New Forms of Management Shared and Distributed Leadership in Organizations

Abstract

Shared leadership is defined 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’’. The initial work on shared leadership has demonstrated that it can have a powerful influence on group attitudes, behavior, cognition, and performance. Much work, nonetheless, needs to be done to advance the study of shared leadership. The authors of the six articles in this special issue tackle a wide scope of issues that are critical to moving forward the study of shared leadership theory. Some articles are conceptual while others are empirical. Of the conceptual articles, one provides a broad comprehensive overview while the other focuses specifically on methods for the study of shared leadership. Of the empirical articles, two use qualitative analysis, one uses multiple regression and one uses social network analysis and multiple regression. Together, these articles place a firm stake in the ground on the state-of-the-art thinking in shared leadership theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

Special Issue: Shared Leadership
Editorial
New Forms of Management
Shared and Distributed Leadership in Organizations
Craig L. Pearce,
1
Julia Elisabeth Hoch,
2
Hans Jeppe Jeppesen,
3
and Jürgen Wegge
2
1
Institute for Innovative Leadership, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA,
2
Department of Psychology, TU Dresden, Germany,
3
Department of Psychology, Aarhus University,
Denmark
Historically, the primary focus of the study of leadership has
been on hierarchical leadership: The relationship of leaders to
their followers, their style of control, how productive their
group is under their guidance, as well as various other individ-
ual, group, and organizational outcomes (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Recently, however, there has been a movement away from
simply focusing onthe leader to an increased interest in under-
standing those around the leader (Hoch, Pearce, & Welzel,
2010; Pearce, 2008; Wassenaar, Pearce, Hoch, & Wegge,
2010; Yukl, 2002), the followers (Riggio, Chaleff, &
Lipman-Blumen, 2008), and how they interact with the leader
and each other. This has opened a new avenue for conceptu-
alizing leadership beyond that of a simple hierarchical role to
an unfolding social process most commonly termed shared
leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003), yet similar terms such
as collective, collaborative, and distributed leadership have
also entered the lexicon, along with long-standing terms such
as involvement, participation, and organizational democracy
(Wegge et al., 2010). Shared leadership is defined 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’’
(Pearce & Conger, 2003, p. 1). The initial work on shared
leadership has demonstrated that it can have a powerful influ-
ence on group attitudes, behavior, cognition, and performance
(see Wassenaar & Pearce, in press a, b, for reviews). Much
work, nonetheless, needs to be done to advance the study of
shared leadership.
Accordingly, the purpose of this special issue is to pro-
vide a forum to further our understanding of shared leader-
ship and related constructs. In the past few decades, this
particular form of leadership has gained in relevance both
in its practical application in the workplace and in scientific
research, due to the increased importance of knowledge
work (Drucker, 1968; Pearce, 2010).
Shared leadership occurs when group members actively
and intentionally shift the role of leader to one another as
necessitated by the environment or circumstances in which
the group operates. Clearly, this type of leadership is a depar-
ture from the traditional understanding of the hierarchical lea-
der where the influence and decision making travel
downstream from the vertical leader to the followers (Day,
Gronn, & Salas, 2004, 2006; Day & O’Connor, 2003; Pearce
& Sims, 2000, 2002). Withshared leadership, the role of lead-
ership does not rest in one person’s hands, but rather, in the
group’s arms as they move together toward common
objectives.
Pearce and Conger (2003) have indicated that there has
been a shift in the scholarly community where some have
taken to the notion that leadership is actually a process that
can be taught, shared, distributed, and collectively enacted.
These scholars have also begun to popularize the view that
leadership does not have to solely originate from a hierarchi-
cal leader but, rather, can derive from any member of a group
or social system, depending on the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of those involved and the demands of the task
at hand.
The authors of the six articles in this special issue tackle
a wide scope of issues that are critical to moving forward the
study of shared leadership theory. Some articles are concep-
tual while others are empirical. Of the conceptual articles,
one provides a broad comprehensive overview while the
other focuses specifically on methods for the study of shared
leadership. Of the empirical articles, two use qualitative
Ó2010 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(4):151–153
DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000022

analysis, one uses multiple regression and one uses social
network analysis and multiple regression. Together, these
articles place a firm stake in the ground on the state-
of-the-art thinking in shared leadership theory.
Overview of the Articles in This Special Issue
The lead article in this special issue by Wegge and col-
leagues (2010) is broad and encompassing. The authors pro-
vide an extremely comprehensive review of the various
mechanisms through which employees can be engaged
and involved in leadership processes in organizations. Their
review ranges from employee participation practices to orga-
nizational democracy, and it identifies a panoply of paths for
creating more humane, engaging, and satisfying work envi-
ronments. It is a foundational piece from which much future
research can draw.
Next, Gockel and Werth (2010) provide a helpful
description of the various methods that have been used
and offer an alternative approach to measure shared leader-
ship in organizations. Their description of current methods is
accurate and informative. Their ideas on alternative
approaches are proactive. Surely new insights can be gained
from their stimulating overview.
Weibler and Rohn-Endres (2010) then provide a
grounded theory development paper. In their research they
hone in on social networks to discover that a focus on
‘‘learning conversations’’ is critical to the development of
shared leadership. They integrate their findings with work
on shared leadership and offer future researchers a platform
from which to conduct new studies on shared leadership in
organizational networks.
Moving into quantitatively testing shared leadership the-
ory, Boies, Lvina, and Martens (2010) examine the effects of
shared transformational, as well as shared passive avoidant,
leadership in a business simulation. They report that trust
and potency are positively related to shared transformational
leadership while being negatively related to shared passive
avoidant leadership, and that shared passive avoidant leader-
ship is negatively related to team performance. This study
serves to further fix the research gap that exists in shared
leadership theory.
Next, Small and Rentsch (2010) explore the importance
of the distribution of shared leadership in social networks.
Their work sheds important light on the finer dynamics of
shared leadership. Moreover, their work is longitudinal,
enhancing our ability to draw causal interpretations. They
provide an excellent example of work that gives keen insight
into the dynamics of shared leadership. Much can be built
on this example of quantitative analysis of shared
leadership.
Finally, Manz, Manz, Adams, and Shipper (2010) report
on a rich qualitative investigation of shared leadership at an
innovative furniture manufacturer more noted for the com-
pany’s values-based approach to the organization. Through
their in-depth study, the authors develop an interesting
grounded research-based model of how shared leadership,
shared values, and sustained performance are inextricably
linked. It is an intriguing model that should form the basis
of future quantitative research.
The Future of Organizational Leadership
As we forge further into the knowledge era, our models of
leadership will continue to evolve to embrace the paradig-
matic shift away from leadership as merely a hierarchical
role to leadership as an unfolding social process, that is, a
shared leadership-type perspective (Wassenaar et al.,
2010). Is shared leadership a panacea? No. There will nearly
always be some call for hierarchical leadership in our mod-
ern organizations (Leavitt, 2005). As documented by several
rigorous studies (e.g., Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006;
Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2002;
Shamir & Lapidot, 2003), shared and hierarchical leadership
work synergistically to effect individual, group, and organi-
zational outcomes.
Developing true shared leadership, however, is
challenging. That said, we believe that nearly all people
are capable of being both leaders and followers and these
new leadership approaches are imperative for the age of
knowledge work (Pearce, 2010). Although there are circum-
stances where shared leadership approaches might not work,
the research demonstrates shared leadership can positively
affect a group’s attitudes, cognition, behavior, and
effectiveness.
Understanding all of this still does not mean that shared
leadership is the proper path for all circumstances. It may,
for example, not be appropriate for certain types of tasks.
Additionally, organizational members need to be receptive
to the idea or concept of sharing leadership if it is to suc-
ceed. Some resistance to shared leadership may, for instance,
be cultural (Pearce, 2008). As an example, the cultural attri-
bute of power distance (Hofstede, 1980) can affect how
likely group members are to embrace the concept of shared
leadership: People who hail from cultures high in power dis-
tance are less likely to be able to easily grasp the notion of
shared leadership, yet this is something that would benefit
from future research. Also, shared leadership will not work
if those in the group simply do not understand how to per-
form the tasks required of them. This could be the case for a
variety of reasons, such as newness to the project, training
level, or even perhaps member disposition. These are just
a few of the possible limitations to the development of
shared leadership in organizations.
While this special issue clearly tills new ground when it
comes to understanding shared leadership, it is equally clear
that far more research is sorely needed, not only on shared
leadership outcomes but also on its antecedents and moder-
ators. While some of the articles presented here present addi-
tional evidence, others provide new tools to facilitate future
scientific inquiry. As this research continues to expand our
knowledge of how people interact and build new forms of
influence, the results of these investigations will yield further
insights for the organizations of tomorrow.
152 Editorial
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(4):151–153 Ó2010 Hogrefe Publishing

References
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of
leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Boies, K., Lvina, E., & Martens, M. L. (2010). Shared leadership
and team performance in a business strategy simulation.
Journal of Personnel Psychology,9, 195–202.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in
teams. Leadership Quarterly,15, 857–880.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-
based organizations: On the threshold of a new era.
Leadership Quarterly,17, 211–216.
Day, D. V., & O’Connor, P. M. G. (2003). Leadership develop-
ment: Understanding the process. In S. E. Murphy & R. E.
Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 11–
28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Drucker, P. F. (1968). The age of discontinuity. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
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 perfor-
mance of startups. Leadership Quarterly,17, 217–231.
Gockel, C., & Werth, L. (2010). Measuring and modeling shared
leadership: Traditional approaches and new ideas. Journal of
Personnel Psychology,9, 172–180.
Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Welzel, L. (2010). Is the most
effective team leadership shared? The impact of shared
leadership, age diversity and coordination on team perfor-
mance. Journal of Personnel Psychology,9, 105–116.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International
difference in work related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and
shared leadership: Rethinking the motivation and structuring
of knowledge work. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),
Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership (pp. 217–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leavitt, H. J. (2005). Top down: Why Hierarchies are here to
stay and how to manage them more effectively. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Manz, C., Manz, K. P., Adams, S. B., & Shipper, F. (2010). A
model of values-based shared leadership and sustainable
performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology,9, 212–217.
Pearce, C. L. (2008, July 7). Follow the leaders. The Wall Street
Journal, p. R8.
Pearce, C. L. (2010). Leading knowledge workers: Beyond the era
of command and control. In C. L. Pearce, J. A. Maciariello, &
H. Yamawaki (Eds.), The Drucker difference (pp. 35–46). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.), Shared Leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a
multi-level theory of leadership. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A.
Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisci-
plinary studies of work teams (pp. 115–139). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared
leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change
management teams: An examination of aversive, directive,
transactional, transformational, and empowering leader
behaviors. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice,
6, 172–197.
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008).
The art of followership: How great followers create great
leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Shared leadership in the
management of group boundaries: A study of expulsions from
officers’ training courses. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger
(Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership (pp. 235–249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Small, E. E., & Rentsch, J. R. (2010). Shared leadership in
teams: A matter of distribution. Journal of Personnel
Psychology,9, 203–211.
Wassenaar, C. L., & Pearce, C. L. (in press a). Shared leadership
2.0: A 2010 glimpse into the state of the field. In M. Uhl-
Bien, & S. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership
theory. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Wassenaar, C. L., & Pearce, C. L. (in press b). The nature of
shared leadership. In J. Antonakis & D. Day (Eds.), The
nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wassenaar, C. L., Pearce, C. L., Hoch, J., & Wegge, J. (2010).
Shared leadership meets virtual teams: A match made in
cyberspace. In P. Yoong (Ed.), Leadership in the digital
enterprise: Issues and challenges (pp. 15–27). Hersey, PA:
IGI Global.
Wegge, J., Jeppesen, H. J., Weber, W. G., Pearce, C. L., Silva,
S., Pundt, A., ... Piecha, A. (2010). Promoting work
motivation in organizations: Should employee involvement
in organizational leadership become a new tool in the
organizational psychologist’s kit? Journal of Personnel
Psychology,9, 154–171.
Weibler, J., & Rohn-Endres, S. (2010). Learning conversation
and shared network leadership: Development, gestalt, and
consequences. Journal of Personnel Psychology,9, 181–194.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Craig L. Pearce
Institute for Innovative Leadership
Management
CBA 114L
P.O. Box 880491
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0491
USA
Tel. +1 402 472-0921
E-mail craig.l.pearce@gmail.com
Editorial 153
Ó2010 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(4):151–153