Definitions Of Shared Leadership

As shown in Table 1, shared leadership has been conceptualized in different ways (e.g.,

Carson et al., 2007; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Wang et al., 2014;

Yammarino et al., 2012). For example, Pearce and Conger (2003, p. 1) described shared

leadership as “a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for

which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals

or both.” Ensley et al. (2006, p. 220) defined shared leadership as “a team process where

leadership is carried out by the team as a whole, rather than solely by a single designated

individual.” Carson et al. (2007, p. 1218) defined shared leadership as “an emergent team

property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team

members.” Chiu, Owens, and Tesluk (2016, p. 1705) defined shared leadership as “a group‐

level phenomenon generated from reciprocal reliance and shared influence among team

members so as to achieve team goals.”

Articulated
Additional
References Definitions the three key
components
characterictics
Pearce and Sims Distributed influence from 1, 2, 3
(2002) within the team. (p. 172)
Lateral influence among
peers. (p. 176)
Sivasubramaniam Collective influence of 1, 2, 3
et al. (2002) members in a team on each
other. (p. 68)
Erez et al. (2002) Leadership can be shared 1, 2, 3 A leadership role
over time whereby team shifts among team
members share (albeit not at members over time
once) in responsibilities
involved in the leadership
role … by clarifying who is
to perform specific role
behaviors (i.e., leader and
member). (pp. 933–934)
Pearce and Conger A dynamic, interactive 1, 2, 3
(2003; the most influence process among
widely cited individuals in groups for
definition) which the objective is to
lead one another to the
achievement of group or
organizational goals or both.
(p. 1)
Pearce et al. (2004) Simultaneous, ongoing, 1, 2, 3 “Serial emergence”
mutual influence process of leaders
within a team that is
characterized by “serial
emergence” of official as
well as unofficial leaders. p.
48)
Ensley et al. (2006) A team process where 1, 2
leadership is carried out by
the team, rather than solely
by a single designated
individual. (p. 220)
Mehra et al. (2006) Shared, distributed 2, 3
phenomenon in which there
can be several (formally
appointed and/or emergent)
leaders. (p. 233)
Hiller et al. (2006) The epicenter of collective 1, 2, 3
leadership is not the role of
a formal leader but the
interaction of team members
to lead the team by sharing
in leadership
responsibilities. (p. 388)
Carson et al. (2007) An emergent team property 1, 2, 3
that results from the
distribution of leadership
influence across multiple
team members. (p. 1218)
Avolio, Shared leadership: an 1, 2, 3
Walumbwa, and emergent state where team
Weber, 2009 members collectively lead
each other. (p. 431)
Pearce et al. (2010) Shared leadership occurs 1, 2, 3 intentionally shift the
when group members role of leader to one
 actively and intentionally another as
shift the role of leader to one necessitated
another as necessitated by
the environment or
circumstances in which he
groups operates. (p. 151)
Gupta, Huang, and Team's capability for 1, 2 Content is
Yayla (2011) collectively engaging in transformational
transformational leadership leadershi
behaviors; leadership as a
collective process, such that
the teaminfluences, inspires,
and motivates team
members. (p. 32)
M. A. Drescher et An emergent property of a 1, 2, 3
al. (2014) group where leadership
functions are distributed
among group members. (p.
772)
Nicolaides et al. A set of interactive 1, 2, 3 team leadership
(2014) influence processes in which functions are
team leadership functions voluntarily shared
are voluntarily shared
among internal team
members in the pursuit of
team goals. (p. 924)
Wang et al. (2014) An emergent team property 1, 2, 3
of mutual influence and
shared responsibility among
team members, whereby
they lead each other toward
goal achievement. (p. 181)
D'Innocenzo et al. An emergent and dynamic 1, 2, 3
(2016) team phenomenon whereby
leadership roles and
influence are distributed
among team members. (p. 5)
Meuser et al. A form of leadership that is 1, 2, 3
(2016) distributed and shared
among multiple
participating individuals,
rather than being produced
by a single individual. (p.
 1390)
Chiu et al. (2016) A group‐level phenomenon 1, 2, 3
generated from reciprocal
reliance and shared
influence among team
members to achieve team
goals. (p. 1705)
Lord et al. (2017) Shared leadership can be 2, 3 Leader and follower
viewed in terms of how roles shifts among
different individuals enact individuals over time
leader and follower roles at
different points in time. (p.
444)
Jadual 1

Across these different conceptualizations of shared leadership, there are three key

commonalities: (a) Shared leadership is about lateral influence among peers, (b) shared

leadership is an emergent team phenomenon, and (c) leadership roles and influence are

dispersed across team members (seeTable 2; Carson et al., 2007; M. A. Drescher, Korsgaard,

Welpe, Picot, & Wigand, 2014; Pearce & Conger, 2003).

The first characteristic, lateral influence among peers, is pertinent to the

source of leadership influence. In work teams, there are two important sources of team

leadership. One is vertical leadership stemming from the formal team leader, and the other is

shared leadership stemming from team members (Locke, 2003; Nicolaides et al., 2014).

Specifically, compared with the top‐down influence of vertical leadership from a single

formal team leader, shared leadership focuses on the influence of horizontal, lateral

leadership from team members (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce & Conger, 2003).

For example, Pearce and Sims (2002, p. 176) regarded shared leadership as “lateral influence

among peers.” Hiller, Day, and Vance (2006) emphasized that the epicentre of shared

leadership is not the role of a formal leader but the interaction of team members during the

team leading processes. It is worth noting that scholars have emphasized that shared
leadership is not an alternative to vertical leadership; rather, both sources of team leadership

are important and can operate in tandem, and thus, they should be studied in tandem (Carson

et al., 2007; Denis et al., 2012; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). For example, Ensley et al. (2006)

found that both vertical leadership and shared leadership were significant predictors of new

venture performance.

The second characteristic is pertinent to the unit of analysis (Hernandez, Eberly,

Avolio, & Johnson, 2011). In contrast to traditional leadership as a phenomenon derived from

a single individual, shared leadership highlights leadership as an emergent property of a

collective (Carson et al., 2007). Whereas the first characteristic indicates that team members

are the source of leadership influence, the second characteristic indicates that leadership

influence does not reside in the formal leader nor individual team members, but rather it is

shared among members collectively at the group level. That is, shared leadership focuses on

the pooled leadership influence of all team members (Carson et al., 2007). Sivasubramanim

and colleagues (2002), for instance, noted that shared leadership focuses on the influence of

the group as opposed to one or a few individuals. Likewise, Carson et al. (2007) emphasized

that shared leadership is an emergent property of a group. Accordingly, shared leadership

should be analysed at the group level rather than at the individual level, and the referent of

leadership must shift from an individual to the group (Avolio et al., 2003).

The third characteristic focuses on the distribution of influence in the team

leadership structure. Compared with a leadership structure in which leadership is centralized

around one leader, shared leadership entails the view that leadership influence is “broadly

distributed” across team members (Carson et al., 2007; Meuser et al., 2016). For example,

Meuser et al. (2016, p. 1390) defined shared leadership as “a form of leadership that is
distributed and shared among multiple participating individuals, rather than being produced

by a single individual.” While the first two characteristics indicate that shared leadership

focuses on leadership influence from all team members, the third characteristic further

describes how leadership influence is distributed among team members, that is, leadership is

dispersed widely across team members. These three characteristics collectively capture the

inherent nature of shared leadership. Based on these characteristics, we define shared

leadership as an emergent team phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are

distributed among team members.

In addition to the above commonalities, the existing definitions of shared leadership

also diverge in two important respects regarding what constitutes shared leadership. First, the

extent to which the three characteristics of shared leadership are reflected in the definition

differs. Some definitions highlight the first and second characteristics (e.g., Ensley et al.,

2006; Gupta et al., 2011), whereas other definitions highlight the second and third

characteristics (e.g., Mehra et al., 2006; Pearce et al., 2010). Second, as summarized in Table

1, some definitions add assumptions or additional requirements. For example, Erez, Lepine,

and Elms (2002) added the requirement that a leadership role shifts among team members

over time. Gupta and colleagues (2011) restricted the content of shared leadership to a certain

leadership behavior (i.e., transformational leadership). After adding these assumptions, the

definition becomes narrower by capturing a specific kind of shared leadership, such as rotated

leadership or shared transformational leadership.

Key Characteristics
The Opposite
Perspectives of Shared Sample Reference
Conditions
Leadership
Source of leadership Horizontal, lateral Vertical leadership Pearce and Conger
influence leadership influence influence from a (2003), Pearce and
 among peers where
team members take
on the functions of
designated or elected
leadership Sims (2002)
leader
traditionally handled
by a designated or
elected leader
Unit of analysis Views leadership as
Views leadership as Carson et. al. (2007),
(leadership at the an emergent group-
an individual action Chiu et. al. (2016)
collective level) level phenomenon
Leadership influence
Leadership influence
or roles are Carson et. al. (2007),
Distribution of or roles are
dispersed widely M.A. Drescher et. al.
leadership influence centralized around a
across team (2014)
few individuals
members
Jadual 2: Key Characteristics of Shared Leadership
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

Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., &
Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta‐analysis of proximal, distal,
and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 923–942.

Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2008). The roles of vertical and shared
leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice.
The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 353–359.

Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2009). Where do we go from here? Is shared
leadership the key to team success? Organizational Dynamics, 38, 234–238.

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 behaviours. Group Dynamics Theory
Research & Practice, 171, 172–197.

Pearce, C. L., & Wassenaar, C. L. (2015). Shared leadership in practice: When does it work
best? Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(3), 1–2.

Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work and virtual teams: The
relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In R. E. Riggio, &
S. Smith‐Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in non-profit organizations (pp. 180–203). San
Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta‐analysis of shared leadership and
team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 181–198.

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. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231
Chiu, C. C., Owens, B. P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in
teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance
capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1705–1720.

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 behaviours. Group Dynamics Theory
Research & Practice, 171, 172–197.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger
(Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1–18). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage

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

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.

Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, D. (2006). Distributed leadership in
teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 232–245.

Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and
team effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 387–397.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449

Pearce, C. L., Hoch, J., Jeppesen, H., & Wegge, J. (2010). New forms of management:
Shared and distributed leadership in organizations. Personnel Psychology, 9, 151–153.

Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Yayla, A. A. (2011). Social capital, collective transformational
leadership, and performance: A resource‐based view of self‐managed teams. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 23(1), 31–45

Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The
dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99, 771–783.

D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta ‐analysis of different
forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42, 1964–
1991.

Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Lord, R. G. (2016). A
network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management,
42, 1374–1403.

Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in
applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
102, 434–451.

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.

Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leadership in the plural. Academy of
Management Annals, 6, 211–283.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.
Borman, & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 12) (pp. 333–375). New York: Wiley.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and
mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1165–1185.

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.

Components Of Shared Leadership

There are many dimensions, components, and factors which affect shared leadership. Carson

et al. (2007) proposed that “shared leadership is facilitated by an overall team environment

that consists of three dimensions: shared purpose, social support, and voice” (p. 1222).

Internal team environment and external coaching work in unison to drive team performance

(Carson et al.). Wood (2005) studied top management teams in churches with three or more

pastors and determined that shared leadership involves four distinct dimensions: “joint

completion of tasks, mutual skill development, decentralized interaction among personnel,

and emotional support” (p. 76). He found that while “empowering team behaviours related

positively with shared leadership” (p. 64), surprisingly, team structure (horizontal) did not

have a significant effect on shared leadership. In a qualitative study involving 69 individuals

working at St. Joseph’s Health Care Hospital, Jackson (2000) determined that four constructs

vital to the understanding of shared leadership highlight the significance of its relational

aspects: “accountability, partnership, equity, and ownership” (p. 168).

 Team leadership is characterized by a variety of items that set it apart from vertical

leadership. Walker et al. (2008) identified the following team leadership indicators in a three-

year qualitative study of 68 regional bank branch managers: (a) the work team resolves

difference to reach agreement, (b) work is distributed properly to take advantage of members’

unique skills, (c) information about the company and its strategy is shared, (d) teamwork is

promoted with the team itself, and (e) the team works together to identify opportunities to

improve productivity and efficiency. Chen, Kanfer, Kirkman, Allen, and Rosen (2007)

sampled 445 members from 62 teams in 31 stores of a national home improvement company,

and asserted that to empower team leadership, “team leaders should ensure they delegate

enough autonomy and responsibility to all members in their team, involve the team in

decision making, and encourage the team to self-manage its performance to the extent

possible” (p. 343). Abiding by such principles give teams a better chance for success.

McIntyre (1999) insisted that emerging leadership teams become effective only when they

are characterized by “strategic goals, extensive networks, collaborative relationships,

effective information processing, and focused action” (p. 40).

Shared Leadership in Education

Harris, Leithwood, Day, Sammons, and Hopkins (2007) lamented the lack of exceptional

leaders in today’s schools and thus declared, “The hope of transforming schools through the

actions of individual leaders is quickly fading” (p. 345). However, research concerning

several elements of shared leadership in the realm of educational institutions reveals mixed

results. In a qualitative study of students in three universities, Carte, Chidambaram, and

Becker (2006) examined virtual teams and suggested shared leadership behaviour is

positively associated with monitoring group work, but not with increasing performance.

Moreover, Boardman (2001) investigated shared leadership processes in Tasmanian schools

and discovered that leaders were significantly more enthusiastic about a shared leadership

model than the teachers they engaged with. Furthermore, in a study of co-principalship in

New Zealand primary schools, Court (2003) found the presence of power struggles and the

notion of “contrived congeniality,” which refers to the manipulation teachers feel when

forced to participate in decision-making without any guarantee their ideas will be heard.

Indeed, while one of the key benefits of shared leadership is the ability to draw from the

diversity of thought and talent possessed by an entire team (Miles & Watkins, 2007; Rice,

2006), Kezar (1998) noted that “when members of leadership teams did not fully embrace the

principles of fostering differences and encouraging multiple opinions, most teams slipped

into groupthink” (p. 68).

The benefits and limitations of shared leadership in educational institutions lead

Wallace (2001) to say, “School leadership should ideally be extensively shared but, because

school leaders do not live in an ideal world, the extent of sharing which is justifiable in

practice depends on empirical factors” (p. 153). Emotions cannot be ignored, especially when

a school is attempting to change or undergo a renewal process (Beatty, 2007). In addition, a

collegial climate (Rice, 2006) and clear communication are both paramount in all shared

leadership decision-making processes (Meyers & Johnson, 2008). Finally, for shared

leadership and teamwork to be effective, it is crucial that group members understand their

individual roles and do not underestimate the complexity of a shared leadership arrangement

(Hall, 2001).
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An
investigation ofantecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal,
50(5), 1217-1234.

Wood, M. (2005). Determinants of shared leadership in management teams. International

Journal ofLeadership Studies, 1(1), 64-85.

Jackson, S. (2000). A qualitative evaluation of shared leadership barriers, drivers, and

recommendations. Journal of Management in Medicine, 14(3/4), 166-178.

Walker, A. G., Smither, J. W., & Waldman, D. (2008). A longitudinal examination of

concomitantchanges in team leadership and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
61(3), 547-577.

Chen, G., Kanfer, R., Kirkman, B. L., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of
leadership,empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2),
331-346.

McIntyre, M. G. (1999). Five ways to turn your management team into a leadership
team. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 22(4) 40-44.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed
leadership andorganizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational
Change, 8(4), 337-347.
Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed
virtual teams:A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviours. Group
Decision andNegotiation, 15(4), 323-343.

Boardman, M. (2001). The value of shared leadership: Tasmanian Teachers’ and Leaders’
DifferingViews. International Studies in Educational Administration, 29(3), 2.

Court, M. (2003). Towards democratic leadership: Co-principal initiatives. International

Journal ofLeadership in Education, 6(2), 161.

Miles, S. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2007). The leadership team: Complementary strengths or
conflictingagendas? Harvard Business Review, 85(4), 90-98.

Kezar, A. (1998). Trying transformations: Implementing team-oriented forms of

leadership. NewDirections for Institutional Research, 100, 57.

Wallace, M. (2001). Sharing leadership of schools through teamwork. Educational

Management &Administration, 29(2), 153.

Beatty, B. (2007). Going through the emotions: Leadership that gets to the heart of school
renewal.Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 328-340.

Rice, N. (2006). Opportunities lost, possibilities found: Shared leadership and inclusion in an
urban highschool. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(2), 88-100.

Meyers, R. A., & Johnson, J. R. (2008). Facilitating the design of a campus leadership team.
Communication Education, 57(4), 472-481.

Hall, V. (2001). Management teams in education: An unequal music. School Leadership &

Management,21(3), 327-341.
Shared Leadership as a Resource for Team Mental Health

In considering how shared leadership unfolds as a dynamic temporal phenomenon in teams,

we propose that it can serve as an important team resource that impacts team members’

shared experiences at work. When employees collaborate in a team, they interact daily, and

they are exposed to the same environment and shared conditions. As a result, they tend to

develop similar moods, perceptions, beliefs, and behavioural patterns (e.g., Lehmann-

Willenbrock et al., 2011; Myers et al., 2004; Totterdell, 2000; van Yperen & Snijders, 2000).

We build our theoretical rationale regarding shared leadership as a team resource on the

central tenets of COR theory, which proposes that individuals and collectives (i.e., team or

organizations) strive to acquire and conserve resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, 2011;

Hobfoll et al., 2018). Based on this basic principle, stress, and impaired well-being result

when resources are threatened by loss, an actual resource loss or outstretch of resources

occurs, or in case of a failed resource investment (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2014). COR

explicitly focuses on the social context and incorporates a multilevel thinking of resources.

This is reflected in the COR concepts of resource caravans and resource caravan

passageways. Resource caravans refer to a shared pool of resources from which the members

of a team can benefit (Hobfoll, 2011). The accessibility or loss of collective resources can

influence the shared experience of (un)well-being among team members (Hobfoll, 2011;

Junker et al., 2021; Maslach et al., 2001; Sonnentag, 2015). Accordingly, we consider well-
being and emotional exhaustion as team-level outcomes, as the team members should be

affected by collective resource gains or losses in a similar way (Hobfoll, 2011). Hence, based

on their shared work experience, team members may develop similar patterns of mental

health which can be aggregated to the team level (i.e., direct consensus model; Chan, 1998).

To enhance team well-being and to reduce emotional exhaustion, team resources

should include the collective experience of control, competence, community, support, and

relatedness while acting autonomous, as especially autonomy-related resources can improve

well-being (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 2001; Maslach et al., 2001). Based on this

premise, shared leadership can be considered as important team resource (cf. Day et al.,

2004). While practicing shared leadership, teams autonomously work together for the

achievement of common goals (e.g., Nicolaides et al., 2014; Pearce & Conger, 2003) which

can enhance team effectiveness (e.g., Kukenberger & D'Innocenzo, 2020; Wu et al., 2018).

Achieving common goals can stimulate collective mastery and growth, for example in the

shape of higher collective efficacy beliefs (see Nicolaides et al., 2014; Sivasubramaniam et

al., 2002). Thus, this experience of collective competence and control while acting

autonomous in a strongly related unit is likely to protect team members against exhaustion

and can enhance their well-being (cf. Halbesleben et al., 2014).

It should be noted that shared leadership is a voluntary behaviour of all team members

which exists parallel to formal leadership (e.g., Ali et al., 2020; Nicolaides et al., 2014;

Pearce & Sims, 2002). Hence, not all duties, requirements, and decisions must be shouldered

solely by the team, as the formal team leader exerts in additional leadership functions to

satisfy team needs (e.g., define team mission, establish expectations and goals, engage in
sensemaking, manage team boundaries, solve problems, or provide resources; Morgeson et

al., 2010).

Teams utilize shared leadership to create a social context that facilitates cooperation

(Aubé et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018), enables creativity (Ali et al., 2020), reduces conflicts

(Sinha et al., 2021), and builds a strong shared sense of purpose (Bergman et al., 2012;

Mathieu et al., 2015), which helps to reduce ambiguities and provides clear goals and

expectations. This can be critical to prevent exhaustion and to support well-being (Bakker et

al., 2014). In addition, sharing different leadership functions within the team involves

collectively structuring and planning tasks, providing feedback, solving problems, and

supporting the social climate within the team (Morgeson et al., 2010). These behaviours

cover collective resources which are related to team member well-being (e.g., Bakker et al.,

2006; Costa et al., 2015; Torrente et al., 2012), and, thus, render shared leadership as a

resource caravan for the whole team. Hence, this social context and shared experience of the

team members can lead to a collective increase of members’ well-being and a reduction of

team’s emotional exhaustion over time.

Importantly, our dynamic perspective of shared leadership in teams extends to its

team-level outcomes as well. Specifically, increasing shared leadership may relate to an

increase in well-being and decrease in exhaustion, as an increase in autonomy-based

resources (i.e., shared leadership; cf. Pearce & Conger, 2003) should have a strong impact on

well-being (Halbesleben et al., 2014). In line with COR theory, resource gains over time (i.e.,

gain cycle) may initiate a growth in team well-being, as it reflects acquisition of resources

beyond previous level of available resources (e.g., Hobfoll et al., 2018). In contrast, a

continuously decreasing shared leadership over time would indicate a resource loss cycle.
This may coincide with less mutual feedback and reduced efforts to collectively structure

tasks that may foster negative social interactions (Bergman et al., 2012), inhibit task

accomplishment (Carson et al., 2007), and impair cooperation and teamwork (Aubé et al.,

2018), with likely decrease in team well-being and increase in emotional exhaustion along

with these developments.

Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S., Neininger, A., & Henschel, A.
(2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of planning
communication. Small Group Research, 42(6), 639–668.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411398397

Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Short, S. E. (2004). Collective efficacy and team performance:
A longitudinal study of collegiate football teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 8(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.8.2.126

Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective
performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 848–859.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.848

van Yperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2000). A multilevel analysis of the demands-control
model: Is stress at work determined by factors at the group level or the individual level?
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-
8998.5.1.182

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513

Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8325.2010.02016.x

Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of
Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103-128.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).

Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources
theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130

Junker, N. M., van Dick, R., Häusser, J. A., Ellwart, T., & Zyphur, M. J. (2021). The I and
We of Team Identification: A Multilevel Study of Exhaustion and (In)congruence Among
Individuals and Teams in Team Identification. Group & Organization Management.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211004789

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology

and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
032414-111347

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(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.001

Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., &
Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal,
and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and
whys of leadership. Sage.

Kukenberger, M. R., & D'Innocenzo, L. (2020). The building blocks of shared leadership:
The interactive effects of diversity types, team climate, and time. Personnel Psychology,
73(1), 125-150. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12318

Wu, Q., Cormican, K., & Chen, G. (2018). A meta-analysis of shared leadership:
Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
52(1), 154805181882086. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818820862

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(1), 66–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001005

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(2), 172–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089- 2699.6.2.172
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(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

Ali, A., Wang, H., & Johnson, R. E. (2020). Empirical analysis of shared leadership
promotion and team creativity: An adaptive leadership perspective. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 41(5), 405–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2437

Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Brunelle, E. (2018). Flow experience in teams: The role of shared
leadership. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 198–206.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000071

Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement: An overview and current

directions. European Psychologist, 19(4), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-
9040/a000160

Bakker, A. B., van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and
engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 464–489.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406291310

Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The
shared leadership process in decision-making teams. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1),
17–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.538763

Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D'Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015). Modeling
reciprocal team cohesion-performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and
members' competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713–734.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038898

Sinha, R., Chiu, C. Y., & Srinivas, S. B. (2021). Shared leadership and relationship conflict in
teams: The moderating role of team power base diversity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 42(5), 649-667. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2515

Costa, P. L., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Direct and contextual influence of team
conflict on team resources, teamwork engagement, and team performance. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, 8(4), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12061

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(5), 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921
Shared Leadership and Job Stress

In this framework, job stress is an intermediate outcome of shared leadership. Psychologist

distinguishes between two forms of stress: chronic stress and acute stress. Acute stress refers

to “discrete observable events, which are thought to be threatening because they represent

change” (Wheaton 1990:210). Chronic stress refers to “continuous and persistent conditions

in the social environment resulting in a problematic level of demand on the individual’s

capacity to perform adequately in social role (Wheaton 1990:210). In this paper, Job stress

refers to chronic stress, which will refer to psychological response of individual in which

individual capability cannot copes with persistent job demand that required by team (Wood &

Fields, 2007). Under shared leadership setting, peers assert influence over one other,

demanding output. Those members without sufficient abilities to meet role expectation may

feel threatening, thus resulting high level of individual job stress. Few empirical studies

investigate linkage between shared leadership and job stress (Gross, 1989; Wood & Field

2007). Gross (1989) indicates that over engagement in activities that exceed the abilities of a

member, like context under shared leadership setting, contributes to job stress. Wood & Field

(2007) also find that shared leadership has immediate effects on team member perception of

job role conflict and role ambiguity in turn, affecting job stress. High levels of shared

leadership are related negatively to job stress.

 This study predicts a direct linkage between shared leadership and job stress. Previous

research has confirmed that job stress significantly reduced performance of work teams

(Chen, 2009; Cohen, 1980; Jamal, 1985; Raeda, 2004; Westman & Eden, 1990 Wood &

Field, 2007). Cohen (1980) indicates that cadet with moderate stress performs better than do

those with high or low level of stress. In his research on blue-collar workers, Jamal (1985)

reports negative linear relationship between stressors and measures of job performance and

finds organization commitment to be an important moderator of the stress performance

relationship. In a later study of officer-cadets, Westman & Eden (1990) also find high job

stress experience associated with substantially lower performance for various tasks. Chen

(2009), In his recent study, investigates the relationship between job stress and job

performance of police officers and finds officers perceived job stress are caused by tasks and

contextual performance and concludes higher job stress leads to lower job performance and

vice versa. However, Raeda (2004), in his study on the effect of job-related stress on job

performance, reveals that hospital nurse who report moderate level of job stress perform less

well than did those who report low or high work stress. The study indicated curvilinear

relationship between job stress and job performance. These empirical findings indicate strong

and consistent link between job stress and performance. This study predicts a direct linkage

between job stress and team performance and predict that job stress as a key variable that has

direct influence the relationship between shared leadership.

Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and metal health. American Sociological
Review. 55, 209-223.

Wood, M. S., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management
team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2, 251-272

Gross, P.R. (1989). Stress and burnout in ministry: a multivariate approach. Lutheram
Theological Journal, 23, 27-31.
Chen, Y. (2009). Job stress and performance: A study of police officers in central Taiwan.
Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal. 37. 1341-1356.

Cohen, S. (1980). After effects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A
review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 88-108.

Jamal, M. (1985). Relationships of job stress to job performance: A study of managers and
blue-collar workers. Human Relations, 38, 409-424.

Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and Type-A behavior to employees' job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and turnover
motivation. Human Relations, 43, 727-738.

Raeda, F.A. (2004). Job Stress, Job Performance, and Social Support among Hospital Nurses,
Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 36, 73–78

Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1992). Excessive role demand and subsequent performance.
Journal of organizational behavior, 13, 519-529