The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

Shared leadership and Shared

leadership and
team creativity team creativity

Investigating the role of cognitive trust and team

learning through mixed method approach
Shiji Lyndon Received 21 May 2019
OB/HR, KJ Somaiya Institute of Management Studies and Research, Revised 18 December 2019
Accepted 3 February 2020
Mumbai, India and
OB/HR, Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, Mumbai, India, and
Ashish Pandey and Ajinkya Navare
OB/HR, Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, Mumbai, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to extend the theoretical understanding and conceptualization of
shared leadership by examining the impact of cognitive trust as an antecedent of shared leadership. Further,
the study examines the mediating effect of team learning on relationship between shared leadership and team
creativity.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted a mixed method approach with sequential
explanatory research strategy. Using a survey questionnaire, data from 44 teams were collected at two
different time points. Semistructured interviews were carried out with 22 teams to explain the results that
emerged from the quantitative study.
Findings – The study found that cognitive trust positively influences shared leadership. Further, team
learning fully mediates the relationship between shared leadership and team creativity. The major themes that
emerged from the qualitative study are participant’s experiences of shared leadership in team, reasons to exert
leadership, reasons to accept leadership and consequences of shared leadership.
Practical implications – Organizations can enhance team creativity by promoting shared leadership in the
organization.
Originality/value – This study examines the mediating process of team learning between shared leadership
and team creativity. Mixed method approach adopted in the study explains the shared leadership process by
building on both quantitative and qualitative research.
Keywords Mixed methodologies, Shared leadership, Mixed methods, Team learning, Cognitive trust, Team
creativity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The era of information technology, technological advancement, globalization and emergence
of knowledge as the key competitive advantage has made the work environment complex,
volatile, competitive and uncertain. To remain relevant in this complex environment,
organizations have shifted to team-based structure with an increased focus on self-managing
and cross-functional teams (McGrath et al., 2000; Salas et al., 2008) because teams bring in the
synergy, which facilitates creativity and innovation (H€ ulsheger et al., 2009).
Innovation is considered essential for the survival and long-term success of the
organizations (Amabile, 1998; Kanter, 1998; Mumford, 2000). Naturally, it is a crucial mandate
for the management (Hoch, 2013) particularly in current rapidly changing business
environment (IBM CEO Survey, 2013; Liu et al., 2012). Innovation essentially begins with
development of new and useful ideas, which is a creative process (Amabile, 1998; H€ ulsheger Personnel Review
et al., 2009). Research in creativity and creative process is key to understand and promote © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
innovations in organizations (Ford and Gioia, 2000; Joo, 2007). DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2019-0262
PR In the given context, it is critical to understand, while working in teams, what are those
conditions that enhance creativity. Among other factors, past research has identified
leadership as a key antecedent of team creativity (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). Leadership
research, in the context of team, can be broadly categorized into two streams – vertical
leadership and shared leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Nicolaides et al., 2014). Vertical
leadership occurs when a single person is involved as a leader of the team. However, in the
past, a few leadership scholars conceptualized leadership as a group phenomenon (Gibb et al.,
1954a; Katz and Kahn, 1978). This approach gained attention in the last two decades. This
approach conceptualizes leadership as the function of the team as opposed to that of a single
individual. Shared leadership theory advocates leadership as a function where leadership
roles and responsibilities are shared among the members of the team. Researchers have called
it by different names such as distributed leadership (Gibb et al., 1954a), collective leadership
(Contractor et al., 2012), shared leadership (Pearce and Conger, 2003). Vertical leadership and
shared leadership are not opposite to each other but rather they are at the extreme of the same
continuum (Gronn, 2002).
However, the underlying dynamics of shared leadership are still a grossly
underresearched area (Sweeney et al., 2019). The role of shared leadership is crucial,
particularly in the context of knowledge economy and its increasing complexity, volatility
and uncertainty (Sotarauta, 2016).
The past research underscores the positive association of shared leadership and team
creativity (Lee et al., 2015). However, the research on creativity in the shared leadership
context is scant, and the comprehensive understanding of the process through which shared
leadership fosters creativity is not well understood. An understanding of this process is
crucial as it would provide insights in developing managerial skill, attitude and strategies to
enhance creativity at workplace.
Team learning is another critical aspect for preparing organizations to respond to
challenges of current times, created by technological advancements, globalization and
increasing social and environmental responsiveness (Ashauer and Macan, 2013). Team
learning is also vital to promote innovation at workplace (Barker and Neailey, 1999; Pandey
et al., 2019). Like creativity, team learning literature is also vast and has examined the role of
leadership and yet mostly, implicitly or explicitly, focused on vertical leadership (e.g. see
review Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018). Despite the growing importance of shared leadership,
the studies on team learning in this context are scant.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the process through which cognitive
trust, shared leadership and team learning impact team creativity. The study explores the
influence of cognitive trust on shared leadership and how shared leadership influences team
creativity through the mediating influence of team learning. We aim at contributing toward
the scholarship of shared leadership in multiple ways. First, the study examines the
underexplored dimension of influence of shared leadership on team creativity. There are only
a few studies that report positive relationship between shared leadership and creativity (Lee
et al., 2015; Wu and Chen, 2018; Wu and Cormican, 2016). Gu et al. (2018) found positive
relationship between shared leadership and creativity partially mediated by knowledge
sharing but called for further research to explore other intervening mechanisms in that
relationship. The present study addresses this need by examining team learning as a
mediator between shared leadership and team creativity relationship. Thereby, this study
explains the phenomenon of how shared leadership influences team creativity.
Second, we propose and examine a conceptual misplacement of cognitive trust in the
existing literature. Trust plays a crucial role in any dyadic and team interaction. Affective
and cognitive trust is widely recognized in the acceptance and effectiveness of vertical
leadership (Ciulla, 2017). In view of the pervasive impact of trust on leadership effectiveness,
we examined the role of cognitive trust in shared leadership. The past research has examined
trust as a consequence of shared leadership (Drescher et al., 2014). However, in this study, we Shared
propose and examine cognitive trust as an antecedent to shared leadership as it is the trust in leadership and
the competence of team members that makes individuals to accept or exert leadership leading
to shared leadership.
team creativity
Third, the study also contributes in terms of its methodology, by examining and
understanding the dynamics of shared leadership through both quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Majority of the studies in the area of shared leadership have adopted
quantitative research design (Serban and Roberts, 2016; Sweeney et al., 2019). The systematic
literature review on shared leadership in commercial organizations by Sweeney et al. (2019)
found only one study using mixed method approach. Using a quantitative approach alone
fails to provide a complete understanding of why members accept leadership for others and
how shared leadership translates into positive organizational outcome. Grint (2000)
advocated the use of interpretative approach to study the subjective understanding of
followers about their leaders, which would complement quantitative studies. Use of
qualitative methods in shared leadership studies would be beneficial in providing important
insights into the shared leadership process (Sweeney et al. (2019). Also, using a purely
quantitative study can cause validity issues pertaining to common method variance, which
refers to inflated or deflated results because of the method used to collect data (Spector and
Brannick, 2009). Because of overreliance on quantitative method, shared leadership research
area can benefit from mixed method approach as it overcomes the limitations of both
quantitative and qualitative research and builds on the merits of both the methods (Bryman,
2006; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The present study adopts mixed method approach
with sequential explanatory design. The findings of the quantitative study are explained
through the qualitative study. Therefore, the study contributes to the scholarship in shared
leadership through its methodology.
Considering the contribution of shared leadership toward the changing needs of
organizations, this study aims to furnish a deeper understanding of shared leadership and the
applications therein.

Literature review
Shared leadership
Pearce and Conger (2003) defined 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. . . [L]eadership is broadly distributed
among a set of individuals instead of centralized in [the] hands of a single individual who acts
in the role of a superior” (Pearce and Conger, 2003, p. 1).
Shared Leadership is a team-level phenomenon where the leadership function is not the
responsibility of any one individual, rather shared by multiple members in the team (Bligh
et al., 2006). Shared leadership theory suggests that in teams, the direction of influence need
not be fixed and can keep changing between team members at different times (Friedrich et al.,
2009). Shared leadership allows members to influence others and also get influenced by
others with the objective of achieving the team objectives. Research suggests that during the
life cycle of a team, leadership functions may rotate between different members of the team at
different points in time. Pearce and Conger (2003) observed that “individuals. . . can rise to the
occasion to exhibit leadership and then step back at other times to allow others to lead” (p. 2).
The constructs of shared leadership and teamwork include certain common features such
as coordination, interdependence, interrelated knowledge, skills and abilities. However, what
differentiates shared leadership from teamwork is that in teamwork, though members put in
coordinated effort, the primary focus is on sticking to one’s role and delivering results in that
area. While, in shared leadership, emphasis is on members influencing others to achieve team
PR goals in such a way that it leads to behavior modification of other members (Pearce and
Conger, 2003). And the leader keeps changing based on the competence and the requirements
of the situation. Teamwork research suggests that leadership as a function is to be carried out
by the team leader who is an external person. The functions of the team leader include
creating and maintaining shared mental models, monitoring internal and external
environment of the team and establishing behavioral and performance expectations (Salas
et al., 2005). However, shared leadership literature advocates the serial emergence of leaders;
these leaders, who are otherwise team members, carry out the leadership function. The
function of teamwork emphasizes on collaborative action to complete a task that cannot be
done in isolation, because of interdependencies created due to nature of the task (Mathieu
et al., 2008). Though there is an element of collaboration in shared leadership, the primary
emphasis is on influence process to achieve results. There could be an overlap between
teamwork and shared leadership in the sense that teams that demonstrate great teamwork
may also share leadership.
Sweeney et al. (2019) carried out a systematic review of literature spanning 20 years of
empirical research in shared leadership. They advocated the need for context-specific
research and focused their review on commercial organizations. The review describes the
differences in conceptualization of shared leadership. Some researchers view shared
leadership from a functional perspective, while others view it from a relational perspective.
Functional perspective views shared leadership as a function where roles and responsibilities
need to be shared (Acar, 2010), while relational perspective considers it as a social influence
process (Hoch et al., 2013). Another important dimension identified by the review was that a
majority of research in the area has considered the temporal nature of shared leadership, with
time as a key dimension (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016). Shared leadership is not static; the
dynamics keep changing as different members assume leadership roles at different points in
time within the teams (Erez et al., 2002).

Cognitive trust and shared leadership

Trust is the “willingness to accept vulnerability based upon beliefs about the trustee’s ability
and character and the emotional bond between the trustor and the trustee” (Dunn et al., 2012,
p.3). Researchers have studied two types of trust, that is, affect-based trust and cognition-
based trust (Mc Allister, 1995). Affect-based trust arises from the social interaction and
emotional connect between two parties where one party is willing to be vulnerable to the other
party (Chua et al., 2008; McAllister, 1995). On the other hand, cognitive trust is a result of
knowledge that the other party has professional credentials and belief that they can be relied
on for satisfactory role performance (Chua et al., 2008; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Mayer et al.,
1995; McAllister, 1995; Wilson et al., 2006). The choice in cognitive trust pertaining to whom to
trust and how much to trust (Lewis, 1985) emerges from past performance and performance
credentials (Mc Allister, 1995). Cognitive team trust primarily denotes the degree to which an
individual believes he can depend and rely on his team to perform and deliver results.
While working in teams, cognitive trust among team members would be based on their
beliefs about the team’s competency and professionalism to successfully carry out a task
(Chou et al., 2013). High cognitive trust in a team will motivate the team members to
collaborate more while working in teams (Akg€ un et al., 2007; Chou, et al., 2013). Past research
has found positive relationship between trust and shared leadership (Bergman et al., 2012;
Wang et al., 2014), but these studies examined trust as an outcome of shared leadership. Both
shared leadership and trust are emergent constructs, which evolve over a period of time
(Drescher et al., 2014) and result from the dynamic interaction among the team members
(Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). Therefore, it is suggested that the degree of cognitive trust
among the team members would influence the extent to which members in a team would
engage in shared leadership.
 The dynamics of shared leadership would emerge if members are willing to take up both Shared
leader and follower roles based on the requirements of the situation. The willingness to exert leadership and
and accept leadership would depend upon the team dynamics. If members are confident
about their own expertise coupled with the knowledge that others in the team trust their
team creativity
competence, they would be willing to exert influence on other team members. And if members
are confident about the competence of their team members in terms of their knowledge and
skills, they would be willing to accept influence exercised by other members. Also, Bligh et al.
(2006) proposed that there is a positive relationship between cognitive trust and shared
leadership and called for testing of the same. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H1. High cognition-based trust would lead to high shared leadership.

Shared leadership and team creativity

Creativity denotes development of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1998; Mumford and
Gustafor, 1988). It includes technical skill, creative skill and motivation (Wu and Chen, 2018).
Creativity is often exhibited in the context of a team setting (Taggar, 2002). Team creativity
refers to “production of novel and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes, and
procedures by a team of employees working together” (Shin and Zhou, 2007, p. 1715).
Organizations encourage creativity at the workplace because when creative ideas are
translated to novel products and processes, it leads to innovation. Teams with higher
creativity are able to identify and use opportunities by employing unique methods to achieve
better team results (Chen, 2007). For creative ideas to emerge, inputs from diverse areas of
knowledge are required (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004).
Shared leadership is based on the premise that the leadership of a team is not concentrated
on a particular individual but different members take charge based on the situation (Pearce,
2003). Past research suggests that collaboration can lead to creative outcomes (DeCusatis,
2008). Teams with shared leadership would be collaborative in nature because of high
interdependence at work. Information sharing would be higher for teams engaging in shared
leadership (Hoch, 2013). High information sharing would lead to more number and variety of
ideas and opinions because when multiple members in the team feel the freedom to take on a
leadership role, they would have the freedom to question each other’s ideas, critique it based
on their respective distinct knowledge backgrounds and thus engage in divergent
perspectives. Creativity is a result of those divergent perspectives, which combine multiple
ways of seeing things (Mumford and Gustafson, 1998). It is expected that shared leadership
will lead to higher team creativity, because in such teams the inflow of diverse ideas and
perspectives would be higher. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H2. Shared leadership will positively influence team creativity.

Mediating role of team learning

Past research suggests team processes as a potential mediating mechanism between
leadership and creativity (Nicolaides et al., 2014). We propose team learning as a mediator in
shared leadership–creativity relationship. Edmondson (1999) defined team learning as “an
ongoing process of collective reflection and action and it includes (a) exploring, (b) reflecting,
(c) discussing errors and unexpected outcomes of actions, (d) seeking feedback, and
(e) experimentation with and as a team” (Savelsbergh et al., 2009, p. 582). This approach of
team learning considers learning as a process and not outcome; hence, it explains learning in
terms of action or behavior.
Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) explains how individuals learn in a team through
direct and observed experiences even in the absence of direct reinforcement. Direct
experiences come from one’s own work, and observed experiences occur when one models
PR others’ behavior. The possibility of learning from both direct experience and observational
experience is present in shared leadership. When the individual members of a team take on
the leader role and guide the team, it gives them an opportunity to learn from direct
experience by deliberating on the results of one’s action. And in situations when a member
takes on the follower role and chooses to be led by another member, there are possibilities of
learning from observational experience. Also, the frequent interaction, knowledge and
information sharing in teams, which are not led by one formal leader but multiple members
taking up leadership roles based on the situation, provide more opportunities of team
learning.
Team learning can stimulate creativity by improving the quality of ideas shared in the
group (Hoch, 2013). When the team learning is high, members are able to foresee both the
merits and demerits of ideas and suggestions given by the team (Gino et al., 2010). Thus,
the learning of the team based on their own direct experiences and observed experiences
of other members in the team improves the quality of ideas. Study by Pirola-Merlo and
Mann (2004) suggested that the individual-level creativity of team members translates
into team creativity through team interactions and processes. It is expected that team
learning would be a key catalyst in transforming the creativity and knowledge of
individual members into team creativity exhibited by the team. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that:
H3. Team learning would mediate the relationship between shared leadership and team
creativity.

Methods
The study adopted the research paradigm of dialectical pluralism (Johnson, 2012). Dialectical
pluralism does not consider either/or arguments, instead, it is built on both/and arguments
(Johnson, 2012). Mixed method research built on dialectical pluralism focuses on collecting
data using two or more methods. Mixed method research helps in studying reality through
converging and diverging findings (Brewer and Hunter, 2006).
The study adopted an explanatory sequential design (Creswell and Clark, 2007). The
objective of the qualitative study was to carry out an additional explanatory study with a
mixed method approach (Creswell and Clark, 2017). Explanatory research involves first
conducting quantitative study and using a qualitative follow-up study to provide a better
understanding of the quantitative results (Harisson and Reily, 2011). Therefore, the questions
were developed based on the findings of the quantitative study and were directed to seek an
explanation to various findings of the quantitative study.

Quantitative study
Participants. Two hundred and twenty students (64 percent male, Mage 5 24, Sd 5 1.00)
participated in the study as part of their organizational behavior class. Participants were full-
time students of postgraduate program in management. The mean age of the participants
was 24 years. 65 percent of the respondents were male. 70 percent of the students had work
experience. Average work experience was around three years. Participants were randomly
assigned to teams of five members each at the beginning of the course. A total of 44 teams
participated in the study. All the students were part of the full-time program and had an
average work experience of three years.
Past studies have questioned the external validity of studies based on student data as the
effect size might vary from student to nonstudent samples (Sears, 1986) and hence
discouraged student data for management research context. However, recently, other
research suggests that student data is relevant because of less noise and more homogeneity
(Druckman and Kam, 2011; Highhouse and Gillespie, 2009). These factors are of prime Shared
importance while selecting the participants. The student sample was well suited in our study leadership and
because it reduced the impact of extraneous variables as they were all part of the same
program. Teams were engaged in working on a case study that was based on a real-life
team creativity
management problem. Thus, it ensured that the findings would be relevant to nonstudent
population.

Procedure
After two months in the course, students participated in a 3 h long study. The participants
were asked to carry out a team task. The teams were provided with a real-life case study
pertaining to the problem of attrition in a manufacturing plant in India. The case provided the
information about the problems faced by the HR manager and the various interventions used
by the manager. The team task included the following – (a) identify the main problem in the
case, (b) prepare a report with creative solutions to the problem and (c) make a presentation
with the proposed solutions. The task was designed in such a way that there was a high
interdependence, because each team was provided with limited time (45 min) to finish it. Also,
the team task was designed in such a way that its completion involved multiple skills
(analytical skills, writing skills, presentation skills) so that there was scope for multiple
members in the team to take up leadership roles in different areas, depending on the
dimensions of the work.
To minimize the impact of common method variance linked with single-source data
collection, the data were collected in two stages. Before the commencement of the team task,
the questionnaire concerning cognitive trust in the team was administered. Instruments
related to shared leadership, team learning and team creativity were administered in stage 2.
And in stage 3, semistructured interviews were carried out with the teams to explain results
that emerged from the quantitative findings.

Measures
Cognitive trust, team learning and team creativity were measured using a 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Likert scale. Shared leadership was measured using a 1 (not at
all) to 5 (to a great extent) Likert scale.
Cognitive trust. Cognitive trust was measured using McAllister’s (1995) three-item scale
(reliability α 5 0.78). A sample item is “I do not doubt the competence and preparation of
my team members for this work.”
Team creativity. Team creativity was measured using Rego et al.’s (2007) seven-item scale
(reliability α 5 0.72). A sample item is “My team could come up with creative solutions to
problems.”
Team learning. Team learning was measured using Savelsbergh et al.’s (2009) seven-item
scale (reliability α 5 0.88). A sample item is “Team members collectively drew conclusions
from the ideas that were discussed in the team.”
Shared leadership. Shared leadership was measured using social network approach (Mayo
et al., 2003). Team members rated each of their peers on a single-item scale: “To what
degree does your team rely on this individual for leadership?”

Qualitative study
Twenty-two teams, each consisting of five members, participated in the semistructured
group interview. Interviews offered us insights pertaining to the dynamics of leadership,
PR while the teams were working on the team task. In addition, the group interview format
allowed for members to build on each other’s insights as they shared how and why different
members took leadership while working in the team. Group interviews are conducive to
discuss perspectives and to reflect on ideas of other members (Reinharz and Davidman, 1992).
The focus of the interview was to understand how the leadership dynamics emerged in the
team. Sample questions included: (1) How did the leadership dynamics emerge during the
team task? (2) What made members to exert influence and thus emerge as a leader? (3) What
made other members accept influence? (4) What were the consequences of multiple members
exercising leadership? The interviews lasted for approximately 20–30 min each. All of them
were conducted one-on-one and in private space, a day after the team task was carried out.
The participants were informed about the objective of the study; consent forms were filled
and signed by all of them. The participants were informed that they could end the interview
or turn off the recording at any point in time.
The transcripts were coded using the NVivo 11 software tool through a reflexive and
traditional qualitative approach to allow themes to emerge from the data (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). All the interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts
were analyzed by first identifying major concepts within each sentence (Strauss and Corbin,
1998). The coding was limited to only those variables that were under study. Further, we
grouped all the similar concepts into categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

Validity
There are multiple ways of establishing validity in mixed method research (Johnson and
Onwuegbuz, 2004). This study addressed validity through weakness minimization and
multiple validities. Weakness minimization refers to the degree to which strengths of one
approach are used to compensate weakness from other approach (Johnson and Onwuegbuz,
2004). To offset some of the weaknesses of the quantitative approach, such as emphasis on
explanation without in-depth exploration and limited ability to explain social reality (Gratton
and Jones, 2010), this study incorporated qualitative study. The group interviews helped to
explain the dynamics of the shared leadership phenomenon as experienced by the
participants. The quantitative phase of this study compensated for some of the limitations of
qualitative methods, such as limited ability to quantify and generalize, ability to create
replicable studies (Gratton and Jones, 2010; Greene, 2007).
Another form of validity addressed in this study was multiple validity. Multiple validities
refer to addressing validity of each method (quantitative, qualitative and mixed) through
their respective validity types (Johnson and Onwuegbuz, 2004). The quantitative study was
validated using content validity, a quantitative method. Qualitative data was validated
through member checking. Participants were provided interview transcripts and findings to
validate whether interpretations were accurate.

Results
Quantitative
Table I shows the descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables – cognitive
trust, team creativity, team learning and shared leadership. All these scores are calculated at
the team level.
First, the factor structure of the latent variables was confirmed. AMOS (version 21) was
used for the analysis. Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) are the
measures of convergent validity. Values of CR and AVE are within acceptable limits (Hair
et al., 2006; Malhotra and Dash, 2011). Following the approach of Fornell and Larcker (1981),
square root of AVE is compared with the correlation among constructs to demonstrate the
discriminant validity. Table I shows CR and AVE and discriminant validity.
 The three-factor measurement model was tested using cognitive trust, team learning and Shared
team creativity as the latent constructs. This model showed a good fit (χ 2/df 5 1.33; leadership and
CFI 5 0.90; TLI 5 0.88; RMSEA 5 0.08). The fit indices are within acceptable limits (Hair et al.,
2006; Hu and Bentler, 1999). Later, team learning and creativity were combined and tested for
team creativity
the two-factor model. Fit indices got negatively affected. Further, all the observed variables
were loaded into one latent variable and tested with the one-factor model. Fit indices further
worsened. Table II provides the details of fit indices of measurement and alternate models.
After confirming the factor structure, the latent factors’ scores were imputed[1] for further
analysis. To assess the multicollinearity among independent variables, we examined
variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance levels. The values (Learning, Tolerance 5 0.29;
VIF 5 3.41; Trust, Tolerance 5 0.30; VIF 5 3.23; Shared Leadership, Tolerance 5 0.82;
VIF 5 1.21) are within acceptable limits, indicating no concern for multicollinearity (Hair
et al., 2006).
The hypothesized paths were found to be significant, supporting H1, H2, H3. Cognitive
trust showed significant positive impact on shared leadership (β 5 0.36; p < 0.05) supporting
H1. Shared leadership showed significant positive impact on team learning (β 5 0.42; p < 0.01)
and team learning has positive impact on team creativity (β 5 0.73; p < 0.01). Results showed
that team learning acts as a mediator in the impact of shared leadership on team creativity.
Direct path from shared leadership to creativity was found to be nonsignificant (β 5 0.12;
p 5 0.23), showing fully mediated model.
To test the mediation, bootstrapping method was used. Bootstrapping results showed that
the indirect effect of shared leadership on team creativity via team learning was significant
(bootstrap 95 percent CI [0.109, 0.488]). Sobel test results also showed significant mediation
(t 5 2.78; SE 5 0.07; p < 0.01).
Table III provides the standardized path loadings and significance; Table IV gives
mediation analysis results.

Qualitative
This section explains the four major themes that emerged from qualitative data: (a)
participants’ experiences of shared leadership in a team, (b) what made participants to exert
leadership over others, (c) what made participants to accept leadership of others and (d)
consequences of shared leadership. A summary of these four themes is presented in Table V.

Constructs Mean SD α CR AVE 1 2 3 4

1. Shared leadership 3.62 0.35

2. Cognitive trust 4.39 0.27 0.78 0.81 0.59 0.34* (0.77)
3. Team learning 4.38 0.18 0.88 0.75 0.37 0.41** 0.56** (0.61)
4. Team creativity 4.17 0.30 0.73 0.88 0.53 0.43** 0.64** 0.50** (0.73)
Note(s): N 5 44; α 5 Cronbach’s alpha reliability; CR 5 Composite reliability; AVE 5 Average variance Table I.
extracted; Square root of AVE on the diagonal in parentheses; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 Descriptive statistics

Model χ2 df χ 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA

Measurement model (three factors) 112.49 84 1.33 0.90 0.87 0.08

Alternate model 1 (LR þ CR) 144.35 89 1.62 0.80 0.77 0.12 Table II.
Alternate model 2 (LR þ CR þ TR) 155.14 90 1.72 0.77 0.73 0.13 Measurement and
Note(s): LR 5 Team learning; CR 5 Team creativity; TR 5 Cognitive trust alternate models
PR Participants’ experiences of shared leadership
Data pertaining to the experiences of leadership, while working in the team, revealed that
during the course of the task, no one individual emerged as the leader of the team. Three
themes emerged related to shared leadership. The first theme is multiple leaders.
Participants reported that the leadership role kept shifting between the members based
on the nature of the task. For instance, a member of team 3 shared “different occasions
required different people to take the lead” and “everyone rose to the occasion.” The second
theme that emerged is that members claimed leadership over others by exerting their

Hypothesis Paths β SE Result

Table III.
Standardized path H1 Cognitive trust→Shared leadership 0.36 0.23 Supported
loadings of the H2 Shared leadership→Team learning 0.42 0.09 Supported
hypothesized model H3 Team learning→Team creativity 0.73 0.11 Supported

Path Effect SE p LL (95% CI) UL (95% CI)

Table IV. Total effect of SL on CR 0.43 0.12 0.00 0.15 0.64

Mediation analysis and Direct effect of SL on CR 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.08 0.34
bootstrapping results Indirect effect of SL on CR 0.31 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.49

Dimension Themes Exemplar quotes

Shared leadership Multiple leaders The leadership kept shifting between members
Everyone emerged as a leader at some point or the other. It
was collective leadership
Claiming leadership I took charge of the discussion regarding identifying the
problems and solutions in the case
Falguni said she will lead the team with respect to
presentation
Granting leadership We did not know how to go ahead, so we asked Akanksha
to take the lead
We told Kanishka to lead the report writing activity
Reasons to exercise Knowledge of I know I am good with presentations, so I took charge
leadership personal strengths I knew the context better than others, so I took the lead
role while discussing
Reasons to accept Knowledge of others’ When someone had an expertise in some area, we simply
leadership expertise allowed him or her to take the lead, and the team followed
Cognitive trust We allowed Vishesh to take lead for the presentation
because we know, among us, he is the best. He knows how
to make an impactful presentation
Consequences of shared Team learning Everyone took responsibility, so we were focussed. At the
leadership end, I think we have grown as a team by learning from
each other
Table V. Team creativity The work did not get monotonous and every one came up
Themes and exemplar with very different ideas and perspectives. I think that
quotes related to helped us to come up with creative solutions to the
shared leadership problem
influence. For example, a participant said “With respect to making report, I told the group Shared
that I can guide them regarding how to go about it.” The third theme that emerged from data leadership and
is that members did grant leadership to other members in their team. Participants shared
experiences when they explicated asked other members in the team to take leadership. In this
team creativity
context, a participant mentioned “We asked Akanksha to lead us through how to go about
the presentation.”

What made participants to exert leadership

One theme that emerged, pertaining to participants’ experiences as to why they chose to
exercise leadership, was knowledge about their own areas of strength. Participants indicated
that what made them exert influence over others was, when they felt that they had the best
skills compared to others in the team, with respect to the requirement of the task, they took the
lead. For instance, a member of team 3 shared, “I think I could understand the case better than
others in my team because I have work experience in a similar context. So, I decided to take
the lead.”

What made members accept others’ leadership

Two themes that emerged about participants’ experience, pertaining to why they accepted
other members’ leadership, were: (a) knowledge about one’s own areas of weakness and (b)
cognitive trust in the competence of other members. Participants shared that when they knew
they did not have sufficient competence in a particular area, they were willing to be led by
other members of the team. In this regard, a participant said, “I know I am not very good with
analytical skills, so I told my team that it would be better for someone else to take the lead.”
Another reason that made members accept others’ leadership was when they had trust in the
competence and credentials of other members in the team. A participant shared, “We were
willing to be led by Pranav because he has worked in that area, so we thought he would know
best amongst us and it is better to go by what he says.”

Consequences of leadership
An analysis of participants’ responses, pertaining to outcomes of multiple members
exercising leadership, revealed two themes related to learning and creative problem-solving.
The first theme is the exercise of shared leadership, which resulted in members developing by
way of understanding of new ways to approach a problem. Specifically, participants shared
that by dint of team members having different skill sets, while working on a team task, they
enhanced their knowledge and perspective, individually; also, as a team, they evolved. For
instance, one of the members shared, “There was critical appraisal of every idea, so we went
into detail and, in the process, we learned how to look at the same problem from different
perspectives.”
The second theme that emerged is that shared leadership led to creative problem-solving.
Participants shared that, as every member in the team were actively involved and there was
no one appointed leader, they had the freedom to question one another and critically evaluate
solutions suggested by team members. This approach participants mentioned helped in
creative problem-solving. Following is a quote from a member: “Because multiple people took
the lead, we could come up with creative solutions to the problem.”

Discussion
The study adopted a mixed method sequential explanatory design to examine the team
dynamics, which leads to shared leadership and team creativity. Given that team creativity is
a complex and dynamic phenomenon, using mixed method design facilitated a thorough
PR understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of how cognitive trust leads to shared
leadership, which in turn impacts creativity through team learning. The findings of
quantitative and qualitative data provide a comprehensive understanding of the shared
leadership phenomenon. Specific findings and theoretical contribution of the study are
presented further:

Theoretical contribution
This study extends the theory pertaining to relationship between shared leadership and trust.
Past research has found trust as a consequence of shared leadership (Drescher et al., 2014).
However, it was expected that when team members work together, members develop trust or
distrust for the team and its members, and that would determine to what extent the team
would exercise shared leadership. It was hypothesized that when the members trust in the
competence of the team, they would be willing to both lead and follow, depending on the
situation, thus leading to shared leadership. The findings of the study supported the
proposed hypotheses.
This study suggests that the degree of shared leadership demonstrated by the team would
be influenced by the degree of trust members have on their team and the competence of its
members. Therefore, trust is not just an outcome but can act as a predictor of shared
leadership in teams.
Further, it was expected that shared leadership would influence team creativity. This
study found that team learning has a mediating influence between shared leadership and
team creativity. This study suggests that shared leadership impacts team creativity by
enhancing the level of team learning, thereby impacting the number and quality of ideas
emerging from the team. Past researchers had called for future research examining various
mediating mechanisms between shared leadership and various other team outcomes (Burke
et al., 2011; Carson et al., 2007). The study by Wu and Cormican (2016) found a positive
relationship between shared leadership and team creativity but called for further studies to
examine the mediating factors between the two variables. By examining team learning as a
mediating variable, this study extends the literature of shared leadership.
The qualitative study unraveled the underlying dynamics of shared leadership and the
nature of social relationship in a team context. The findings of the qualitative component of
the study suggest that leadership role keeps shifting between the members, based on the
nature of the task. The influencing process takes place in the form of claiming and granting of
the leadership position between the team members. The efficacy of this process depends on
the self-awareness about their limitation and cognitive trust of the group members in each
other’s capability. This process is nurtured by the freedom arising out of equality and less
power difference among the team members. Expansion of the cognitive repertoire of the
group members, due to observation about the problems or challenges by the members
holding different perspectives, emerged as the key process of team learning. Multiple
perspectives, arising out of collective reflection on the issues and challenges, emerged as the
major trigger for creativity in the context of shared leadership. Psychological safety, signified
by freedom to share one’s thoughts and opinions during the group interaction arising out of
less power distance and perceived equality of the team members, seems to be one of the most
important prerequisites for the emergence and sustenance of shared leadership.

Practical implications
The managerial implications of the study are evident in the areas of team norms, team
climate, team building, leadership development and development of entrepreneurial teams.
Self-managed teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams with flatter structures are
becoming prominent features at the workplace nowadays. Peer-to-peer influence without Shared
formal authority is becoming increasingly essential to perform in these settings. Moreover, leadership and
the increasing complexity of work, particularly in the knowledge-based firms, is making it
impossible for one member to know about all aspects of the work or project. The criticality of
team creativity
the shared leadership concept is increasing with all these advances. It is imperative to
highlight the relevance of shared leadership to the teams during the forming stage itself; the
members of a team may not hold the notion of shared leadership in their implicit leadership
theories. A clear articulation through training or coaching about shared leadership will make
the members aware of this possibility and potential of claiming and granting the influence
while working in teams, which in turn encourages team creativity, creative problem-solving
and innovativeness.
The task structure and design, norms and reward system may be attuned to shared
leadership in the teams operating in knowledge-intensive jobs. Previous studies suggest that
shared leadership is more effective in knowledge-intensive work as compared to a routine
task. Shared leadership can be encouraged by enhancing interdependence in the design and
structure of the job. Norms that promote distributed power sharing and facilitate collective
reflection, experimentation, equality and intellectual freedom in the group may promote
shared leadership.
Further, the study suggests that to build such an environment, the manager would have to
build cognitive trust. Cognitive trust emerges from the knowledge that the trustee is an expert
in a given field. Thus, the study has implications for talent acquisition teams of organizations,
to assess and ensure the optimum knowledge among the members according to the team or
group that they are going to be part of.
In addition, based on the finding that shared leadership enhances team creativity, the
study has implications for teams in different settings such as research and development
professionals, student project teams and so on. Creativity is an important mandate for
research teams; development of shared leadership in such teams will help the members learn
from each other and will further enhance creativity levels of the team. Therefore, educational
institutes and research and development organizations should put in effort to enhance shared
leadership by training its members. Such efforts would be augmented if the teams are formed
in such a manner wherein members are aware about each other’s skills and trust them with
their competence.

Limitations and future direction

This study has several limitations, which can be addressed in future studies. First, the study
examines only the impact of cognitive trust on shared leadership. Future research can explore
other team-level variables such as team empowerment, team mental models (Mohammed and
Dumville, 2001), team mindfulness (Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018) and investigate how they
influence or mediate in a bid to enhance shared leadership. Similarly, various variables such
as task and process conflict can be explored as the boundary conditions to shared leadership
and team creativity relationship.
Second, although the members were working on a challenging team task, which is very
close to real-life team activities, the teams examined in the present study were student teams.
Also, the nature of shared leadership may be different in virtual teams where there is no face-
to-face interaction. Replication of the study in a virtual setting may provide important results
regarding the degree to which shared leadership is relevant in virtual teams and how the
same would impact the degree of creativity in such teams.
Third, to measure both antecedents and outcomes, self-reported measures were used. To
mitigate its negative impact, data was collected at two different time intervals. However, future
research can design the study in such a way that data pertaining to shared leadership and its
consequences are collected not only at different time intervals but also from different sources.
PR Fourth, following Carson et al. (2007), shared leadership was measured using social
network method with a single-item scale. This approach has the limitation of capturing only
the members’ implicit theories of leadership; it ignores the various behavioral dimensions of
leadership function (Carson et al., 2007). Future studies can use the social network approach
by measuring all leadership behavior.
Future studies can also focus on a detailed underlying mechanism through which
members exert or accept leadership. It seems clear that in shared leadership, multiple leaders
emerge but under what condition a member chooses to be a leader and when prefers to be a
follower would be an interesting study to explore. Also, future studies can address how
personality dimensions play a role in members’ preference for a leader/follower role even in an
equal-status team. It would be interesting to study what makes an individual who prefers a
follower status to exert leadership while working in groups. Answers to these questions
would lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon of shared leadership.

Conclusion
As organizations move toward a culture of creativity and innovativeness, there is a need to
identify various factors that promote creativity in organizations. This study examined the
effect of cognitive trust on shared leadership and the mediating effect of team learning on the
relationship between shared leadership and team creativity. It provides an important
contribution by explaining the comprehensive mechanism through which shared leadership
impacts team creativity. Our research highlights the importance of shared leadership in
creating teams and workplaces with enhanced creativity, individually as well as collectively.

Note
1. Regression imputation function of AMOS was used for imputation of latent factor scores.

References
Acar, F.P. (2010), “Analyzing the effects of diversity perceptions and shared leadership on emotional
conflict: a dynamic approach”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1733-1753.
un, A.E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. and Imamoglu, S.Z. (2007), “Antecedents and consequences of team
Akg€
potency in software development projects”, Information and Management, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 646-656.
Amabile, T.M. (1998), How to Kill Creativity, Harvard Business School Publishing Boston, MA.
Ashauer, S.A. and Macan, T. (2013), “How can leaders foster team learning? Effects of leader-assigned
mastery and performance goals and psychological safety”, The Journal of psychology, Vol. 147
No. 6, pp. 541-561.
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and
future directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 421-449.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, p. 191.
Barker, M. and Neailey, K. (1999), “From individual learning to project team learning and innovation: a
structured approach”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 60-67.
Bergman, J.Z., Rentsch, J.R., Small, E.E., Davenport, S.W. and Bergman, S.M. (2012), “The shared
leadership process in decision-making teams”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 152 No. 1,
pp. 17-42.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L. and 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, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 296-318.
Brewer, J. and Hunter, A. (2006), Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles, Sage, Shared
Thousand Oaks, CA.
leadership and
Bryman, A. (2006), “Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?”, Qualitative
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
team creativity
Burke, C.S., DiazGranados, C.S. and Salas, E. (2011), “Team leadership: a review and look ahead”, in
Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Jackson, B., Grint, K. and Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of
Leadership, Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 338-352.
Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), “Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of
antecedent conditions and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5,
pp. 1217-1234.
Chen, M.H. (2007), “Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: creativity in entrepreneurial teams”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 239-249.
Chou, H.-W., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-H. and Chuang, W.-W. (2013), “Transformational leadership and
team performance: The mediating roles of cognitive trust and collective efficacy”, Sage Open,
Vol. 3 No. 3, 2158244013497027.
Chua, R.Y.J., Ingram, P. and Morris, M.W. (2008), “From the head and the heart: locating cognition-and
affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 436-452.
Ciulla, J.B. (2017), “Trust and the future of leadership”, The Blackwell guide to business ethics, pp. 334-351.
Contractor, N.S., DeChurch, L.A., Carson, J., Carter, D.R. and Keegan, B. (2012), “The topology of
collective leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 994-1011.
Creswell, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P. (2017), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage
publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
DeCusatis, C. (2008), “Creating, growing and sustaining efficient innovation teams”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 155-164.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for
research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, p. 611.
Drescher, M.A., Korsgaard, M.A., Welpe, I.M., Picot, A. and Wigand, R.T. (2014), “The dynamics of
shared leadership: building trust and enhancing performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 99 No. 5, p. 771.
Druckman, J.N. and Kam, C.D. (2011), “Students as experimental participants”, Cambridge handbook of
experimental political science, Vol. 1, pp. 41-57.
Dunn, J., Ruedy, N.E. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2012), “It hurts both ways: how social comparisons harm
affective and cognitive trust”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 117
No. 1, pp. 2-14.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J.E. and Kukenberger, M.R. (2016), “A meta-analysis of different forms of shared
leadership–team performance relations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1964-1991.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.
Eisenbeiss, S.A., van Knippenberg, D. and Boerner, S. (2008), “Transformational leadership and team
innovation: integrating team climate principles”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, p. 1438.
Erez, A., Lepine, J.A. and Elms, H. (2002), “Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the
functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 929-948.
Ford, C.M. and Gioia, D.A. (2000), “Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision
making”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 705-732.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 382-388.
PR Friedrich, T.L., Vessey, W.B., Schuelke, M.J., Ruark, G.A. and Mumford, M.D. (2009), “A framework
for understanding collective leadership: the selective utilization of leader and team expertise
within networks”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 933-958.
Gibb, C.A., Gilbert, D. and Lindzey, G. (1954a), Leadership, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 2.
Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E. and Todorova, G. (2010), “First, get your feet wet: the effects of
learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 102-115.
Gratton, C. and Jones, I. (2010), Research Methods for Sports Studies, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.
Greene, J.C. (2007), Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Grint, K. (2000), The Arts of Leadership, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gronn, P. (2002), “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 423-451.
Gu, J., Chen, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H. and Huang, S. (2018), “A multilevel analysis of the relationship
between shared leadership and creativity in inter-organizational teams”, The Journal of Creative
Behavior, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 109-126.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrison, R.L. and Reilly, T.M. (2011), “Mixed methods designs in marketing research”, Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Highhouse, S. and Gillespie, J.Z. (2009), “Do samples really matter that much”, Statistical and
methodological myths and urban legends, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY,
pp. 247-265.
Hoch, J.E. (2013), “Shared leadership and innovation: the role of vertical leadership and employee
integrity”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 159-174.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
ulsheger, U.R., Anderson, N. and Salgado, J.F. (2009), “Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a
H€
comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, p. 1128.
IBM (2013), “Global CEO study”, available at: https://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/en/c-suite/
csuitestudy2013/.
Johnson, R.B. (2012), “Dialectical pluralism and mixed research”, American Behavioral Scientist,
Vol. 56, pp. 751-754.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose
time has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.
Joo, B.-K.B. (2007), The Impact of Contextual and Personal Characteristics on Employee Creativity in
Korean Firms, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Kanter, R.M. (1988), “When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations”, Knowledge Management and Organisational Design, Vol. 10,
pp. 93-131.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley New York, NY.
Koeslag-Kreunen, M., Van den Bossche, P., Hoven, M., Van der Klink, M. and Gijselaers, W. (2018),
“When leadership powers team learning: a meta-analysis”, Small Group Research, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 475-513.
Kozlowski, S.W. and Klein, K.J. (2000), “A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:
contextual, temporal, and emergent processes”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds),
Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: 3–90, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Lee, D.S., Lee, K.C. and Seo, Y.W. (2015), “An analysis of shared leadership, diversity, and team Shared
creativity in an e-learning environment”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 42, pp. 47-56.
leadership and
Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4,
pp. 967-985.
team creativity
Liu, D., Liao, H. and Loi, R. (2012), “The dark side of leadership: a three-level investigation of the
cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1187-1212.
Malhotra, N. and Dash, S. (2011), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Pearson Education Inc,
London.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of
recent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 410-476.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
Mayo, M., Meindl, J. and Pastor, J. (2003), “Shared leadership in work teams: a social network
approach”, in Conger, J.A. and Pearce, C.L. (Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the How’s and
Why’s of Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 193-214.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H. and Berdahl, J.L. (2000), “The study of groups: past, present, and future”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 95-105.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage Publications, London.
Mohammed, S. and Dumville, B.C. (2001), “Team mental models in a team knowledge framework:
expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology
and Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 89-106.
Mumford, M.D. (2000), “Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 313-351.
Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988), “Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and
innovation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 1, p. 27.
Nicolaides, V.C., LaPort, K.A., Chen, T.R., Tomassetti, A.J., Weis, E.J., Zaccaro, S.J. and Cortina, J.M.
(2014), “The shared leadership of teams: a meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating
relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 923-942.
Pandey, A., Gupta, V. and Gupta, R.K. (2019), “Spirituality and innovative behavior in teams:
examining the mediating role of team learning”, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 116-126.
Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-18.
Pirola-Merlo, A. and Mann, L. (2004), “The relationship between individual creativity and team
creativity: aggregating across people and time”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 235-257.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Pina e Cunha, M., Correia, A. and Saur-Amaral, I. (2007), “Leader Self-reported
emotional intelligence and perceived employee creativity: an exploratory study”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 250-264.
Reinharz, S. and Davidman, L. (1992), Feminist Methods in Social Research, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F. and Burke, C.S. (2008), Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-
Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, Routledge Academic, London.
PR Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005), “Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork?”, Small Group Research,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 555-599.
Savelsbergh, C.M., van der Heijden, B.I. and Poell, R.F. (2009), “The development and empirical
validation of a multidimensional measurement instrument for team learning behaviors”, Small
Group Research, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 578-607.
Sears, D.O. (1986), “College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social
psychology’s view of human nature”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3,
p. 515.
Serban, A. and Roberts, A.J. (2016), “Exploring antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in a
creative context: a mixed-methods approach”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 181-199.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2007), “When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in
research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, p. 1709.
Sotarauta, M. (2016), “Place leadership, governance and power”, Administration, Vol. 64 Nos 3-4,
pp. 45-58.
Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (2009), “Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem
and possible solutions”, The Sage handbook of organizational research methods, pp. 346-362.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sweeney, A., Clarke, N. and Higgs, M. (2019), “Shared leadership in commercial organizations: a
systematic review of definitions, theoretical frameworks and organizational outcomes”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 115-136.
Taggar, S. (2002), “Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a
multilevel model”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 315-330.
Wang, D., Waldman, D.A. and Zhang, Z. (2014), “A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team
effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 2, p. 181.
Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G. and McEvily, B. (2006), “All in due time: the development of trust in
computer-mediated and face-to-face teams”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 16-33.
Wu, C.M. and Chen, T.J. (2018), “Collective psychological capital: linking shared leadership,
organizational commitment, and creativity”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 74, pp. 75-84.
Wu, Q. and Cormican, K. (2016), “Shared leadership and team creativity: a social network analysis in
engineering design teams”, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 2-12.
Yu, L. and Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2018), “Introducing team mindfulness and considering its safeguard
role against conflict transformation and social undermining”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 324-347.

Corresponding author
Shiji Lyndon can be contacted at: shiji@somaiya.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com