For example, in a team composed of
two strong leaders and two social loafers, aggregation and density approaches could lead to
remarkably different results in terms of the amount of shared leadership within the team.
Specifically, in aggregation studies, if a team member is prone to a leniency bias, he or she
may rate the team as high on shared leadership (4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5) because two mem-
bers took on leadership responsibilities. However, using a binary density approach, this same
team may be assessed only around 0.5 (on a scale of 0 to 1). Accordingly, we believe that
conceptualizing shared leadership as the pooling of dyadic member influences will yield a
richer and more informative measure of shared leadership than will overall ratings. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2: The shared leadership–team performance relationships will be stronger in samples

that used a network density approach as compared to an aggregation approach.
Distributions: Centralization. Team network centralization has also been used as an index
of shared leadership in teams. Determining which actor or node (i.e., person) within a net-
work is the most influential has been one of the primary uses of social network analysis
(Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Actors that are extensively involved in relationships with other
actors are considered prominent or “central.” Node centrality is an index that represents the
number of ties any specific actor has in a specific network. Network centralization however,
is a group-level index that represents how dyadic ties are distributed in the overall network.
Essentially, a network centralization measure calculates the sum of differences in centrality
between the most central node in a network and all other nodes. Therefore, network cen-
tralization is a measure of compactness, as it describes the distribution of network ties and
whether those links are organized around particular focal points.
As Mayo and colleagues (2003) suggested, centralization concepts are a useful way to
understand both the leadership roles of different individuals and the entire network. Members
with higher individual node centralities occupy more powerful roles within the team and
would likely be recognized as leaders. To the extent that the entire team network is highly
centralized, it suggests that one or two members are serving as leaders. However, the inter-
pretation of teams with low network centralization scores is less clear. Specifically, low
scores can suggest that there is no one clear leader or that everyone in the team is providing
leadership, and in both cases, it assumes leadership is evenly distributed. Despite the lack of
a clear distinction in low centralization scores, scholars advancing this network centraliza-
tion conception have equated low network centralization as representing high degrees of
shared leadership. To be clear, this is typically indexed in primary studies by multiplying
team network centrality scores by −1. For purposes of exposition, we will refer to this con-
ceptualization as the “centralization approach” with the understanding that it actually refers
to team network decentralization.
Across shared leadership studies, the method for leveraging the centralization indices has
been varied. For example, Mehra et al. (2006) generated visual representations of the net-
works and had raters code them as “traditional leader-centered” versus “distributed” struc-
tures. They considered a network distributed if there was at least one individual within the
team other than the formal leader who received sufficient nominations to be considered as an
emergent leader. Kukenberger (2012) used a combination of network centralization and
diversity indices of members’ contributions along multiple networks of leadership as an
index of shared leadership. Small and Rentsch (2010) and Mendez (2009) argued that a net-
work centralization value of 1 indicates that a single individual is central (i.e., little shared-
ness), whereas deviations from 1 reveal that leadership is not limited to one individual.
We argue that conceptualizing shared leadership in terms of network centralization offers
benefits as compared to the aggregation approach. Like density, centralization is derived
from a network approach where each group member provides a specific rating for every other
group member. Whereas an overall aggregate score around a scale midpoint may suggest an
average amount of shared leadership in the team, network centrality scores would reveal the
concentration of leadership within members of the team. While centralization provides an
assessment of leadership distribution, it does not completely capture the nuances of dyadic
exchange relationship as it is a network-level measure. However, we suggest that under-
standing these distributions reveals more regarding the nature of shared leadership. Therefore,
we argue the following:
Hypothesis 3: The shared leadership–team performance relationship will be stronger in studies

using a network centralization approach as compared to an aggregation approach.
Density and centralization. As described above, we believe that sociometric approaches,

including both network density and centralization conceptualizations, will evidence higher
effect sizes for shared leadership–team performance relations than will more traditional team
aggregation or psychometric approaches. Naturally, this raises the question of whether den-
sity or centralization conceptions will exhibit higher effect sizes when compared to each
other. While there is no overarching theory of social networks, scholars in this area focus on
two basic concepts: the structure and the number of dyadic ties (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). The
structure of the network refers to the pattern of connections between nodes, or in this case,
the distribution of shared leadership in the team. The number of dyadic ties yields density
scores, which represent the amount of shared leadership in the team. Whether the amount or
the distribution of shared leadership is more important is an open question with little theo-
retical guidance to advance an a priori prediction. Therefore, we will examine their relative
impact on the magnitude of shared leadership–performance correlations in an exploratory
fashion.
Research Question 1: Will studies using density or centralization indices of shared leadership evi-
dence higher effect sizes?
Additional Influences on the Shared Leadership–Performance Relationship

Besides the substantive differences between shared leadership investigations, differences
between study features may have significant influences on observed results. For example,
team type is perhaps one of the more commonly examined moderators of team-related effect
sizes in meta-analyses (e.g, De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch,
2009). However, Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten (2012) recently argued that team types
and taxonomies offer little utility for advancing our understanding of the critical drivers of
team effectiveness. Instead, they advocated a dimensional approach whereby scholars should
compare and contrast empirical findings on the basis of various features of teams. Below, we
outline several dimensions upon which shared leadership studies may be differentiated and
suggest how they may operate as potential moderator variables.
Sample type. Classroom and lab samples are often criticized in organizational research
because they are believed to be nonrepresentative of organizational settings (Highhouse &
Gillespie, 2008; Peterson, 2001). The implicit assumption is that results of student samples,
particularly ones working on laboratory tasks, are not likely to generalize to real working
populations. Alternatively, Driskell and Salas (1992) and Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas,
and Cannon-Bowers (2000) argued that laboratory research with student samples may gen-
eralize to work teams when the focus is upon the underlying principles or the construct
relationships in question. In a comprehensive review of 82 meta-analyses, Mitchell (2012)
concluded that the generalizability of laboratory effect sizes to field settings varied widely
across fields, with work in industrial/organizational psychology exhibiting among the high-
est convergence. Nevertheless, the question of the comparability of research conducted with
student teams—typically performing contrived or classroom-related tasks—to actual teams
working in organizational settings has both practical and theoretical importance.
Performance measurement. Tesluk, Mathieu, Zaccaro, and Marks (1997) argued that dif-
ferent sources of measurement are suitable for assessing different types of team-related vari-
ables. They submitted that social psychological or emergent state (see Marks et al., 2001)
style variables are perhaps best assessed from individual members, whereas variables such
as team performance are better indexed using other sources of measurement. For example,
the extent to which leadership is shared among team members is probably best indexed by
members themselves, as they are privy to such behaviors more so than others. This is espe-
cially true in field settings where many team interactions occur out of sight of others.1
The measurement of team performance, however, is preferably done using sources other
than members’ self-reports. It is well known that subjective ratings may suffer from a variety
of different biases, such as leniency effects or process-outcomes performance cuing effects
(Martell & Leavitt, 2002). In short, ratings are prone to contamination effects. Alternatively,
archival or “objective” measures of performance are not as prone to subjective contamination
effects but may well be deficient and fail to represent the entire performance domain. In their
meta-analysis of information sharing–team performance relations, Mesmer-Magnus and
DeChurch (2009) proposed that “contamination will inflate relationships with subjective cri-
teria and that deficiency will suppress relations to objective criteria” (p. 536). Indeed, their
meta-analysis findings were consistent with this hypothesis. Thus, we anticipated shared
leadership–performance relationships would be higher among studies using subjective crite-
rion measures.
Task characteristics. Another factor that we believe may contribute to differences in the
shared leadership–performance relationship is the characteristics of the task. While shared
leadership can be appropriate in some situations, it certainly is not a panacea. For example,
teams in crisis situations with limited time may fail if leadership is shared between team
members. On January 15, 2009, when US Airways Flight 1549 encountered a bird strike
minutes after takeoff, the aircraft crew needed to act fast as any delay in action could have
been the difference between life and death for passengers and crew. In this time-limited situ-
ation, leadership from a single person was necessary to direct others and make a quick deci-
sion. In contrast, a project team given a task of designing, promoting, and marketing a new
product may thrive with leadership responsibilities shared among the team. Accordingly, it
is important to consider when and how shared leadership might be most beneficial. Specifi-
cally, because shared leadership is more complex and time-consuming than traditional lead-
ership structures, it is likely to be most beneficial when tasks are so complex that they cannot
be led effectively by a single individual.
Team task interdependence. Pearce (2004) suggested that the benefits of shared leader-
ship are the greatest in contexts characterized as interdependent. Interdependence is a fun-
damental component of teams and can be conceptualized in a number of ways, including (a)
task (i.e., the degree of task-driven interaction among members), (b) goal (i.e., the extent to
which members share one or more common goals that guide their actions), and (c) outcome
(i.e., the extent to which feedback and rewards are tied to collective vs. individual actions)
(Saavedra, Earley, Van Dyne, & Lee, 1993; Sherman & Keller, 2011; Thompson, 1967).
Although the three forms of interdependence are conceptually distinguishable, they tend to
covary positively in practice. In their meta-analyses, Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, and Beaubien
(2002) and Stajkovic, Lee, and Nyberg (2009) both found that team interdependence signifi-
cantly moderated team efficacy–performance relations, with higher effect sizes observed to
the extent that teams were more interdependent. LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul
(2008) found a similar pattern in their meta-analysis of team process–performance relations,
with higher effect sizes evident to the extent that teams had greater interdependence. It fol-
lows that shared leadership–performance relationships might exhibit stronger relationships
to the extent that teams are performing more interdependent work.
Task complexity. In his work on shared leadership, Pearce (2004) suggested that “the more
complex the task, the lower the likelihood that any one individual can be an expert on all task
components” (p. 49). Specifically, complex tasks may require multiple exchange relationships
among team members (Seers, Keller, & Wilkerson, 2003: 93). Wood (1986) described task
complexity as the relationships between task inputs as an important determinant of human
performance as these relationships create demands on the knowledge, skills, and resources of
team members. Specifically, task complexity varies as a function of three underlying factors:
(a) component complexity (i.e., the number of distinct acts and information cues needed to be
attended to while performing the task), (b) coordinative complexity (i.e., the strength of rela-
tionships among various task inputs and task outputs), and (c) dynamic complexity (i.e., the
stability of task requirements over time). Kerr and Jermier (1978) suggested that as task com-
plexity increases, the need for leadership also increases; that is, extremely routine tasks reduce
the need for leadership. Additionally, as tasks increase in complexity, the likelihood that all of
the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to complete the task reside in a single person is
small (Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006; Pearce & Manz, 2005). Cox, Pearce, and Perry (2003)
suggested that as task complexity increases, teams should look toward leadership structures
other than the traditional hierarchy to aid in successful task completion. Accordingly, as task
complexity increases, the benefits of shared leadership become more apparent.
Method
Identification of Studies
We performed an extensive electronic and manual search to identify published articles,
conference papers, and doctoral dissertations involving shared leadership. For the electronic
database search, we used PsycINFO, Business Source Premier, Web of Science, and ProQuest
Dissertation and Theses databases using the following key words: shared leadership, collec-
tive leadership, distributed leadership, team leadership, and peer leadership. We also per-
formed manual searches of recent issues of relevant organizational research journals and
conference proceedings to identify additional studies.
Following the inclusion criteria described below, these combined efforts resulted in a total
of 43 studies from which we were able to extract 50 effect sizes to use in our analysis.2 This
represents 3,198 teams (M = 63.96, SD = 52.85) that included 16,010 individuals (M = 320.20,
SD = 261.59). A wide variety of team types was represented across samples, including con-
sulting, change management, project, virtual, sales, production, manufacturing, student, and
research and development teams. Additionally, these teams represented a number of differ-
ent industries, including automobile, social work, financial services, insurance, government,
firefighting, and aviation.
Criteria for Inclusion

The article abstracts were reviewed for content and considered for inclusion in the meta-
analysis. If it was unclear from the abstract how leadership was measured or conceptualized,
we performed a full-text search to determine if the study met our criteria. In accordance with
our relationships of interest, several rules for study inclusion were established. First, the
article needed to include measures of both shared leadership and performance at the team
level of analysis. Second, teams used in each sample had to have multiple leaders during the
study time frame. Notably, studies reporting indices of a leadership climate were excluded
because climate does not necessarily imply shared leadership. We also excluded laissez-faire
leadership effect sizes. Laissez-faire leadership is a component of Bass’s (1985) conceptual-
ization of transactional leadership and refers to a “hands-off” leadership style where the
individual does not engage in influence of team members. In other words, it refers to the
absence of leadership. Third, teams must have engaged in some form of shared leadership.
As articulated above, this includes instances where leadership is shared over time, team
members provide leadership influence and may be engaged in different leadership roles or
functions, and the distribution or engagement of leadership does not need to be equal across
team members. In particular, investigations involving rotated leadership were included, but
instances where only vertical power differentiation existed were not included. Finally, arti-
cles needed to report correlations between our primary variables of interest or provide statis-
tical information needed to compute effect sizes.
Potential Methodological Moderators

Each of the authors independently reviewed and coded the studies that met these inclusion
criteria, and we evidenced perfect agreement on the (a) nature of shared leadership that was
examined in each (i.e., aggregation versus network density or decentralization), (b) team and
individual sample sizes, (c) type of sample that was used (coded classroom/lab = 0, field = 1),
and (d) the type of performance measurement that was used (coded objective = 0, member or
other subjective ratings = 1).3
We also independently evaluated the degree of team interdependence and task complexity
sampled in each study and evidenced high intercoder reliability. Specifically, we indepen-
dently rated three facets of team interdependence for each sample (i.e., task, goal, and out-
come) using 0- to 3-point scales from Gully et al. (2002), where higher values indicated
greater interdependence. Ratings of the three facets evidenced high internal consistency (α = .83),
so we summed them, per rater, to yield a single score for interdependence. We then corre-
lated our individual ratings (i.e., rs = .68, .74, and .81; ps < .001) which yielded an overall
intercoder reliability of .94. Therefore, we averaged our three ratings to yield a single inter-
dependence score per sample. Task complexity was rated on a 10-point scale adapted from
Wood (1986), with higher values representing greater complexity. We evidenced high inter-
rater reliability on these ratings of task complexity (ρ range = .67-.79; p < .001), so we aver-
aged scores across coders to yield a single task complexity score.
Analytic Techniques
Effect sizes were calculated by extracting Pearson correlations (r) from each sample. In
instances where multiple effect sizes were reported (e.g., for different dimensions of shared
leadership), we averaged them to yield a single effect size. We then used Fisher’s Z transfor-
mation to normalize our effect sizes given the inherently skewed distribution of Pearson’s r
around a given population ρ (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). However, Zr is not readily interpretable
(i.e., is not bounded by correlation conventions), and it was converted back to r for interpre-
tation and reporting in our results. Additionally, to account for the potential influence of
sample size in the precision of individual effect sizes across studies, we computed the stan-
dard error of Zr and used its inverse to weight each study (Card, 2012).
Table 2
Summary of Overall and Subsample Shared Leadership–
Performance Random Effects Meta-Analyses
Observed Weighted
Analysis k n of Teams r SD r SD 95% CI Z Q(df)
Total 50 3,198 .21 .19 .21 .21 [.15, .27] 6.94*** 128.00(49)***
Aggregation approach 32 2,160 .15 .19 .15 .19 [.08, .22] 4.04*** 76.30(31)***
Density approach 10 690 .32 .15 .35 .14 [.27, .44] 6.69*** 13.00(9)
Centralization approach 8 348 .29 .15 .29 .16 [.18, .39] 5.01*** 7.87(7)
Note: k = number of effect sizes; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom; Z = test of significance from
zero, Q = homogeneity of effect sizes test.
***p < .001.
We used a random-effects model implemented with Wilson’s SPSS macros (Wilson,

2010). Prior research on meta-analytic methods (Erez, Bloom, & Wells, 1996; Hunter &
Schmidt, 2004; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002) has shown that random-effect approaches
generate more accurate parameter estimates than do fixed-effect approaches. We employed
a Z test to determine whether average effect sizes differed significantly from zero and
Hedge’s Q statistic to test for the heterogeneity of effect sizes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
We employed weighted generalized least squares analysis to test our hypotheses (see
Wilson, 2010). Specifically, we followed a hierarchical two-stage approach where, after
weighting by the number of teams sampled, we regressed observed effect sizes on the four
potential methodological moderators to control for their potential effects. In a second step,
using aggregation-based shared leadership samples as a contrast group (coded 0), we simul-
taneously introduced two dummy codes in the equation for density (coded 1) and decentral-
ization (coded 1) to test Hypotheses 2 and 3, respectively. We later used density samples as
the contrast group to test whether density (coded 0) and decentralization (coded 1) effect
sizes differed significantly from one another. Our hypotheses were tested using two-tailed
tests, and we employed p < .05 as our critical value throughout.
Results
Meta-Analyses
Table 2 presents a summary of the overall meta-analysis and subsample meta-analyses by
shared leadership type. The raw observed 50 sample (i.e., k) correlations ranged from –.27 to
.66 with an average of r = .21 (SD = .19). Moreover, the overall sample-size weighted aver-
age effect size (ES) between shared leadership and team performance was ES = .21 (SD = .21,
CI = [.15, .27], p < .001). The confidence interval did not contain zero and the Z = 6.94,
p < .001, test was significant, providing support for Hypothesis 1. Effect sizes varied across
samples, with most containing the overall mean effect size within their respective 95% con-
fidence intervals. Although the overall mean effect size was significantly different from zero,
the correlations also varied significantly, Q(49) = 128.00, p < .001, which suggests that there
is sufficient heterogeneity for potential moderators to operate.
Table 3
Study Variable Descriptives and Correlations
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Observed effect size —

2. Performance measurea .22 —
3. Sample typeb .25* .36* —
4. Team interdependence –.07 –.26 –.37** —
5. Task complexity –.13 –.09 –.02 .65*** —
6. Density SL measurec .31* .08 .00 .12 .03 —
7. Centralization SL measured .19 –.24 –.20 –.05 –.08 –.22 —
8. Average n of teams –.04 .07 .17 –.06 .00 .05 –.17 —
M .21 .52 .60 6.29 6.80 .20 .16 63.96
SD .19 .50 .50 1.65 1.62 .40 .37 52.85
k 24 (0) 20 (0) 40 (0) 41 (0)
50 26 (1) 30 (1) 50 50 10 (1) 8 (1) 50
Note: N = 50 effect sizes. SL = shared leadership. k = number of correlations meta-analyzed.

aCoded 0 = objective, 1 = subjective.
bCoded 0 = classroom/lab, 1 = field.
cCoded 0 = other, 1 = density.
dCoded 0 = other, 1 = centralization.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Next, we conducted three subsample meta-analyses separately by type of shared leadership

examined and indexed in the original studies. The aggregate approach (k = 32) yielded an
average weighted ES = .15 (SD = .19, CI = [.08, .22]), which was significantly different from
zero (Z = 4.04, p < .001). This subset of effect sizes exhibited significant heterogeneity,
Q(31) = 76.30, p < .001. The meta-analysis of 10 samples (nine unique studies) that employed
the density approach yielded an average weighted ES = .35 (SD = .14, CI = [.27, .44]), which
also differed significantly from zero (Z = 6.69, p < .001). This subset of correlations did not
exhibit significant variability, Q(9) = 13.00, ns. Finally, the meta-analysis of the 8 samples
(seven unique) that utilized the centralization approach revealed an average weighted ES = .29
(SD = .16, CI = [.18, .39]), which also differed significantly from zero (Z = 5.01, p < .001).
This last subset of correlations also did not exhibit significant variability, Q(7) = 7.87, ns.
Moderator Analyses
While only the aggregate shared leadership approach subsample analysis revealed signifi-
cant effect size heterogeneity, given the fact that the overall meta-analysis of correlations
exhibited significant variability, we have preliminary evidence that type of shared leadership
serves as a moderator variable. However, given the low power of subsample meta-analyses
(see Sackett, Harris, & Orr, 1986), we used weighted generalized least squares analyses to
test Hypotheses 2 and 3 while controlling for potential methodological moderators. Table 3
presents descriptive information and correlations among these study features. Notably, both
the sample type used in the primary studies (r = .25, p < .05) and the use of a density measure
Table 4
Weighted Least Squares (by Sample Size) Regression Analysis
Predictor Step 1 Step 2
Performance measurementa .06 (.06) .07 (.05)

Sample typeb .14 (.07)* .16 (.06)**
Team interdependence .05 (.03) .04 (.02)
Task complexity –.05 (.02)* –.05 (.02)*
Density SL measurec .21 (.06)***
Centralization SL measured .22 (.07)**
ΔR2 .17 .24***
Total R2 .17 .41***
Note: N = 50 effect sizes. SL = shared leadership.

aCoded 0 = objective, 1 = subjective.
bCoded 0 = classroom/lab, 1 = field.
cCoded 0 = other, 1 = density.
dCoded 0 = other, 1 = centralization.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
of shared leadership (r = .31, p < .05) correlated significantly with the magnitude of observed
effect sizes, and the level of task complexity and team interdependence exhibited significant
correlations with each other (r = .65, p < .001). We then performed a weighted generalized
least squares analysis to test Hypotheses 2 and 3. As summarized in Table 4, we first regressed
the weighted effect sizes on to performance measurement type (β = .06, ns), sample type
(β = .14, p < .05), team interdependence (β = .05, ns), and task complexity (β = –.05, p < .05)
ratings, which collectively accounted for R2 = .17, ns, of the observed variance in effect
sizes.4 Notably, this suggests that effects were significantly higher for field, as compared to
classroom/lab, samples, and counter to our arguments, task complexity evidenced a signifi-
cant negative effect on the magnitude of shared leadership–team performance relationship.
Next, using the aggregate shared leadership samples as the comparison base (coded 0), we
added dummy codes (coded 1) for both shared leadership density (β = .21, p < .001) and
centralization (β = .22, p < .01) to the equation, which combined accounted for a significant
ΔR2 = 24%, p < .001. The final equation accounted for 41% of the variability of the sample-
size weighted effect sizes. Both the dummy codes for density and centralization forms of
shared leadership were positive and significant, consistent with Hypotheses 2 and 3, respec-
tively. In a supplemental analysis, we also contrasted the relative effect sizes of density and
centralization approaches, and they did not differ significantly from one another (β = .02, ns).
Therefore our research question was inconclusive.
Discussion
The purpose of our research was twofold. First, we tested the extent to which shared lead-
ership relates positively to team performance. Across 50 effect sizes, we found a significant
positive relationship between shared leadership and team performance, supporting the claim
of its positive benefits. However, we also found that the magnitudes of this relationship
varied widely across studies. Second, we tested whether different conceptualizations of

shared leadership and their associated measurement protocols accounted for a significant
portion of the heterogeneity of effect sizes after accounting for several potential method-
ological moderators. We found that as theory and measurement get closer to embracing the
complexities of shared leadership, the magnitude of observed shared leadership–team perfor-
mance relationships became stronger. Specifically, we found support for our hypotheses that
network conceptions of the number of dyadic leadership exchanges in the team (i.e., density)
and their distribution throughout the team (i.e., decentralization) both evidenced significantly
higher correlations as compared to holistic aggregation conceptualizations of shared leader-
ship. Notably, we also found teams sampled from classroom and laboratory settings yielded
lower average effect sizes as compared to teams sampled from field settings. We further
found that the complexity of team tasks related negatively to the magnitude of shared leader-
ship–performance relations. Last, we compared the relative effect sizes of density versus
centralization conceptions of shared leadership and did not find their effect sizes to differ
significantly from one another.
Theoretical Implications
Aggregate theories of shared leadership have largely dominated the shared leadership
research over the past couple of decades. More recently, scholars have turned to network
approaches, which, our results suggest, may be a more informative way to study shared lead-
ership dynamics. Crawford and LePine (2013) note that from a measurement perspective,
referent-shift (i.e., aggregation) approaches require respondents to perform “mental arithme-
tic” in that they need to collapse various member behaviors into a single representative team
score. Additionally, research on informant accuracy indicates that shared perceptions of team
properties and their corresponding structural configurations are not necessarily related
(Bernard, Killworth, Kronenfeld, & Sailer, 1984). However, this is not to say that the aggre-
gation approach is inappropriate for studying shared leadership. In fact, we encourage future
researchers to consider a number of avenues while engaging in shared leadership research.
To start, researchers should examine the utility of traditional vertical leadership constructs
(i.e., transformational, transactional, aversive, directive, and/or empowering leadership) at the
team level. As the fundamental tenets of these behavioral leadership theories are grounded in
the hierarchical system of leadership, we questioned the degree to which they are isomorphic
and equally applicable for shared leadership phenomena. Researchers must collectively con-
sider the alignment of the levels of theory, measurement, and analysis to support shared lead-
ership behaviors as a team-level construct to reduce the potential for level-related confounds
or fallacies of the wrong level (Mathieu & Chen, 2011). Typically, aggregate statistics or
referent-shift techniques have been used to justify aggregation in addition to drawing on paral-
lels with other similar individual to team variables (such as empowerment and self-efficacy)
to argue in favor of such aggregation methods (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, &
Garger, 2003). In fact, research has shown that team members can collectively exhibit concern
for each member’s needs and development (Avolio & Bass, 1995), which has supported the
aggregation of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire–type concepts. However, the intro-
duction of more nuanced methodologies that consider and capture the dyadic social
underpinnings of relationships in teams places a greater burden of justification on researchers

interested in using referent-shift aggregation methods (Crawford & LePine, 2013).
Based on our results, sociometric or network-based approaches in conceptualizing, col-
lecting, and analyzing shared leadership data seem to provide promise for future investiga-
tions. However, while recent social network methods are favorable compared to aggregation
referent-shift approaches, they are still somewhat limited in their ability to fully explain the
group structure of shared leadership. First, shared leadership has been argued to be a multi-
level, complex arrangement between recurring and looping paths and patterns between fol-
lower and leaders (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Carter & DeChurch, 2012; DeRue, 2011). The
popular shared leadership network index employed to date, density, is generally considered
one of the more simplistic measurements in the network arsenal. Second, while overall cen-
tralization informs us about the distribution of leadership within a network, it also tells us
little about network patterns of influences. Moreover, and most importantly, we should note
that scholars who have employed network centralization as an index of shared leadership in
the studies we examined here have implicitly assumed that decentralized networks equate to
shared leadership. However, while a decentralized network implies that there is no one clear
leader, it does not necessarily indicate that leadership is shared throughout the team. Low
centralization scores would also result from an absence of shared leadership in the team. In
other words, if no one is exhibiting leadership in the team, network centralization will also
be low.
In sum, viewing network indices in isolation does not allow for a complete understanding
regarding the form of leadership, and researchers have recommended combining network
indices (Mayo et al., 2003). Specifically, they submitted that the highest levels of shared
leadership would generate a combination of high network density and low network central-
ization. High density alone suggests that shared leadership exists in the team but does not
reveal the distribution or patterns of influences. So while our results have suggested that
network conceptualizations of shared leadership offer advantages as compared to aggrega-
tion approaches, to date, they have not been fully exploited. Echoing Mayo et al.’s (2003)
call, we recommend using a combination of network density and centralization in future
investigations. In a similar vein, we also encourage researchers to explore the utility of vari-
ous network indices in future analyses, as different indices may reveal different aspects or
nuances about the structure and functioning of shared leadership arrangements.
Methodological Implications
We examined a number of potential moderators of the shared leadership effect sizes.
Surprisingly, the nature of the performance measures did not exert a consistent significant
effect. However, we also tested sample type (classroom/lab vs. field) as a potential modera-
tor. Generally speaking, classroom samples performed contrived laboratory tasks over rela-
tively short durations (e.g., ~3 hours; Resick, DeChurch, Randall, Murase, & Jimenez,
2009) or business simulations that lasted between 2 and 3 months (e.g., Gupta, Huang, &
Yayla, 2011), although some performed complex field projects comparable to actual
employees (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Hoch, Pearce, & Dulebohn, 2010). In any case, this
comparison amounts mainly to contrasting student teams completing complex simulations
or projects as compared to employees working in field settings. Even controlling for the
other moderators in a weighted generalized least squares analysis, the effect sizes for the
classroom/lab samples were significantly lower than those observed with employees in field
settings. These results are consistent with Mitchell’s (2012) more general observation that
laboratory effect sizes in industrial/organizational studies parallel those observed in field
settings, although of lower magnitudes. In other words, perhaps counter to conventional
wisdom about sampling effects, students competing in complex simulations or completing
classroom projects offer conservative settings for testing the effects of shared leadership on
team performance.
We also found a significant influence of the level of task complexity on the relationship
between shared leadership and performance. Interestingly, however, this influence suggests
that teams performing tasks with higher levels of complexity exhibit lower effects of shared
leadership on team performance. Pearce and Manz (2005) have suggested that the more com-
plex the work is that is being performed, the more likely it is that shared leadership will be
needed for optimal performance. Specifically, complex work involves many different facets,
and it is unlikely that one person will possess all of the expertise and leadership abilities to
successfully lead a team to goal completion. While this may be in the case in some situations,
on the basis of our meta-analysis, shared leadership does not appear to be beneficial in terms
of team performance for teams with high levels of complexity.
There may be several reasons for this counterintuitive finding. First, the nature of the team
(i.e., project, action) may differentially direct the influence of task complexity. Specifically,
a cockpit crew may share leadership during stable times, but during crisis situations, a single
leader may take charge to ensure safety and execution of an emergency plan. Klein and col-
leagues (2006) discuss dynamic delegation of leadership, where sharing leadership was nec-
essary for team performance because each member of the trauma team brought different
expertise to bear. This logic is consistent with some of the work by Pearce and colleagues
(Bligh et al., 2006; Pearce & Sims, 2002), which suggests that as tasks become more com-
plex, it is unlikely that a single person will have all of the necessary abilities to lead the team.
Second, it may also be that as tasks become more complex, shared leadership becomes too
hard to manage and having fewer leaders is advantageous. And finally, it could well be that
this effect may simply be that teams perform worse on complex tasks than they do on simpler
tasks, and any leadership effects will be reduced.
Limitations and Future Research

Any meta-analysis is limited by the availability of empirical studies and the diversity of
moderators available. Whereas 50 effect sizes represent a sufficient number to test the con-
sistency of findings, our subgroup analyses had relatively few available for definitive tests.
Nevertheless, the conceptualization and measurement of shared leadership approaches evi-
denced significant effects on the magnitude of effect sizes even after controlling for four
potential methodological moderators. It is also the case that we limited our investigation to
the relationship between shared leadership and team performance. Certainly there are other
outcomes of interest that are likely associated with the development of shared leadership
(e.g., team compositional effects, training interventions, contextual influences) as well as
outcomes of shared leadership at the team (e.g., team adaptability, creativity, or viability) and
individual levels (e.g., members’ team commitment and other work-related attitudes,
individuals’ skill development, turnover implications) that warrant study in their own rights.
We chose to focus our attention on the performance implications of shared leadership, but
this is not to suggest that it does not pay other dividends as well.
We should also note that our meta-analyses adjusted only for the effects of different
sample sizes. Other influences on the variability of observed effect sizes include differences
in measurement reliability, variable ranges, and other statistical artifacts (Hunter & Schmidt,
2004). However, the primary studies did not report sufficient information to make addi-
tional adjustments. Moreover, the question of what constitutes the proper reliability coeffi-
cient for use in shared leadership applications remains open. While the literature is not at all
clear, measurement reliability certainly plays a prominent role in meta-analyses and more
advanced modeling techniques, such as structural equation modeling. In the current case,
the social network and aggregate approach contrasts embody not only their respective theo-
retical heritages but also their respective measurement protocols. Specifically, in our analy-
sis, assessment of the predictor construct (i.e., shared leadership) was assessed across
predictor methods (i.e., psychometric, sociometric), which makes it difficult to isolate the
effect of one over the other (see Arthur & Villado, 2008). That is, aggregate studies assessed
shared leadership primarily using leadership behaviors, whereas network studies primarily
used single-item responses. Consequently, it is not unequivocally clear whether the differ-
ence that we observed is attributable to substantive differences between the two approaches
or measurement artifacts—or some combination of the two. For example, 56% of the socio-
metric samples that we investigated employed a single overall measure of shared leadership
quality, whereas only 44% employed multiple dimensions. In contrast, 84% of the aggre-
gate samples that we investigated indexed shared leadership along multiple dimensions. Of
those, 78% collapsed the different dimensions to an overall composite, 19% reported results
separately for different dimensions, and only 11% employed multivariate analyses that
accounted for the intercorrelation of leadership dimensions. We encourage future investiga-
tions, whether they employ aggregate or social network approaches, to index multiple sub-
stantive dimensions of shared leadership and to analyze their findings accounting for their
interrelationships.
Past research has leveraged a number of constructs (e.g., transformational, transactional,
aversive, directive, and empowering leadership) to explore various behavioral forms of
shared leadership. However, the extent to which studies overlapped on these dimensions did
not allow for a meta-analytic examination of these differences. Future research should cer-
tainly consider the utility of multiple dimensions across and within the broad theoretical
positions used in our analysis (i.e., aggregation and network) as different forms or behavioral
styles as even highly related constructs can evidence differential validity. Furthermore, if
multiple dimensions of leadership are considered, the potential patterns of shared leadership
increase almost exponentially. For instance, a multidimensional analysis of shared leadership
may reveal that some members actively lead transition processes, whereas others lead the
coordination of action phase activities (cf. Marks et al., 2001). Adopting a multidimensional
approach (i.e., multiplex; see Borgatti & Foster, 2003), with suitable dimensions for horizon-
tal leadership, will likely yield valuable insights as to the underlying nature of shared leader-
ship. However, employing these designs do require more from survey participants, and the
benefits gathered from social network analysis should be contemplated in light of collection
considerations.
We had also intended to include team size as a moderator in our analysis. However, aver-
age team size and variance indices were often difficult to determine as study statistics were
not always reported. Our primary concern was the construct validity of using average team
size to assess the impact of team size. Notably, teams often varied greatly in size within the
same study (Mehra et al., 2006, ranges from 6 to 22; Berkowitz, 1953, ranges from 5 to 17;
Cashman, 2008, ranges from 3 to 20; Ensley et al., 2006, ranges from 2 to 6; Hiller et al.,
2006, ranges from 3 to 13). Therefore it is difficult to ascertain differences in effects between
smaller teams (i.e., 3) and larger teams (i.e., 20) when a simple study average is computed.
It is also the case that meta-analyses cannot necessarily evaluate the influence of moderators
that are heterogeneous within studies. In other words, if team size moderates shared leader-
ship–performance relations, and a sample includes teams that range in size from 6 to 22,
characterizing the study effect size as associated with teams of N = 14 (i.e., the mean) mis-
represents many if not most of the teams in question. Moreover, using the average team size
eliminates the variance of interest and runs the risk of committing a classic ecological fal-
lacy (i.e., assuming that analyses of mean scores reveal lower-level relationships; see
Firebaugh, 1978).
Furthermore, many studies do not report team size ranges, and team size is often used as
a covariate rather than a substantive variable of interest—or as a potential moderator.
However, we suggest that future research should consider the influence of team size at a
more fine-grained level and explore how, and to what extent, it influences shared leadership
and performance. Additionally, we urge authors to include detailed characteristics of teams
studied to promote further understanding of the phenomenon. In other words, it is difficult if
not impossible to test between study moderators in a meta-analysis that are not homogeneous
within studies.
In addition, while our results point to the utility of social network indices, it is also impor-
tant to consider how different measurement approaches may work together to provide a more
comprehensive assessment of shared leadership. For example, comparing overlap in aggre-
gate and social network assessments or uncovering unique areas of prediction between these
measures will help to uncover important nuances in shared leadership. Moreover, we foresee
two other challenges that should be incorporated to provide a fuller understanding of shared
leadership phenomena: (a) modeling temporal dynamics and (b) multidimensional behav-
iors. DeRue (2011) argued that leadership itself develops as a consequence of leader-fol-
lower double interacts over time. If shared leadership networks change over time, respondents
will be faced with either performing a mental algorithm exercise (over time) or reporting
patterns as to some idiosyncratic point in time. In contrast, assessing shared leadership at
multiple points in time and employing dynamic network analytic techniques would help to
uncover such temporal changes and their potential influence on other variables of interest
(Contractor et al., 2012; Contractor, Wasserman, & Faust, 2006).
We fully recognize that what we are advocating represents a daunting task. For instance,
modeling shared leadership over time raises issues such as when to best assess it, how often,
and using what methods? Adopting multidimensional longitudinal designs may necessitate
the development of alternative measurement techniques, such as unobtrusive measures or
digital traces (e.g., text-based interactions), but facing and overcoming these challenges
offers much in exchange in terms of unpacking shared leadership dynamics.
Applied Implications
Our work also has numerous applied implications. Most notably, our meta-analysis results
confirm the performance benefits of employing shared forms of leadership. Although we do
not suggest that shared leadership is a panacea that is valuable in all instances and in all
times, our results do indicate that it is generally beneficial in the contexts in which it has been
studied. Moreover, we provide empirical support of adopting network conceptualizations,
which not only promises to provide theoretical and research progress but should also sharpen
applied implications. For example, it is one thing to suggest that leadership should not be
limited to downward vertical exchanges but should also be shared among team members; but
it is far more to provide guidance as to who should be leading, which types of activities, at
what times, and under what circumstances. An additional advantage of the network approach
is that it can be used to provide diagnostic information to determine where changes of inter-
action should take place within specific teams. As Crawford and LePine (2013) suggest,
understanding the network structure can provide specific information about who is dominat-
ing the interaction, who is peripheral, and if interactions are entrenched between two or three
competing factions. While a referent-shift aggregation can provide general information about
the degree to which a team is sharing leadership, without observing the actual structure, it is
difficult to change the pattern of interaction.
Certainly, adopting a shared leadership design necessitates selecting and developing
employees not only to accept leadership from multiple parties (many of whom are at the
same level as themselves) but who are also willing to step up and accept leadership roles
themselves. Orchestrating the exact form or pattern of shared leadership will require ongoing
efforts and vigilance, particularly if circumstances change over time or if team membership
is fluid. Our results suggest that, once established, shared leadership offers benefits in terms
of higher team performance. But the costs associated with building that capacity and main-
taining it over time also need to be considered and weighed against other design alternatives.
Nevertheless, we believe that the efforts to do so will likely prove advantageous for organiza-
tions and employees alike.
Notes
1. In contrast, in a tightly controlled laboratory environment, it may be possible to index shared leadership
behaviors using observers (see Resick, DeChurch, Randall, Murase, & Jimenez, 2009).
2. Notably, three studies yielded multiple effect sizes within the same sample that we treated as independent.
These came from shared leadership–performance correlations calculated at different times. We conducted a sen-
sitivity analysis to determine if violations of the independence of observations assumption (~6%) influenced the
meta-analytic results, and they did not. Details are available from the authors.
3. One might further anticipate that members’ self-reports of team performance are likely to be more subject to
leniency and other method effects than would others’ ratings of their performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). This could well lead to shared leadership indices correlating more highly with members’ ratings
of team performance than with others’ ratings of team performance. We tested for this possibility using our data
and did not find any significant differences. Therefore we simply consider objective versus subjective performance
measures in the analyses reported here. Further details are available from the authors.
4. Given that our substantive moderators evidenced significant results, we conducted supplemental analy-
ses examining how these effect sizes varied across our methodological moderators. Results are available upon
request.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Arthur, W., Jr., & Villado, A. J. 2008. The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when com-
paring predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 435-442.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1995. Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level
framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6: 199-218.
*Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Building highly developed teams: Focusing
on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In D. A. J. D. A. Beyerlein & S. T. Beyerlein
(Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: 173-209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Jung, D., & Garger, J. W. 2003. Development and preliminary
validation of a team multifactor leadership questionnaire. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leader-
ship: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership: 143-172. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Potter, R. E. 2010. Performance in traditional and distributed, computer-
supported teams: The mediating effects of shared leadership and interaction styles. Unpublished manuscript,
Arizona State University, Tempe.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. 2009. The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications.
New York, NY: Free Press.
*Berkowitz, L. 1953. Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 48: 231-238.
Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. 1984. The problem of informant accuracy: The validity
of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13: 495-517.
Bligh, M. C., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. C. 2006. The importance of self- and shared leadership in team based
knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21: 296-318.
*Boies, K., Lvina, E., & Martens, M. L. 2010. Shared leadership and team performance in a business strategy simu-
lation. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9: 195-202.
Bolden, R. 2011. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 13: 251-269.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology.
Journal of Management, 29: 991-1013.
*Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. 1966. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leader-
ship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11: 238-263.
Card, N. A. 2012. Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carley, K. M., Pfeffer, J., Reminga, J., Storrick, J., & Columbus, D. 2012. ORA user’s guide 2012. Pittsburgh, PA:
Carnegie Mellon University.
*Carson, J. B., & Tesluk, P. E. 2007. Leadership from within: A look at leadership roles in teams. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.
*Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. 2007. Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent
conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1217-1234.
*Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. 2006. Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 15: 323-343.
Carter, D. R., & DeChurch, L. A. 2012. Networks: The way forward for collectivistic leadership research. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 5: 412-415.
*Cashman, D. M. 2008. The effects of vertical leadership, team demographics, and group potency upon shared
leadership emergence within technical organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A
typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246.
*Chen, C.-H. V., & Lee, H.-M. 2007. Effects of transformational team leadership on collective efficacy and team
performance. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 4: 202-217.
Contractor, N. S., DeChurch, L. A., Carson, J., Carter, D. R., & Keegan, B. 2012. The topology of collective leader-
ship. Leadership Quarterly, 23: 994-1011.
Contractor, N. S., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 2006. Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about orga-
nizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review, 31:
681-703.
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & 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 C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership: 48-76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crawford, E. R., & LePine, J. A. 2013. A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of task-
work and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38: 32-48.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. 2004. Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 857-880.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 741-749.
DeRue, D. S. 2011. Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 31: 125-150.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. 2010. Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity
construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35: 627-647.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. 1992. Collective behavior and team performance. Human Factors: The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34: 277-288.
*Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. 2006. The importance of vertical and shared leadership within
new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17:
217-231.
Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., & Wells, M. T. 1996. Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis:
Implications for situational specificity and validy generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49: 275-306.
*Erez, A., LePine, J. A., & Elms, H. 2002. Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and
effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55: 929-948.
Firebaugh, G. 1978. A rule for inferring individual level relationships from aggregate data. American Sociological
Review, 43: 557-572.
Follett, M. P. 1924. Creative experience. New York: Peter Smith.
Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schulke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. 2011. A framework for understand-
ing collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. Leadership
Quarterly, 20: 933-958.
*Gerstner, C. R. 1998. Leadership relationships and work group effectiveness: A multi-level empirical examination.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Gibb, C. A. 1954. Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2: 877-917. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Goldsmith. 2010. Sharing leadership to maximize talent. Retreived November 13, 2013, from http://blogs.hbr.org/
goldsmith/2010/05/sharing_leadership_to_maximize.html
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.
*Greer, L. L., de Hoogh, A. H. B., Patel, P. C., Thatcher, S. M. B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. 2013. Does shared leader-
ship benefit team performance via voice or harm team performance via power struggles? The importance of
team power-base diversity. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. 2002. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency,
and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87: 819-832.
*Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. 2010. A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leader-
ship and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17: 335-350.
*Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Yayla, A. A. 2011. Social capital, collective transformational leadership, and perfor-
mance: A resource-based view of self-managed teams. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23: 31-45.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2008. Do samples really matter that much? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg
(Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organiza-
tional and social sciences: 249-267. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. 2006. Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A
field study. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 387-397.
*Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, M. S., & Baron, R. A. 2012. Shared authentic leadership and new venture performance.
Journal of Management, 38: 1476-1499.
*Hoch, J. E. 2012. Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal
of Business and Psychology. Advance online publication.
*Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. 2012. Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and
shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication.
*Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Dulebohn, J. H. 2010. Developing a shared and vertical leadership short scale:
Validating Pearce and Sims (2002) questionnaire using in three samples of German work teams. Paper pre-
sented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
*Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Welzel, L. 2010. Is the most effective team leadership shared? Journal of Personnel
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. 1990. Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition.
American Psychologist, 45: 179.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. 2012. Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling
conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37: 82-106.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Ishikawa, J. 2012. Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles of norm for maintaining
consensus and shared leadership in team performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29: 265-283.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375-403.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. 2003. Social networks and organizations: London, UK: Sage.
*Kim, H. R. 1988. Group behavior: Performance, sick leave and job satisfaction as a function of within-group
homogeneity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindi-
vidualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 590-621.
*Kukenberger, M. 2012. A shared leadership classification and multi-level exploration of compositional anteced-
ents and team and individuals outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
*Kukenberger, M., Mathieu, J., D’Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. 2011. Shared leadership in teams: An investigation
of the impact of team composition and performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, San Antonio, TX.
*Kukenberger, M., Mathieu, J., D’Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. 2012. Modeling reciprocal team cohesion:
Performance relationships, as impacting by shared leadership and members’ competence. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
*Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., Kolbe, M., Spahn, D. R., & Grote, G. 2010. Leadership in anaesthesia
teams: The most effective leadership is shared. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19: 1-6.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork
processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. The way in which intervention studies have “personality” and why it is
important to meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 24: 236-254.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team pro-
cesses. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356-376.
Martell, R. F., & Leavitt, K. N. 2002. Reducing the performance-cue bias in work behavior ratings: Can groups
help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1032-1041.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent
advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34: 410-476.
Mathieu, J. E., & Chen, G. 2011. The etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management research. Journal of
Management, 37: 610-641.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2000. The influence of shared
mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 273-283.
Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Pastor, J. 2003. Shared leadership in work teams: A social network approach. In
C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership: 193-214.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*McIntyre, H. H., & Foti, R. J. 2013. The impact of shared leadership on teamwork mental models and performance
in self-directed teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16: 46-57.
*Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. 2006. Distributed leadership in teams: The network of
leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 232-245.
*Mendez, M. J. 2009. A closer look into collective leadership: Is leadership shared or distributed? Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 535-546.
Mitchell, J. 2012. Work life and patient safety culture in Canadian healthcare; connecting the quality dots using
national accrediation results. Healthcare Quarterly, 15: 51-58.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. 2010. Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding
leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36: 5-39.
*Muethel, M., Gehrlein, S., & Hoegl, M. 2012. Socio-demographic factors and shared leadership behaviors in
dispersed teams: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 51: 525-548.
Murase, T., Doty, D., Wax, A., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. S. 2012. Teams are changing: Time to “think
networks.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5: 41-44.
*Neubert, M. J. 1999. Too much of a good thing or the more the merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gender com-
position of informal leadership in manufacturing teams. Small Group Research, 30: 635-646.
Pearce, C. L. 2004. The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge
work. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 47-57.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. 2003. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. 2005. The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self- and shared leader-
ship in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34: 130-140.
Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. 2008. The roles of vertical and shared leadership in the enactment of
executive corruption: Implications for research and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 353-359.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. 2000. Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. M. B. D.
A. Johnson (Ed.), Advances in the interdisciplinary studies of work teams, Vol. 7: 115-139. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
*Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. 2002. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change
management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering
leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6: 172-197.
*Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. 2004. Leadership, social work, and virtual teams: The relative influence of
vertical versus shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. R. E. Riggio & S. Smith-Orr (Eds.). Improving leader-
ship in nonprofit organizations: 180-203. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. 1999. Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to
selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19: 35-51.
Peterson, R. A. 2001. On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-
anaylsis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28: 450-461.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
*Resick, C. J., DeChurch, L. A., Randall, K., Murase, T. M., & Jimenez, M. J. 2009. Elaboration of information and
team decision-making effectiveness in uncertain environments. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A., & Preciado, P. 2011. Manual for RSIENA. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford,
Department of Statistics, Nuffield College.
Saavedra, R. P., Earley, C., Van Dyne, L., & Lee, C. 1993. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 61-72.
Sackett, P. R., Harris, M. M., & Orr, J. M. 1986. On seeking moderator variables in the meta-analysis of correla-
tional data: A Monte Carlo investigation of statistical power and resistance to Type I error. Journal of Applied
*Sanders, T. O. 2006. Collectivity and influence: The nature of shared leadership and its relationship with team
learning orientation, vertical leadership and team effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George
Washington University, Washington, DC.
Seers, A. 1996. Better leadership through chemistry: Toward a model of emergent shared team leadership.
In M. M. B. D. A. Johnson (Ed.), Advances in the interdisciplinary study of work teams: Team leadership,
Vol. 3: 145-172. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. M. 2003. Can team members share leadership: Foundations in research and
theory. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership:
77-102. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sherman, J. D., & Keller, R. T. 2011. Suboptimal assessment of interunit task interdependence: Modes of integra-
tion and information processing for coordination performance. Organization Science, 22: 245-261.
*Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. 2002. A longitudinal model of the effects of team
leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27: 66-96.
*Small, E. E., & Rentsch, J. R. 2010. Shared leadership in teams: A matter of distribution. Journal of Personnel
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. 2001. Social networks and the performance of indi-
viduals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 316-325.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. 2009. Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-
analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 814-828.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. 1999. Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and out-
comes. Personnel Psychology, 52: 899-926.
Tesluk, P., Mathieu, J. E., Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks, M. A. 1997. Task and aggregation issues in analysis and assess-
ment of team performance. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and
measurement: Theory, methods, and applications: 197-226. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Uhl-Bien, M. 2006. Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing.
Leadership Quarterly, 17: 654-676.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, Vol. 8. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, D. B. 2010. Meta-analysis macros for SAS, SPSS, and Stata. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from http://
mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html
Wood, R. E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 37: 60-82.
Yammarino, F. J. 1994. Indirect leadership: Transformational leadership at a distance. In B.M. Bass & B..J. Avolio
(Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness: 26-47. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G. 1989. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15: 251-289.
*Ziegert, J. C. 2005. Does more than one cook spoil the broth? An examination of shared team leadership.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
*Ziegert, J. C., Mayer, D. M., & Piccolo, R. F. 2008. Sharing leadership: Examining vertical and shared charisma
in organizations. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco,
CA.
*Ziegert, J. C., Mayer, D. M., & Piccolo, R. F. 2009. Context matters: Examining contextual influences on shared
leadership. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
*Zhou, W. 2012. Moderating and mediating effects of shared leadership on the relationship between entrepreneur-
ial team diversity and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, NY.

D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016) - A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership-Team Performance Relations PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016) - A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership-Team Performance Relations PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

525205

A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared

Keywords: shared leadership; meta-analysis; networks; teams

Shared Leadership Theoretical Background

2002 Sivasubramanium, Murry, Collective influence of members in a team on Aggregation

Shared Leadership and Team Performance

Hypothesis 1: Shared leadership will be positively related to team performance.

Theories of Shared Leadership

Sharing leadership using aggregation. Most empirical studies on shared leadership

Hypothesis 2: The shared leadership–team performance relationships will be stronger in samples

Hypothesis 3: The shared leadership–team performance relationship will be stronger in studies

Density and centralization. As described above, we believe that sociometric approaches,

Additional Influences on the Shared Leadership–Performance Relationship

Criteria for Inclusion

Potential Methodological Moderators

Analysis k n of Teams r SD r SD 95% CI Z Q(df)

We used a random-effects model implemented with Wilson’s SPSS macros (Wilson,

1. Observed effect size —

Note: N = 50 effect sizes. SL = shared leadership. k = number of correlations meta-analyzed.

Next, we conducted three subsample meta-analyses separately by type of shared leadership

Performance measurementa .06 (.06) .07 (.05)

Note: N = 50 effect sizes. SL = shared leadership.

varied widely across studies. Second, we tested whether different conceptualizations of

underpinnings of relationships in teams places a greater burden of justification on researchers

Limitations and Future Research

You might also like