Content uploaded by Katrien Fransen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katrien Fransen on Oct 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Standard Article
Leadership
2023, Vol. 0(0) 1–41
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17427150231200033
journals.sagepub.com/home/lea
The advantages and
disadvantages of different
implementations of shared
leadership in organizations:
A qualitative study
Charlotte M Edelmannand Filip Boen
Department of Movement Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Jeroen Stouten
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Gert Vande Broek and Katrien Fransen
Department of Movement Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
The leadership literature has mainly considered shared leadership as a unified concept, overlooking
the fact that it comes in many forms. However, the shift to shared leadership may not always yield
favorable outcomes (Mumford et al., 2012). Knowing the benefits and challenges of different shared
leadership implementations is crucial as it can either strengthen or undermine the overall effec-
tiveness of shared leadership. To gain insights into the perceived (dis)advantages associated with
different implementations of shared leadership, 35 qualitative interviews were conducted with
employees across diverse organizational contexts. Participants were prompted to envision different
shared leadership formats and to evaluate these hypothetical formats by articulating their potential
(dis)advantages: (1) formally appointing peer leaders versus informal leadership (providing insights
on the role of jealousy experienced by the formal leader and the ideal selection method of peer
leaders); (2) having one peer leader versus several peer leaders take on leadership; and (3) having
one versus multiple peer leaders for a leadership role. A thematic analysis revealed several benefits
and challenges of each implementation, providing a more balanced view of this leadership model.
Erasmus School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Charlotte M Edelmann, Department of Movement Sciences, KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, box 1500, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
Email: edelmann@essb.eur.nl
Correction (September 2023): Article updated to correct the author sequence.
Based on these findings, we formulate four suggestions to address potential challenges of im-
plementing shared leadership; (1) to involve the formal leader in all stages of implementation, (2) to
adopt a transparent selection process for peer leaders, (3) to provide clear role definitions for role
clarity, and (4) to have leadership (roles) fulfilled by multiple peer leaders to reduce reliance on
a single leader.
Keywords
shared leadership, teams, peer leaders, formal leader, leadership roles, qualitative research
Introduction
The widespread adoption of cross-functional teams and the growing recognition of the importance of
shared leadership have contributed to the rapid expansion of shared leadership theory and practice
(Pearce and Conger, 2003). In the literature, shared leadership has been 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 and Conger, 2003: page
1). It is important to emphasize that formal leaders are not made redundant when leadership is shared
with the team (Barry, 1991). Rather, scholars argue that formal leaders play an important role in its
effective implementation as they can initiate shared leadership in teams (Seibert et al., 2003).
Furthermore, formal authorities can ensure that deadlines are met, decisions are made, and the
desired output is achieved (Ulhøi and Müller, 2014). Given that both formal leadership and shared
leadership can complement each other (e.g., team members taking up leadership aspects that the
formal leader cannot fulfill properly due to a lack of time or skills; Zhu et al., 2018), the present study
will focus on shared leadership in teams including a formal leader, as opposed to self-steering teams.
The advantages and disadvantages of shared leadership
Although numerous empirical studies show that different structures of shared leadership have
a direct positive impact on work outcomes such as team effectiveness, job satisfaction, and team
cohesion (Drescher and Garbers, 2016;Mathieu et al., 2015;Pearce and Sims, 2002), some studies
have failed to find these relations (e.g., Gressick and Derry, 2010;Fausing et al., 2013;Mehra
et al., 2006). Due to the raising concerns that shared leadership may not always yield the expected
benefits in practice and thus is not uniformly positive (e.g., Hanna et al., 2021;Lanaj and
Hollenbeck, 2015), leadership researchers increasingly point to the potential dark side of shared
leadership (e.g., Pearce et al., 2007). Recent empirical research has demonstrated that shared
leadership fosters positive outcomes, but at the same time can be detrimental to team performance
(e.g., Boies et al., 2010) and may have negative impacts on team members like role stress, within-
team power struggle, interpersonal conflicts, and knowledge hiding (Ji, 2018;Wang and Peng,
2022;Zhao, 2013). According to the team power literature, the continuous shift of influence
between team members typical in shared leadership might lead to ambiguous power boundaries,
thereby increasing friction, interpersonal conflicts, and competition (e.g., Greer et al., 2018). For
instance, with the numerous dualistic relationships that emerge in shared leadership structures
with multiple peer leaders (i.e., team members being a leader in one role, but a follower in other
roles), the leader-follower boundaries can become fuzzy (Nicolaides et al., 2014). In turn, shared
leadership might lead to decreased team performance and team creativity due to groupthink,
2Leadership 0(0)
inefficient decision-making processes, and dispersion of team responsibility (Chen and Zhang,
2022;Zhu et al., 2018).
For formal leaders, shared leadership is considered a powerful supplement as it alleviates their
work pressure (Shane Wood and Fields, 2007). But at the same time, Chen and Zhang (2022) state in
their review that shared leadership might also be detrimental to formal leaders, as it may lead to
psychological territorial loss and declined motivation to lead. In addition, formal leaders can face
contradictory demands when introducing shared leadership structures. Paradoxically, formal leaders
are expected to create a less hierarchical system and to act as an integral part of the team, while also
setting themselves apart and above the team (e.g., to initiate and coordinate the process of leadership
delegation; Fletcher and K¨
aufer, 2003). This contradiction can in turn hamper team members’belief
in the principles of shared leadership.
The above findings show that shared leadership can have both positive and destructive effects on
the team. According to Roth (2022), the overly optimistic view on shared leadership is the result of
experimental studies that are often too brief to accurately mirror everyday organizational life. As
a result, the social context and boundary conditions that usually develop over longer periods (e.g.,
social relationships, routines, cultures) are systematically excluded when studying the emergence of
peer leaders (Roth, 2022).
However, there is ample evidence that contextual factors do play a role in determining leadership
effectiveness (Podsakoff et al., 1996). In shared leadership in particular, the claiming and granting
process of leadership (Holm and Fairhurst, 2018) can be influenced by biases, such as amicable
relationships among team members. A friend is considered more legitimized in the eyes of a team
member to take up leadership than merely a colleague (Casciaro et al., 2014). Other biases that can
affect the effectiveness of shared leadership include self-similarity and (gender) stereotypes (Roth,
2022). Another social factor that appeared to be relevant to leader emergence is the degree to which
there is a shared team vision (Zhang et al., 2012).
On the task level, research has demonstrated that shared leadership is more effective in job
contexts characterized by higher levels of task interdependence (Nicolaides et al., 2014), a greater
variety of required skills (Liu et al., 2014), increased task complexity (Bligh et al., 2006), and
a greater need for task creativity (Lemoine et al., 2015). With respect to team characteristics, the
effects of shared leadership on desired work outcomes were stronger in virtual teams (Drescher and
Garbers, 2016), teams with shorter tenure (Nicolaides et al., 2014), greater diversity (Hoch, 2014),
and higher levels of required task-related competence (Chiu et al., 2016).
Given that leadership and context are naturally intertwined, researchers and practitioners need to
bear in mind contextual factors to fully understand why shared leadership structures can be suc-
cessful (or not), thereby maximizing intervention effectiveness (Kwamie et al., 2014). Moreover,
scholars have proposed to look at more precise forms of shared leadership and different role
configurations based on social network measurements (e.g., Zhu et al., 2018). For example,
maximally centralized networks consist of only one peer leader in the team, while in minimally
centralized networks the leadership is equally dispersed among the team members (Borgatti et al.,
2013). Research indicates that excessive sharing of leadership might have a negative influence on
work teams (Chen and Zhang, 2022). In this regard, the effectiveness of shared leadership may vary
depending on the specific forms of leadership dispersion employed.
Yet, one major shortcoming within the existing shared leadership literature is the tendency to treat
shared leadership as one unified construct, without making distinctions between different im-
plementations when investigating its effectiveness. This issue becomes evident when considering
the diverse terminology utilized in the shared leadership literature, such as collective, distributed,
emergent, or co-leadership (Offermann and Scuderi, 2009), which lacks clear delineation and is
Edelmann et al. 3
inconsistently applied by researchers. As observed by Offermann and Scuderi (2009), these terms
have been used interchangeably or have been employed with varying meanings by different re-
searchers. This inconsistent concept usage causes ambiguity and complicates the already vague
nature of shared leadership (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016). This unclarity calls for research in which
distinctive conceptualizations are concretized and empirically studied.
Moreover, the literature varies in terms of the form and degree to which leadership is shared. First,
some shared leadership articles include the vertical leader as part of the shared leadership dynamic
(e.g., Ali et al., 2020;Edelmann et al., 2020;Seibert et al., 2003). In contrast, other articles do not
mention the role of the vertical leader at all (e.g., Acar, 2010;Bligh et al., 2006; see Manheim, 2017)
possibly because some authors argue that shared leadership is most effective in self-steering teams
without a formal leader (e.g., Barry, 1991;Seers, 1996). Second, shared leadership is conceptualized
either as a role structure with multiple leadership functions and roles or as a process of sharing
influence (see Contractor et al., 2012;Manheim, 2017). Third, some scholars follow the notion that
shared leadership is mainly an informal interaction among peers who exert influence on each other as
equals (an effortless, non-systematic, and unplanned course of action, Carson et al., 2007;Morgeson
et al., 2009), while others view it as a formally adopted and planned approach implemented by
a team or organization (e.g., with a designated leader or set of leaders Friedrich et al., 2009;Klein
et al., 2006). This poses a problem, as employing the same term (i.e., shared leadership) for different
concepts is likely to yield divergent conclusions regarding the effectiveness of shared leadership
(D’Innocenzo et al., 2016).
In addition to the ambiguity surrounding its definition and form, Zhu et al. (2018) note that shared
leadership has also been operationalized in distinct ways. Some researchers measure “the extent to
which team members collectively engage in leadership behaviors […], while others intend to capture
the extent to which leadership is decentralized […]”(page 835). DeRue et al. (2015) go even further
to assert that previous shared leadership research predominantly focuses on the extent to which
leadership is shared within the team (i.e., density) rather than how leadership is shared within the
team (i.e., centralization). Consequently, prior research on shared leadership has not comprehen-
sively assessed the leadership structure within teams, and further insights are needed into how
leadership (roles) are distributed among team members (e.g., implementations where leadership is
fulfilled by one vs multiple team members). Investigating those distinct implementations in greater
nuance constitutes a key step to moving towards a more balanced perspective of both positive and
negative implications of shared leadership.
The present study
The purpose of this study is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the perceived (dis)
advantages of different implementations. This will be done by inquiring about employees’views on
potential benefits and, especially, challenges of specific shared leadership formats. Despite its rather
hypothetical nature, this approach enables us to capture the different risks that employees assume for
each approach. We intentionally avoided selecting individuals with prior experience in shared
leadership, as their experiences would have been limited to a specific situation or context. The
experiences of one team in a particular scenario do not necessarily apply universally to all teams.
Shared leadership can be implemented in various ways, and it is unlikely to find participants who
have encountered different implementations. Furthermore, even if such participants were available,
their experiences would still be influenced by the contextual factors at play, such as the quality of the
formal leader overseeing the process. Therefore, to obtain an unbiased perspective, we opted for
4Leadership 0(0)
participants without explicit experience in shared leadership and focused on examining the (dis)
advantages in a broader sense, detached from any specific context.
In doing so, we heed the call of scholars to address how the potential negative impact of shared
leadership can be mitigated through appropriate implementation strategies (e.g., Zhu et al., 2018),
thereby contributing to the advancement of shared leadership theory. Based on scholar’s suggestion
to “further subdivide shared leadership when exploring its impact”(Chen and Zhang, 2022: page
12), we distinguish between three forms in which leadership can be shared (i.e., as a formal vs
informal process, spread throughout the team vs centered on one peer leader, and multiple leaders vs
one leader per leadership role). In the following paragraphs, these three forms will be introduced in
succession together with their corresponding issues (e.g., theoretical contradictions, potential
drawbacks). Each paragraph then directly results in a research question that we seek to answer for the
respective form of shared leadership. In addition to these three research questions, we will also
explore the issue of jealousy encountered by formal leaders as an additional challenge when ap-
pointing peer leaders within the team. Examining discrete emotions such as jealousy can enhance
our understanding of the role emotions play in organizational behavior when leadership is shared.
Formally appointed leaders versus informal leaders
Researchers distinguish between shared leadership as an informal process (i.e., team members
naturally emerging as peer leaders; Morgeson et al., 2009) and as a formal process, whereby team
members are officially selected and appointed as peer leaders and thus hold a designated leadership
position within the team (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016). Scholars have argued that when team members
are not explicitly selected and appointed as peer leaders, this can lead to confusion and ambiguity
regarding decision-making rights, possibly leading to conflicts within the team and further impairing
team effectiveness (Hogler et al., 2009). Indeed, while traditionally only the formal leader has the
authority to make (final) decisions, the presence of peer leaders in the team can create uncertainty
regarding which team member holds the authority to make certain decisions. Such unclarity can be
especially harmful in urgent situations in which there is limited time to reflect, and decisions need to
be made quickly (Manheim, 2017).
Although formally appointing peer leaders in the team (rather than letting them naturally emerge)
can possibly reduce this confusion about decision power, such a formal structure may have
downsides as well. Not every team member who can take the lead should also take the lead. For
example, team members’personality traits were found to predict leadership emergence perceptions
more strongly than perceived leadership effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002). This implies that an
individual who is perceived as highly extroverted may emerge as a leader but may not be effective in
fulfilling their leadership responsibilities (i.e., leadership overemergence; Lanaj and Hollenbeck,
2015).
In contrast, those who are appointed as peer leaders against their wishes may experience role
overload or exhaustion (Hanna et al., 2021). On a related note, peer leaders need to be recognized by
their team members as occupying a leadership position. If team members disagree with the formal
appointment of a peer leader, the leadership structure becomes fragmented. In turn, decisions are not
based on the perspective of the team, which has a disruptive effect on the team’s performance (e.g.,
conflicts arise; Roth, 2022). More empirical insights are needed about the consequences of in-
appropriate leader emergence as well as the appropriate selection method when formally appointing
peer leaders.
Hanna et al. (2021) argue that the impact of shared leadership needs to be viewed from both the
individual and the team level. Indeed, in their recent literature review, Chen and Zhang (2022) noted
Edelmann et al. 5
that most researchers explore the negative impact of shared leadership from the perspective of
individual team members, the formal leader, and the team as a whole. Similarly, shared leadership
and hierarchical leadership by the formal leader usually coexist and are deeply intertwined (Holm
and Fairhurst, 2018). However, the shared leadership literature has been criticized for its positivity
bias, which tends to overlook the issues of competition and power that can potentially disrupt the
interrelationship between leaders over time (e.g., Denis et al., 2012;Gronn, 2015). As Yammarino
et al. (2015) point out, “given that hierarchical or vertical leadership and shared leadership are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, there is a need for future work on the interaction between these two
types of leadership”(page 391). This raises the question of the implications of formally appointing
peer leaders, not only for the team members, but also for the formal leader of the team. For instance,
when sharing leadership with their team, fewer opportunities remain for formal leaders to develop
their own leadership skills (Zhu et al., 2018). It can be concluded that the official assignment of
leadership to team members can bring benefits and risks, thereby resulting in the first research
question:
Research Question 1a: What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of formally
appointing peer leaders in the team, for (1) team members and (2) formal leaders?
Counteracting jealousy by the formal leader
Appointing peer leaders within a team presents an additional challenge, as it can lead to tensions
between the formal leader and the peer leaders (Hanna et al., 2021). This tension arises due to
a perceived violation of the formal leader’s psychological territory, which encompasses their at-
titudes and behaviors associated with perceived control over the work environment (Brown, 2014).
When peer leaders encroach upon tasks traditionally under the purview of the formal leader, Zhu
et al. (2018) argue that the formal leader may experience “psychological territory infringement”
(PTI; Brown et al., 2005). This threat of authority can, in turn, undermine the formal leader’s self-
efficacy and motivation to lead, thereby inhibiting their own leadership development (Zhu et al.,
2018).
In addition, this infringement of psychological territory has been found to induce negative
emotions in the formal leader, such as jealousy, and may lead to abusive leadership toward team
members (Brown and Robinson, 2011). Jealousy, sometimes used interchangeably with envy, arises
from social comparison and is a common emotion experienced in work settings characterized by
intense competition for limited resources (Gonzalez-Navarro et al., 2018;Liu et al., 2021). Spe-
cifically, jealousy emerges when individuals both lack and desire the exceptional possessions or
qualities of others. It is accompanied by feelings of fear of loss, anger over perceived betrayal, and
inappropriate malice (Salovey and Rodin, 1984;Vecchio, 1995). Jealousy can manifest among co-
workers in relation to intangible resources, such as a particular status or position. Similarly, when
team members assume leadership responsibilities that encroach upon the formal leader’s territory,
the formal leader may experience downward jealousy toward them.
Scholars have highlighted the potential risk of a leader experiencing jealousy towards followers,
particularly when the followers demonstrate high performance or assume tasks traditionally carried
out by the formal leader (Leheta et al., 2017). This negative emotion has been argued to give rise to
competition, hostility, and counterproductive work behaviors (Gonzalez-Navarro et al., 2018).
Formal leaders who perceive a loss of authority due to the emergence of peer leaders in their team are
thus likely to engage in actions aimed at elevating themselves or undermining the peer leader(s). For
example, a formal leader may initially encourage team members to assume leadership roles but
6Leadership 0(0)
subsequently disregard their decisions or dominate the discussions (Holm and Fairhurst, 2018).
Whether negative emotions like jealousy are indeed perceived to play a role in shared leadership will
be studied as part of the first research question:
Research Question 1b: Will formal leaders experience jealousy when appointing peer leaders in
their team, and if so, how can such feelings be counteracted?
Next, teams that opt for such a formal shared leadership approach in which peer leaders are
officially appointed, may then face additional challenges depending on how those peer leaders are
selected (e.g., anonymously vs open group discussion). To avoid the perception of favoritism, it is
important that such decisions are communicated in a transparent manner (Chaput, 2012). Moreover,
another point of discussion pertains to who is involved in this process. For instance, McClean et al.
(2018) argue that formal leaders establish differential relationships or allocate resources differently
among team members, which may have an influence on who is considered leaderlike and most likely
to emerge as a peer leader. Consequently, once the formal appointment of peer leaders is deemed
beneficial, the following question arises:
Research Question 1c: Who ideally makes the decision about which team members to appoint to
which leadership role, and in what way?
One versus multiple leaders taking up leadership in the team
Shared leadership should be seen as a continuum and can be conceptualized as a collective process in
which the leadership influence is either widely (and evenly) distributed among the entire team or
provided by only one or a select number of team members (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016). In their
review, Zhu et al. (2018) have already proposed to “investigate whether it is more effective to let
different team members take on different leadership functions or it is more effective to let team
members co-perform all leadership functions”(page 30). Each form of leadership dispersion has its
pros and cons.
On the one hand, having all team members take up leadership roles may lead to maximal
sharedness of leadership, but may bring about negative consequences (e.g., overemergence of
leaders; Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015). Raelin (2018) also argues that in order to keep harmony, team
members will tend to agree with each other without critically evaluating each other’s perspective
(i.e., groupthink) and no one is accountable anymore, possibly resulting in a laissez-faire style.
Besides, team members can differ in their motivation to lead as well as their abilities and relationship
qualities, which can affect the emergence of shared leadership (e.g., DeRue et al., 2011;Zhu et al.,
2018). For instance, unmotivated team members will be less likely to collaborate to create a structure
of shared leadership. Moreover, Zhu et al. (2018) note that coordination failures, information
overload, or social loafing are likely to arise when all team members become leaders. Thus, (es-
pecially complex) responsibilities may best be managed by fewer peer leaders (D’Innocenzo et al.,
2016).
At the opposite extreme, having only one peer leader in the team may not be ideal either. Here, the
whole leadership rests on the shoulders of this one person. A person who lacks the personal re-
sources (i.e., capability, time, and energy) needed to fulfill the different leadership roles, may
experience role overload, stress, and burnout that “attenuate or eliminate the effects of sharing
leadership”(Eatough et al., 2011;Houghton et al., 2015: page 324).
Then again, the optimal dispersion of leadership influence may lie somewhere between both ex-
tremes. Indeed, having multiple peer leaders is argued to be advantageous as a single individual is
Edelmann et al. 7
unlikely to possess all the knowledge and expertise needed for the different roles (Nicolaides et al., 2014).
Also, being able to share the burden of leadership can avoid role overload and ensures the continuation of
that leadership role behavior (i.e., backup behavior; Dust and Ziegert, 2016). For example, when a peer
leader responsible for a certain role is absent or has difficulties with the role, another leader can
(temporarily) take over the role, making the team more resilient to disruptive events. In their review of
multi-leader teams, Dust and Ziegert (2016) also describe that the interaction of multiple leaders creates
a synergy that fosters diversity of thought (due to the different experiences and backgrounds of the peer
leaders). Drawing on the team diversity literature, capitalizing on the unique knowledge of each peer
leader enables the team to have a more information-rich perspective on their work tasks (Dust and
Ziegert, 2016), thereby enhancing team effectiveness (Wang et al., 2014).
However, appointing multiple peer leaders also bears the risk of noticeable power inequalities
within the team (Nicolaides et al., 2014). Teams in which multiple members display influence
behaviors were found to compete for this influence, and this competition harmed team functioning
(Groysberg et al., 2011;Greer, 2014). This is because power struggles among peer leaders can lead
to task and relationship conflicts (Hanna et al., 2021), especially when peer leaders are reluctant to
assume the role of followers and defer to other peer leaders. Relatedly, those team members who are
not selected as peer leaders at all may experience feelings of exclusion and jealousy. Moreover,
scholars note that it takes more time and effort to discuss and coordinate the different leadership roles
(e.g., to avoid miscommunications; Brass and Krackhardt, 1999; see Dust and Ziegert, 2016). The
opposing arguments for each form of leadership dispersion beg the question of whether the
leadership can best be distributed throughout the team (i.e., multiple peer leaders), rather than
centered on a single team member (i.e., one peer leader), as is formulated in:
Research Question 2: What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of having multiple
peer leaders in the team (compared to only one peer leader)?
One versus multiple leaders on a particular leadership role
While shared leadership can manifest itself by team members taking up “leadership in general”,in
some teams, there is a clear distinction between different responsibilities (i.e., what we refer to as
leadership roles). The latter format is in line with the functional leadership theory (McGrath, 1962),
which posits that leadership is not a unidimensional construct but rather encompasses a range of
specific functional roles that leaders can or should fulfill based on the team’s needs (Contractor et al.,
2012;Morgeson et al., 2009).
In the practice of shared leadership, these roles are often appointed to team members based on
their individual skills, personalities, or interests (Chiu et al., 2016). However, it can be a challenge
for a team to properly divide the different functional leadership roles across team members and to
choose whether to appoint one or multiple peer leaders for each role. While some scholars argue that
sharing one role with multiple individuals is beneficial, other scholars claim the opposite. More
specifically, O’Toole et al. (2002) claim that assigning multiple leaders to a leadership role can
actually lead to greater success, especially when a situation is so complex (e.g., during times of
change) that a broader set of skills is required than one leader can possess. Moreover, sharing a role
with other peer leaders can alleviate the stress levels of those responsible for fulfilling that role
(Evaggelia and Vitta, 2012). On the other hand, there are arguments that “it might be good to share
the burden of leading, but too many cooks might spoil the broth”(Gockel and Werth, 2010: page
179). In addition to the risks of free-riding and social loafing that may occur when multiple peer
leaders are appointed to a role, uncertainties can arise regarding the distribution of authority and the
8Leadership 0(0)
specific responsibilities assigned to each co-performing peer leader. Such role ambiguity can, in turn,
pose a challenge to effective team functioning (Burke et al., 2003). Besides, the conflict management
literature argues that the coexistence of multiple peer leaders who simultaneously exercise power
(i.e., leadership) over each other results in negative dynamics (e.g., tensions and conflicts; Greer,
2014). In line with the dominance complementarity theory, this negative impact would be more
prominent in teams with less diverse resources of leadership influence (Sinha et al., 2021). Scholars’
mixed opinions on whether a leadership role should be shared leads us to our third research question:
Research Question 3: What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of appointing
multiple peer leaders for one leadership role (compared to one leader for one role)?
Method
Research approach
The present study had a qualitative, inductive research design with the aim to collect different
perceptions on the benefits and challenges of shared leadership. These different perceptions can best
be captured by qualitative approaches through which common patterns and themes are generated,
especially for explorative research purposes (Gratton and Jones, 2010). Given our bottom-up
approach in this study, we opted for in-depth interviews to fully capture the participants’perceptions
and responses to our research questions.
For inductive study designs and data-driven analyses like ours, the principles of Grounded
Theory generally apply (GT; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). More specifically, the aim of GT as
a methodology is to produce knowledge i.e. grounded in data (i.e., participants’own perceptions) in
the absence of any specific hypotheses by the researchers (Chun Tie et al., 2019;Hannah et al.,
2008). Consistent with these principles of GT, data was collected across various types of organ-
izations, followed by thematic analysis in which we coded the stated responses per research
question. Coded responses that were similar in content were then classified and labeled as a clearly
defined (dis)advantage. Based on this final classification, a set of distinct higher-order themes of the
(dis)advantages were retrieved.
Data collection
Sampling procedure. A purposive, stratified sampling approach was administered for the recruitment
of participants (MacMillan and Schumacher, 2001). Roughly 100 participants were approached
through our personal and professional networks with a written invitation to take part in an interview
study on leadership. Criteria for participation were as follows: minimum age of 18 years, Dutch-
speaking, working in Belgium, and being part of a work team that counts at least four team members
led by a direct formal leader. In order to capture a wide range of perceptions and to represent diverse
profiles within the workforce, we employed a stratified recruitment approach encompassing four
distinct streams. More specifically, participants were stratified across their hierarchical position (i.e.,
formal leader vs team member; Bryman, 2004), their educational level (i.e., low vs high; where
a high level denotes any degree surpassing a high school diploma), the type of organization in which
they were employed (i.e., profit vs non-profit organization), and their gender (i.e., female vs male).
Before each interview, participants provided their written consent for participation. Their partic-
ipation was voluntary and not compensated. During all stages of this research, the anonymity of the
Edelmann et al. 9
participants and confidentiality of the data were guaranteed. This study was approved by the Ethics
Committee at the KU Leuven (G- 2019 02 1517).
Participants. In qualitative research aimed at exploring a heterogenous population, data saturation is
typically achieved between 25 and 30 interviews (Creswell, 2007;Mason, 2010;Sandelowski,
1995). In total, 35 interviews were conducted. The remaining participants either did not react to the
invitation or did not match our inclusion criteria (e.g., working in a self-directed team). Some
participants also showed interest to participate but their busy work schedules did not allow them to
make time for the interview. Participants worked in organizations of various sizes and for a large
range of industries (e.g., commerce, healthcare, and justice), all based in Belgium. In Table 1,we
summarize the demographical information of the 18 formal leaders and 17 team members that took
part in our study. The average team size was 11.66 team members (SD = 10.22) and the average team
tenure was 6.86 (SD = 5.64) years, ranging from 2 months until 30 years (M = 6.86; SD = 5.64).
Moreover, participants mentioned that they interacted with their team for an average of 21.53 h per
work week (SD = 14.79). Most of this interaction was face-to-face (80.71%), as opposed to digital
interaction (19.29%).
Interview Protocol. The 35 interviews were conducted by the first author in the native language of all
participants. While the first 27 interviews were carried out in person at the workplace of participants,
the remaining eight interviews had to be performed via online meeting platforms due to COVID
restrictions. For the interview structure itself, we applied a semi-structured approach, because it
allows for more detailed explanations if needed, while still focusing on the predefined research
questions (Howitt and Cramer, 2008;Robson, 2002).
Before the actual interviews were conducted, three pilot rounds were performed (not a part of our
dataset). The purpose of these pilot interviews was to check whether the interview protocol or
technique had to be revised for the sake of clarity or flow, thereby enhancing the validity of our
questions (Sampson, 2016). In addition, these practice rounds helped us to prepare for the potential
challenges that we may encounter in the actual interviews. All pilot interviews were carried out face-
to-face and with participants that were representatives of our stratification scheme. In this way, we
could ensure that our questions were comprehensible for all targeted participants. This is important
because certain terms may not be correctly understood by, for instance, participants with a lower
educational level. However, besides a few small adaptations in the phrasing of sentences and the
order of questions, no further changes had to be made and all questions remained the same for all
participants.
First, the Interview protocol (see Appendix A for the detailed questions) commenced with a general
introduction about leadership, which in this study was described to participants as “a process whereby
an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”(Northouse, 2010:page3).
We then instructed participants to imagine an organizational context in which different leadership roles
are assigned to specific members of their team (i.e., shared leadership), followed by questions about the
formal appointment of peer leaders, the role of jealousy experienced by the formal leader, and the
preferred selection method of these peer leaders (Research Question 1a, 1b, and 1c). Here, all par-
ticipants were asked to name (dis)advantages for the formal leader on one hand and the team members
on the other hand. We then probed about leadership distribution in general (Research Question 2) and
when shared within one leadership role (Research Question 3). During the interview, we incorporated
member checks (i.e., summarizing a participant’s statement and then asking this person to confirm its
accuracy) to avoid interpretation bias by the researcher.
10 Leadership 0(0)
Data analysis
Upon receiving participants’informed consent and permission, the interviews were audio recorded.
Once all data was collected, these recordings were transcribed verbatim. Throughout transcription,
the identity of participants and other personal information (e.g., organization affiliation) were
excluded to guarantee anonymity. In addition, instead of using their names, each participant was
given a number according to the stratification scheme (e.g., formal leader 7, team member 25). Using
the qualitative analysis software NVivo, we analyzed the transcripts by organizing the data, creating
codes, and marking text fragments that contained these codes (Hollensbe et al., 2008).
To establish a list of possible (dis)advantages of different shared leadership structures, the
qualitative data was constantly coded and analyzed with “theoretical sensitivity”to identify, cat-
egorize, and label themes in our data (Starks and Trinidad, 2007;Strauss and Corbin, 1990). As for
the coding procedure, we ran through all phases of the constant comparison method; starting with
open coding (investigate, categorize, and form concepts of our data), followed by axial coding
(identify patterns in the categories and create groups based on these patterns), and selective coding
(recognize and describe overarching categories; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). To illustrate, partic-
ipants’responses were given a code under which the same or similar responses by other participants
Table 1. Demographic information of participants.
Formal leaders (n= 18) Team members (n= 17)
Type of organization
Profit99
Non-profit98
Industry
Healthcare & personal care services 4 3
Financial services 2 2
Commerce & professional services 5 3
Justice, security & public administration 3 3
Agriculture, nature & fisheries 2 2
Transport (railways & road) & logistics / 2
Technology, production & construction 1 /
ICT 1 2
Gender
Male 9 8
Female 9 9
Age (in years) M= 41.39 (SD = 10.30) M= 32.59 (SD = 10.54)
Education level
Low (professional education at most) 9 8
High (high school diploma at least) 9 9
Years working in current function M= 6.90 (SD = 6.21) M= 2.85 (SD = 3.16)
Years working in current organization M= 10.14 (SD = 8.15) M= 4.74 (SD = 5.47)
Number of hierarchical levels above own team M= 1.93 (SD = 1.49) M= 4.00 (SD = 2.03)
Years of leadership experience M= 7.13 (SD = 6.19) n.a
Years working with formal leader n.a M= 2.07 (SD = 2.54)
Note. n.a. = not applicable. Participants worked only in one team and independent from other teams. Most of the participating
formal leaders and team members worked in different teams, except for three teams in which we interviewed both the formal
leaders and one of his/her team members.
Edelmann et al. 11
were placed (open coding). The final list of codes was then revised twice by the researchers by
grouping together content-related codes (axial coding). Once the researchers agreed that the final
cluster of codes differentiated enough from each other to be considered as a stand-alone code, each
of these codes was given a definition and a label that conveyed the meaning of the underlying codes
(selective coding). As an example, the six advantages “Less workload and fewer worries,”“More
time for other things”,“(Small) problems are already taken care of by the peer leader […],”“More
time for better quality of the remaining leadership roles of the formal leader”,“More time to pay
attention to other team members […],”“More people that the formal leader can rely on”were
lumped into the higher-order advantage “Less workload”for formal leaders (see Table 2).
Only the first author was responsible for the open coding procedure to keep intercoder differences
at a minimum. The consistency and reliability of the coding were determined by running an
intercoder-reliability (ICR) analysis in NVivo where one interview was coded by three coders. More
specifically, we compared the first author’s open coding (i.e., which text fragments are marked and
how they are categorized) with that of two other independent coders together. The interrater
agreement as indicated by Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was .78. When comparing the coding of the
independent coders apart, the agreements were 0.67 and 0.73, which can be interpreted as a sub-
stantial agreement in the coding procedure (Landis and Koch, 1977). During the axial and selective
coding phases, the involved researchers thoroughly discussed disagreements until a consensus was
reached (e.g., under which category a certain code should be placed, labels of higher-order themes).
This form of investigator triangulation further improved the credibility and validity of our coded data
(Carter et al., 2014). Lastly, we followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative
Research (COREQ; Tong et al., 2007) checklist in this study to warrant research transparency.
It should be noted that these interviews were also part of another study (see Edelmann et al., under
review). Here, more detailed information on the coding procedure is provided. However, the purpose
of this study differed greatly from the purpose of the present study, and thus also involved other
questions than the ones introduced above.
Results and discussion
The coded responses (i.e., definitions of the broader categories of (dis)advantages and their un-
derlying codes) for each research question are presented in Tables 2,3, and 4. Since all input is
valuable, we do not consider (dis)advantages that were mentioned more frequently as more relevant
than less frequently mentioned (dis)advantages. However, when discussing our findings, we will not
put too much emphasis on responses that were only mentioned by one or two participants. In regard
to the closed questions that explore the preferred format of shared leadership, responses may differ
depending on participants’profiles. Hence, in order to contextualize our findings appropriately, we
examined potential variations in responses based on the four selection criteria applied to our
participants (i.e., hierarchical position, educational level, gender, and type of organization). Notable
differences are outlined below.
Research Question 1a: Formally appointed leaders versus informal leaders
Participants were asked to think of all the potential (dis)advantages of formally appointing peer
leaders in a team, for both the team members as well as the formal leader. The coding procedure
resulted in seven advantages and 14 disadvantages for formal leaders, nine advantages and eight
disadvantages for team members, and three advantages and five disadvantages specifically for peer
leaders (see Table 2).
12 Leadership 0(0)
Table 2. The perceived advantages and disadvantages of formally appointing peer leaders for team members
and for the formal leader.
Higher-order theme Description of category
Advantages of formally appointing peer leaders for formal leaders
Less workload (38)
a
The presence of peer leaders helps to address and handle problems,
preventing them from reaching the formal leader directly or
immediately. Consequently, the formal leader experiences a reduced
workload and gains additional time to allocate towards other tasks or
aspects, such as providing attention and support to team members who
do not hold leadership roles
Independence (26) The formal leader is not constantly required to be present and can
assume a more withdrawn role as peer leaders take on tasks and the
team becomes increasingly independent through the development of
their leadership competencies. Consequently, the formal leader can
have confidence that the work will be effectively executed by
competent and capable peer leaders. Additionally, the smooth
functioning of the team is not significantly disrupted in the event of an
unexpected absence or departure of the formal leader
Clear point of contact for the
formal leader (16)
The formal leader possesses a clear understanding of whom to
approach for accomplishing tasks or resolving issues in a timely
manner. This knowledge facilitates the coordination of goals and
expectations with the peer leader(s) and enables swift communication
and responsiveness in relaying information upwards. Additionally, the
formal leader is better positioned to monitor the activities and
performance of the peer leaders compared to situations where
leadership responsibilities are distributed among all team members
More monitoring (9) The formal leader can readily access (sensitive) information more easily
by leveraging the proximity of the peer leader to the team. As a result,
the formal leader can efficiently monitor the team’s work progress and
dynamics in a more timely manner
Learn from peer leaders (7) The formal leader has the opportunity to learn from peer leaders who
possess expertise in specific domains where the formal leader may
have limitations
Team development (6) By identifying the unique roles and strengths of each team member, the
formal leader can serve as a coach, providing targeted feedback,
teaching valuable skills, and supporting the overall growth of the team.
Furthermore, the formal leader gains experience in effectively
managing team members with diverse personalities
Accountability (2) The formal leader is not solely responsible for reporting to higher
authorities or shouldering all the blame. The shared leadership
structure allows for shared accountability among team members,
alleviating the burden placed solely on the formal leader
(continued)
Edelmann et al. 13
Table 2. (continued)
Higher-order theme Description of category
Advantages of formally appointing peer leaders for team members
Clear point of contact for the team
members (31)
Team members, particularly newcomers, are aware of the existence of
a direct contact person for inquiries, issues, feedback, or information.
They also have immediate clarity regarding whom to approach for
specific matters when the formal leader is unavailable. This
arrangement establishes a secondary point of contact within the team.
Moreover, the presence of peer leaders contributes to reduced chaos
and enhanced clarity regarding assigned responsibilities and the
rationale behind them
Better team functioning (20) The presence of peer leaders fosters increased cooperation among
team members and the peer leader(s), thereby enhancing the overall
strength of the team in terms of trust, safety, well-being, and
functionality. Furthermore, the trust exhibited by the formal leader
towards the peer leader(s) augments their motivation and
commitment, contributing to a positive and harmonious collaborative
environment within the team
Quality of leadership (17) The team can benefit from the assurance that a specific role is being
fulfilled by a competent and consistent peer leader who is naturally
suited for that responsibility. As a result, team members are relieved of
the need to allocate time and mental energy to address certain issues,
as the peer leaders are now accountable for them. This arrangement
allows team members to focus their efforts and thoughts on other
pertinent matters, leading to increased efficiency and productivity
within the team
Lower threshold to approach peer
leaders (11)
Due to their closer proximity to the team, peer leaders may present
a more accessible and approachable resource for team members,
creating a lower threshold for seeking their assistance compared to
approaching the formal leader. This is attributed to the perception that
peer leaders possess a deeper understanding of team dynamics and
challenges as they function as an internal point of contact within the
team. Moreover, team members tend to exhibit greater receptiveness
to the guidance and influence of peer leaders, further bolstering the
support for leadership within the team, surpassing that of the formal
leader
Decisiveness (5) The presence of a peer leader helps mitigate prolonged and repetitive
discussions within the team, as they assume the responsibility of making
decisions on behalf of the collective. This reduces the need for
extensive deliberations and facilitates a more streamlined decision-
making process
Potential of team (4) It offers an avenue for constructive discussions and facilitates the
identification and recognition of individual talents within the team
More attention to leadership
aspects (3)
The presence of peer leaders entails a distinct mission for each of them,
which directs the team members’focus towards specific aspects that
require heightened attention and emphasis
(continued)
14 Leadership 0(0)
Table 2. (continued)
Higher-order theme Description of category
Aligned expectations (3) The expectations of the team and of the formal leader can be more
easily aligned
Responsibility-taking (2) It encourages team members without formal leadership roles to
assume greater responsibilities within the team
Advantages of formally appointing peer leaders for peer leaders
Well-being of peer leader (16) The formal leader acknowledges and appreciates the additional efforts
made by the peer leader, fostering a sense of value and recognition. The
presence of autonomy and opportunities for decision-making further
contribute to the peer leader’s feelings of being valued. This trust
demonstrated by the formal leader enhances the motivation and
commitment of the peer leader
Discovering boundaries (1) The peer leader has the opportunity to explore and understand the
boundaries of what is formally and legally permissible within their role
Peer leader development (1) The peer leader can actively cultivate and enhance their own
competencies through their leadership role
Disadvantages of formally appointing peer leaders for formal leaders
Jealousy (34) The formal leader may experience feelings of jealousy or rivalry when
witnessing the peer leader successfully fulfill the leadership role,
perhaps even surpassing their own performance. This experience can
be emotionally challenging for the formal leader
Loss of status (21) The formal leader must relinquish certain tasks and aspects of
leadership, thereby potentially diminishing their hierarchical position.
This transition may also evoke feelings of exclusion, as the formal
leader no longer has the same opportunities to demonstrate their
abilities and accomplishments
Loss of overview (21) The formal leader may encounter challenges in maintaining
a comprehensive understanding of team dynamics, particularly if there
is insufficient dialogue and information exchange with the peer leader.
This lack of oversight can impede the formal leader’s ability to provide
accurate and comprehensive reports to higher-level authorities.
Furthermore, there is a risk of the formal leader categorizing team
members into specific roles, leading to a limited and one-sided
perspective of the team’s dynamics, primarily based on input solely
from the peer leaders
Poor quality of leadership (12) There is a possibility that the peer leaders may not fulfill their tasks
effectively or demonstrate sufficient competence, resulting in potential
time loss or reduced performance. Additionally, the formal leader may
disagree with the vision, working methods, or decisions made by the
peer leader
Loss of control (10) The formal leader must place trust in the peer leader’s ability to
effectively fulfill the leadership role and achieve the desired outcomes.
This entails relying on the peer leader to provide comprehensive and
accurate reports to the formal leader
(continued)
Edelmann et al. 15
Table 2. (continued)
Higher-order theme Description of category
Implementation challenges of
shared leadership (9)
The formal leader has the responsibility to clearly communicate to the
team the rationale behind the selection of a specific team member as
a peer leader. It is essential for the formal leader to explain the
advantages of appointing peer leaders and ensure that the team
understands that these individuals do not receive additional privileges.
Additionally, the formal leader plays a crucial role in mediating and
resolving any disagreements that may arise among team members
regarding the selection of the peer leader
Role ambiguity (8) The implementation of a shared leadership approach can create
conflicts with the established, hierarchical structure. This may result in
ambiguity regarding the formal leader’s role and responsibilities, as well
as the differentiation between their tasks and those assigned to the
peer leader
Disrupted team cohesion (4) The introduction of shared leadership has the potential to create
divisions within the team, making team management more challenging.
Additionally, the formal leader may experience discomfort in providing
fewer opportunities to other team members compared to the peer
leaders
More monitoring (2) The formal leader is faced with the task of monitoring a larger number
of individuals in order to maintain an overview of their work, ensuring
that each role is being effectively fulfilled
Need to invest in relationship with
peer leader (2)
The formal leader is required to invest effort in establishing and
maintaining a strong relationship with the peer leaders
Accountability (2) The formal leader bears the responsibility for the actions of the peer
leaders and, in the event of any negative outcomes, must safeguard and
shield the peer leaders from adverse consequences
Changing job content (2) The formal leader is left with the less enjoyable aspects of leadership,
which can diminish their own job satisfaction
Situational constraints (1) Granting autonomy to employees may not always be feasible for the
formal leader, particularly in moments of crisis when prompt and high-
quality actions are required
Inefficiency (1) The decision-making process tends to be lengthier due to the increased
need for consultation and discussion among team members
Disadvantages of formally appointing peer leaders for team members
Status differences (28) Differential treatment between peer leaders and non-peer leaders
emerges, giving rise to status distinctions within the team that adversely
impact team dynamics. This additional layer of hierarchy can contribute
to conflicts within the team. The peer leader may perceive themselves
as more valuable than other team members, leading to demands for
increased compensation for the additional responsibilities they
undertake
Jealousy (21) Team members who are unable to fulfill their desired leadership role
may experience feelings of exclusion, disadvantage, and jealousy.
Consequently, they may exhibit less respect towards the peer leader(s)
(continued)
16 Leadership 0(0)
Table 2. (continued)
Higher-order theme Description of category
Power abuse (11) It is essential to align the expectations and aspirations of the peer leader
with those of the rest of the team. There is a risk that peer leaders may
abuse their position of power, fail to seek input from other team
members, or exclusively carry out tasks according to their own
preferences
Disagreement with peer leader
choice (11)
The team members may hold differing perspectives and may not be in
agreement with the decision to appoint a specific team member as
a peer leader
Unexploited potential of team (7) The talents and fresh ideas of other team members may be overlooked
and disregarded, which is particularly unfortunate if the peer leader is
not the most suitable individual for that role. Consequently, other team
members are deprived of opportunities for growth and personal
development, as they are no longer challenged or provided with the
chance to flourish
Situational constraints (4) The team becomes more vulnerable as it becomes less adaptable to
exceptional situations, such as the loss of a peer leader or encountering
setbacks. Additionally, the dynamics of working in smaller teams can
become more complex and challenging to navigate
Peer leader dependency (4) The other team members may experience feelings of powerlessness if
they are not chosen as peer leaders. They become reliant on the peer
leaders and the extent to which they effectively carry out their
leadership roles
Free-riding (3) When multiple peer leaders fulfill the same role, it is essential for these
peer leaders to establish a strong relationship with each other to
prevent free-riding and ensure effective collaboration. Additionally,
team members who are not peer leaders may feel less accountable and
become disengaged from the leadership aspects of the peer leaders
Disadvantages of formally appointing peer leaders for peer leaders
High workload (7) The additional responsibility, heightened expectations, and increased
workload become unmanageable for the peer leader, posing challenges
not only for the formal leader but also for the rest of the team
Building leadership status (6) The peer leader assumes a distinct position "outside the team”and
must cultivate trust and garner support from within the team in order
to justify their decisions to other team members. The authority of the
peer leader may face challenges if they do not assert themselves firmly,
such as when a younger peer leader is not readily accepted by older
team members
Role ambiguity (5) There is a lack of clarity regarding the formal authority to make
decisions as the tasks of the formal leader and the peer leader overlap.
Additionally, errors can occur when the peer leader disregards the
input of the formal leader and acts autonomously
Lack of motivation (4) It is detrimental when the peer leader lacks genuine motivation to fulfill
their leadership role, as their lack of enthusiasm can hinder their ability
to effectively carry out their responsibilities
Loss of control (1) It poses challenges for the peer leader to maintain control over all
aspects and individuals, particularly in larger teams
a
The numerical value accompanying each category label indicates its frequency, representing the number of times the
respective (dis)advantage was mentioned throughout the interviews.
Edelmann et al. 17
Advantages for formal leaders. A clear majority of participants expressed that appointing peer leaders
reduces the workload of the formal leader and allows them to allocate more time to other tasks, such
as coaching team members. Secondly, the increased autonomy of the team makes them more
independent of the formal leader, ensuring continuity in leadership even if the formal leader is
unexpectedly absent. Furthermore, having peer leaders provides a clear point of contact for the
formal leader, facilitating the coordination of goals and expectations. The peer leader, being closer to
the team, also provides the formal leader with more relevant information, enabling better monitoring
of work and team dynamics. Additionally, formally appointing peer leaders contributes to the team’s
development, as the formal leader can provide targeted feedback to the peer leaders and learn from
their expertise in specific leadership aspects. Lastly, sharing accountability with peer leaders is
perceived as beneficial for the formal leader’s well-being, as they are no longer solely responsible for
all tasks and reporting to higher levels of the organization.
Advantages for team members. Participants mainly linked the appointment of peer leaders to the
advantage of establishing a clear point of contact within the team, enabling team members to seek
guidance, provide feedback, and address any concerns. In addition, the appointment of peer leaders
was perceived to result in better team functioning by fostering greater cooperation and motivation
among team members. Peer leaders, being more committed and dedicated to their leadership roles,
contribute to a strengthened sense of trust within the team. Appointing peer leaders can also enhance
the perceived quality of leadership in the team. Each peer leader possesses unique strengths and
expertise in specific leadership aspects, ensuring that leadership responsibilities are effectively
fulfilled. This alleviates the burden on other team members, allowing them to focus on their re-
spective tasks without the need to invest time and energy in leadership-related matters. Another
reported advantage was that there is a lower threshold to approach the peer leader because team
members often find it easier to approach and connect with peer leaders as they feel understood by
someone within their own team. In contrast, team members may exhibit greater receptiveness to the
guidance and direction provided by peer leaders compared to the formal leader. Other advantages
included improved decisiveness within the team as peer leaders are empowered to make decisions
and facilitate efficient discussions. This enables the team to progress more swiftly and effectively.
Additionally, the appointment of peer leaders promotes the optimal utilization of the team’s po-
tential. It creates an environment that encourages open discussions, enabling team members to
discover and leverage each other’s talents. Moreover, it aligns the expectations of the team and the
formal leader more seamlessly and ensures that relevant leadership aspects receive the necessary
attention.
Advantages for peer leaders. For the appointed peer leaders specifically, it was reported that their
formal appointment can positively impact peer leaders’well-being as they feel valued and rec-
ognized by the formal leader, and enjoy increased autonomy in their roles, fostering a sense of
motivation and ownership. Furthermore, their appointment as a leader also provides valuable
opportunities for their personal and professional development to further enhance their own com-
petencies and acquire new skills.
Disadvantages for formal leaders. According to the participants, appointing peer leaders in the team
can have negative effects on the well-being of formal leaders. They may experience feelings of
jealousy towards the peer leaders, especially when these peer leaders demonstrate more competence
in fulfilling their leadership roles. Participants also indicated that the formal leader may perceive
a loss of status (e.g., letting go of leadership control might weaken their authority and influence).
18 Leadership 0(0)
Table 3. The perceived advantages and disadvantages of one peer leader fulfilling all leadership (compared to
several peer leaders).
Higher-order theme Description of category
Advantages of one peer leader fulfilling all leadership for the team
Clear point of contact (26) There exists a single designated point of contact for all matters and various
stakeholders, including team members, the formal leader, and external parties.
Additionally, there is a comprehensive backup solution in place, wherein
a suitable replacement can assume all leadership responsibilities in the event of
an unexpected absence or departure of the formal leader
Alignment of roles (16) A single individual can more effectively maintain an overview of the various
leadership roles and ensure a harmonious balance among them
Quality of leadership (15) Both the formal leader and the team members can have confidence that all
pertinent leadership roles are effectively fulfilled by individuals who possess
strong leadership qualities. This is in contrast to appointing individuals who may
lack effective leadership skills to such roles
Efficiency (10) Decisions and initiatives are expedited due to the presence of a single source of
information, eliminating the potential for role confusion
Less workload for formal
leader (1)
It is more manageable for the formal leader to effectively coach and supervise
a single individual
Disadvantages of one peer leader fulfilling all leadership for the team
Peer leader dependency (26) The establishment of a hierarchy occurs with only one individual holding
a position of power, making the other team members reliant on this individual
(e.g., the peer leader). It becomes essential for the peer leader to remain
present and engaged within the team to sustain the hierarchy
Unexploited potential of
team (5)
Team members without leadership roles face limitations in their growth and
lack opportunities to showcase their competencies, which diminishes their
sense of value within the team. Consequently, there is a limited influx of input,
as the peer leader possesses exclusive information, thereby excluding ideas and
perspectives from other team members
Jealousy (12) The remaining team members may experience a sense of disadvantage, giving
rise to feelings of jealousy and potential gossip, as the leader is perceived as the
favored individual of the formal leader
Disrupted teamcohesion (5) The team’s collaborative efforts diminish, resulting in negative consequences
for team communication and overall performance
Poor quality of leadership (5) Conflicts may emerge within the team when team members express
dissatisfaction with the performance of the peer leader
Lack of contact person (3) Team members lack a designated point of contact when they experience a lack
of connection or rapport with the peer leader
Disadvantages of one peer leader fulfilling all leadership for peer leaders
High workload (38) The effective performance of all leadership roles may be compromised, as it is
unrealistic to expect a single leader to excel in all roles simultaneously or for all
roles to align with their competencies and interests. Additionally, the workload
on the peer leader can become overwhelming, particularly when required to
constantly switch between different leadership roles that may not be
compatible with each other
(continued)
Edelmann et al. 19
Interestingly, this fear of status loss appeared to be unfounded in previous research by Edelmann
et al. (2020). Here, a positive relation was found between high-quality peer leadership and the
perceived leadership quality of the formal leader, suggesting that the presence of competent peer
leaders can actually enhance the leadership status of formal leaders. Other frequently mentioned
disadvantages revolved around a perceived loss of overview of the team’s activities. Participants
expressed concerns about potential information gaps resulting from limited dialogue with peer
leaders or a lack of input from the entire team.
There was also a perceived risk of poor leadership quality if the formal leader disagreed with the
approaches taken by the peer leaders or if the peer leaders lacked the necessary competence.
Additionally, the loss of control was identified as a significant concern. Formal leaders need to place
trust in the peer leaders to effectively carry out their responsibilities and provide comprehensive
updates to the formal leader. Participants also highlighted the additional work involved in im-
plementing shared leadership. This includes the need to carefully frame and communicate the
selection of specific peer leaders, as well as the responsibility to intervene and address any conflicts
that may arise within the team. Participants also reported role ambiguity as a potential disadvantage
(e.g., unclarity about the formal leader’s tasks vs peer leader’s tasks). It seems that confusion on who
is officially in the position to make decisions is perceived to be an issue not only among the peer
leaders but also between the peer leader(s) and the formal leader. Other disadvantages for the formal
leader pertained to a potential decrease in team cohesion (e.g., the team is pulled apart and becomes
more difficult to manage as a cohesive unit), more monitoring responsibilities (e.g., the formal leader
now also needs to oversee the performance of the peer leaders), the changed job content, and
increased accountability (e.g., being held responsible for the work of the peer leaders).
Disadvantages for team members. Participants mostly pointed to the perceived risk of creating status
differences within the team (e.g., team members who are not selected as peer leaders may feel
disadvantaged due to the introduction of a new hierarchical layer) as well as a feeling of jealousy
(e.g., team members who are not chosen as peer leaders can feel excluded). It was argued that team
members would then be less likely to show respect towards the appointed peer leaders, thereby
Table 3. (continued)
Higher-order theme Description of category
Free-riding (12) Team members without a leadership role can experience a loss of their
position within the team, leading to diminished participation, involvement, and
job satisfaction. Consequently, these team members may refrain from taking up
responsibilities as they perceive the peer leader as being responsible for
handling all tasks
Well-being of peer leader (11) The peer leader encounters stress as they shoulder the sole responsibility for
multiple tasks, leading to a potential disconnection from other team members.
In instances of problems or challenges, the peer leader may experience a sense
of isolation, being the sole individual held accountable for the outcomes
Disadvantages of one peer leader fulfilling all leadership for the formal leader
Lack of information transfer
(3)
The formal leader is replaced by the peer leader, resulting in a potential loss of
pertinent information for the former
Loss of control (1) The formal leader must possess a high degree of confidence in the
competencies of the peer leader
20 Leadership 0(0)
Table 4. The perceived advantages and disadvantages of multiple peer leaders fulfilling a role (compared to
one peer leader).
Higher-order theme Description of category
Advantages of multiple peer leaders fulfilling one role for the team
More diverse input (24) The inclusion of multiple ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and a broader
range of needs fosters a more comprehensive and efficient outcome, as
opposed to relying solely on the perspective of a single peer leader. This
diversity is advantageous, as different approaches or skills may be necessary
or desired by the entire team, rather than being limited to the perspective
of one individual
Independency & leadership
continuity (21)
The team operates independently from the formal leader, eliminating
dependency on a single individual. If one of the peer leaders is unavailable,
the other peer leader(s) can serve as a backup, ensuring continuity in
leadership responsibilities. Consequently, the leadership structure
becomes less hierarchical and formal, promoting increased team
independence
Choice in point of contact (14) The presence of multiple peer leaders provides additional options for team
members to select from, considering factors such as personality, personal
connection, and the unique talents of each peer leader
Efficiency (5) The fulfillment of leadership roles can be expedited, and the process of
establishing clear goals becomes more streamlined, particularly within
larger teams
Better team functioning (4) There is an increased level of dialogue and consultation within the team
Team cohesion (2) It enhances team cohesion and fosters a sense of ownership among team
members regarding the decisions made
Responsibility-taking (1) It encourages other team members to assume greater responsibility within
the team as well
Advantages of multiple peer leaders fulfilling one role for the peer leaders
Well-being of peer leader (18) It provides the peer leader with a sense of reassurance, knowing that they
are not alone, and allows for mutual support and encouragement among
peer leaders during challenging times. Furthermore, it enables more team
members to showcase their strengths and derive motivation from
performing their work
Less workload (9) The workload of the peer leaders is reduced as responsibilities are
distributed among them, allowing for task allocation based on individual
interests, personalities, and competencies
Building leadership status (5) The peer leaders can collectively communicate with the rest of the team,
and their decisions and actions may receive greater support from team
members
Shared accountability (4) The peer leader is not solely held accountable when multiple individuals
share the same leadership role and it is not effectively fulfilled
Developing team-work skills (2) The peer leaders develop the ability to make compromises in the event of
disagreements
(continued)
Edelmann et al. 21
Table 4. (continued)
Higher-order theme Description of category
Disadvantages of multiple peer leaders fulfilling one role for the team
Need for role clarity (23) Effective communication is crucial to clarify the responsibilities, knowledge,
and actions of each peer leader, mitigating any potential role confusion.
However, challenges such as information loss may occur, where certain
information fails to reach one of the peer leaders, particularly in cases of
their absence. In extreme situations, this could result in a scenario where
none of the peer leaders take necessary actions
Conflicts among peer leaders (18) Con flicts may emerge among the various peer leaders due to divergent
approaches, expectations, perspectives, and opinions they hold
Inefficiency (11) When multiple peer leaders collaborate on the same task, it can lead to
inefficiency due to the increased need for dialogue and coordination among
them, which consumes valuable time. Additionally, monitoring the larger
picture and team objectives becomes more challenging, particularly in
smaller teams
Clique formation (6) Cliques may form, leading to potential exclusion of individuals, as different
approaches by peer leaders can create divisions within the team. This could
result in the formation of groups between peer leaders or between peer
leaders and other team members
No clear point of contact (5) It can create ambiguity, particularly for new team members, regarding
whom they should approach for specific matters
Alignment of roles (3) Certain tasks or communication may be more effectively handled by a single
peer leader rather than multiple peer leaders, as the latter can potentially
result in the transmission of different or conflicting information to external
parties
Disadvantages of multiple peer leaders fulfilling one role for the peer leaders
Conflicts among peer leaders (20) Competitive behavior or jealousy may arise among the peer leaders, and
they may struggle to reach a consensus due to stubbornness or adherence
to their own individual visions. These conflicts can be exacerbated by
differences in character, work pace, efficiency, or capacity. Consequently,
poor teamwork and tension may permeate the entire team
Disadvantages of multiple peer leaders fulfilling one role for both peer leaders & the team
Free-riding (8) During busy periods or challenging discussions, some peer leaders may fail
to fulfill their responsibilities and instead shift the workload onto other peer
leaders. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure an equitable and fair distribution of
workload, preventing one peer leader from shouldering a disproportionate
amount of the responsibilities while the other(s) may become less proactive
or less engaged
Power abuse (4) The personal ambitions of peer leaders may sometimes take precedence
over fostering a healthy team dynamic. Additionally, a peer leader’s strong
personal drive may inadvertently hinder the contributions of other peer
leaders or team members, potentially suppressing their involvement and
inhibiting overall collaboration
22 Leadership 0(0)
further undermining the positive impact that peer leaders could otherwise have on the team dynamics
and performance. Appointing peer leaders was also associated with potential power abuse by the
peer leaders (e.g., they may exploit the status differences to act in their own self-interest without
seeking input from the rest of the team). Hence, differentiating between peer leaders and the other
team members can lead to unequal treatment and corruption within the team. This finding aligns with
research on Leader-Member Exchange, which indicates that differential treatment by leaders is seen
as disadvantageous and unfair by employees (e.g., Liden et al., 1997). Moreover, team members may
disagree with the peer leader choice and become dependent on the peer leader (e.g., the other team
members feel powerless and depend on the peer leaders and their leadership quality). Other dis-
advantages were related to the untapped potential of the team (e.g., talents/ideas of the rest of the
team may go unused, the other team members have fewer opportunities for growth), situational
constraints (e.g., the team becomes more vulnerable and less adaptable in certain situations) and the
risk of free-riding (the other team members feel less responsible for their work because the peer
leaders now “do everything anyway”).
Disadvantages for peer leaders. Appointing peer leaders in the team was also perceived to result in
a higher (or even overwhelming) workload for peer leaders and additional challenges for peer
leaders related to their leadership status in the team (e.g., risk of not being accepted as a peer leader
by the rest of the team or their leadership position being undermined by other team members). Role
ambiguity between the formal leader and the peer leader was identified as another potential dis-
advantage (e.g., overlapping tasks, uncertainty about decision-making authority and leadership
boundaries) or when the appointed peer leader is not motivated to fulfill the leadership as he/she did
not want to be a leader in the first place. This finding demonstrates that during the selection of peer
leaders, it is important to not only consider the competencies of team members but also their
motivation to become a peer leader.
Research Question 1b: Counteracting jealousy by the formal leader
One additional question was posed about the role that jealousy by formal leaders might play when
appointing peer leaders in the team, and how to counteract these feelings. Negative emotions
towards the peer leaders due to “psychological territory infringement”(Zhu et al., 2018), such as
jealousy or rivalry, were indeed the most frequently mentioned disadvantage for the formal leader
(i.e., more than half of the participants stated that it is likely for the formal leader to experience those
feelings). Notably, further analysis revealed that most participants who did not anticipate feelings of
jealousy among formal leaders were men with lower educational backgrounds employed in profit
organizations.
Participants offered several strategies to avoid or reduce the jealousy perceived by the formal
leader. First, participants emphasized the importance of including the formal leader in the decision-
making process ensuring their agreement with the assigned roles to team members. It was noted that
imposing a shared leadership structure without the formal leader’s support can be detrimental.
Hence, the more this process is determined by open and transparent dialogues, the easier it may be
accepted.
Second, participants suggested that the formal leader should shift their perspective to view shared
leadership as a collective effort to fulfill all aspects of leadership in the most effective way.
Recognizing that another team member may be better suited for a specific leadership role can help
alleviate feelings of personal inadequacy or threat to their authority. Besides, participants reported
Edelmann et al. 23
that the formal leader should focus on the benefits of appointing peer leaders, such as gaining time
for new challenges or investing in their own development.
Third, participants recommended that the formal leader should demonstrate assertiveness and
clearly define the leadership boundaries. Formal leaders can assign a specific role to themselves,
define it, and clearly communicate it to the team (e.g., in which situations they should involve the
formal leader). By realizing that it is the formal leader’s task to intervene if things go wrong, formal
leaders can maintain a sense of belonging within the team while not entirely relinquishing their
leadership responsibilities.
Fourth, related to the previous point, open communication was argued to be important in
counteracting jealousy. Participants recommended formal leaders engage in open and honest
conversations with peer leaders, expressing their own feelings and concerns (e.g., “It seems to me
like I am only assigned the least important tasks”). By reflecting and exploring the underlying causes
of these emotions, formal leaders may discover that they stem from insecurities about their
leadership capability. These insecurities often arise from a lack of knowledge about team dynamics
and the specific activities carried out in the team. To address these insecurities, participants rec-
ommended that formal leaders increase their presence on the work floor. By being more involved in
day-to-day activities, formal leaders can gain valuable insights and contribute their own expertise.
Concrete suggestions included engaging in discussions with peer leaders to learn from their working
methods or ensuring regular debriefing sessions with peer leaders to stay updated on team progress
and developments.
Research Question 1c: The selection method of peer leaders
Participants were asked who ideally makes the decision about which team member is appointed as
a peer leader for a specific leadership role. A clear majority of participants (i.e., 37.14%, mostly
higher educated women employed in profit-oriented organizations) preferred the option of an
anonymous rating method, in which both team members and the formal leader are involved in
appointing peer leaders. Next, 25.71% of the participants opted for an open group discussion among
team members. Interestingly, only a few participants opted for the method in which only the formal
leader (i.e., 5.71%, all lower-educated formal leaders employed in a profit-oriented organization) or
only the team members (anonymous rating) decide whom to appoint (i.e., 5.71%). The remaining
25.71% suggested alternative approaches.
First, six participants (i.e., 42.82% of those who suggested an alternative) referred to an open
group discussion with both the formal leader and the team members, in which they could deliberate
on the most suitable individuals for each leadership role. The potential members should then have
the opportunity to reflect on whether they genuinely desire to take on this role (instead of making
immediate decisions). By including the formal leader in this discussion, he/she can actively engage
in the conversation, express personal opinions, and monitor team dynamics throughout the process
(e.g., dominant team members may overpower quieter individuals). Participants stressed the im-
portance of clarity in decision-making, as it would provide a transparent understanding of why
specific choices were made, which would not be the case in anonymous ratings.
Second, it was recommended for the formal leader to individually inquire with team members
about their career interests and their motivation to assume a leadership role. Once motivated in-
dividuals are identified, an open discussion can be facilitated among them to collaboratively allocate
the leadership roles. The formal leader can either approve the proposed division or initiate a dis-
cussion with the entire team, excluding the selection candidate, to seek consensus. If the entire team
agrees, the formal leader can communicate the final decision to the chosen peer leader.
24 Leadership 0(0)
Third, participants suggested the option of self-assessment on different leadership roles. For
example, a person may initially feel inadequate to fulfill a particular role, but if other team members
perceive that person as the most suitable candidate, it can serve as a source of motivation. Feeling
this support from the team can encourage the team member to embrace this role. Besides, the formal
leader can utilize this self-perception score to engage in a discussion with the team member, ex-
ploring their concerns and finding ways to provide optimal support in the future. Relatedly, formal
leaders can conduct separate meetings with team members to gather their perspectives on individual
strengths and weaknesses, consolidate this feedback, and then make an informed decision in se-
lecting the peer leader. In this way, everyone has an opportunity to contribute to the selection
process.
Finally, two key considerations were consistently put forth by participants regarding the ap-
pointment procedure. First, in open group discussions, individuals might not feel comfortable
openly expressing their reluctance to take on a leadership role, potentially leading to a sense of
obligation. To address this, participants emphasized the importance of assessing beforehand whether
the team is prepared for candid discussions, ensuring an environment conducive to honest ex-
pression. Second, participants emphasized the significance of garnering unanimous support for the
concept of shared leadership within the team (including the formal leader, peer leaders, and other
team members), so that everyone fully embraces the idea and realizes the benefits of appointing peer
leaders.
In sum, participants argued for an honest and transparent approach when selecting peer leaders in
the team. The majority of our sample favored an anonymous rating method, as it is believed to
encourage team members to provide more honest, reliable ratings than in a group discussion.
However, if the team fosters a climate of psychological safety, where members feel comfortable
expressing concerns without fear of negative consequences, open group discussions can serve as
a viable alternative. Such discussions may offer more in-depth insights into the rationale behind
selecting an individual as a peer leader for a specific role.
Research Question 2: One versus multiple leaders taking up leadership in the team
Overall, a clear majority of participants preferred to distribute leadership within the team (i.e.,
74.29%) rather than centering it onto one peer leader (i.e., 5.71%). Interestingly, the latter option was
preferred by lower-educated formal leaders employed in a profit-oriented organization. The re-
maining 20% of the participants did not choose either option.
Instead, they suggested alternative ways of distributing the leadership that will be discussed in
detail below. For the team, our coding procedure yielded five advantages and six disadvantages of
having one peer leader who takes on all the leadership (instead of having several peer leaders within
the team; see Table 3). For peer leaders and the formal leader specifically, three and two additional
disadvantages emerged from the data, respectively.
Advantages. Participants perceived it beneficial to have only one peer leader because that would
result in a clear and singular point of contact for all parties involved (i.e., team members, the formal
leader, and external stakeholders) and for all matters (i.e., questions pertaining to all leadership
aspects). Additionally, a single peer leader would serve as a comprehensive replacement in the
absence of the formal leader, ensuring continuity and minimizing disruptions within the team.
Another argument for centering the leadership was the ease of aligning different leadership roles.
This would enable the peer leader to maintain a balanced approach, ensuring that all facets of
leadership receive adequate attention and preventing the neglect of any specific aspect. Other
Edelmann et al. 25
perceived advantages were the quality of leadership (e.g., the formal leader and the rest of the team
can be confident that all leadership is fulfilled (well) by the same person) and increased efficiency
within the team, given that a single source of information leads to quicker and more decisive actions.
Finally, centering all leadership on one peer leader was perceived to have positive implications for
the well-being of the formal leader. Instead of overseeing multiple individuals or the entire team, the
formal leader could focus on coaching and supervising a single peer leader.
Disadvantages. Having one peer leader responsible for all leadership aspects was predominantly
associated with peer leader dependency (e.g., a hierarchical structure emerges in the team, leading to
team members relying heavily on this single individual with authority) and untapped potential of the
team (e.g., restricted input and perspectives from other team members who have fewer opportunities
to showcase their competencies and contribute to the team). Such a structure was also linked to
feelings of jealousy among other team members (e.g., feeling less favored by the formal leader),
reduced team cohesion (e.g., less collaboration in the team), and poor leadership quality (e.g., team
members are dissatisfied with the leadership provided by the sole peer leader). Moreover, par-
ticipants highlighted the absence of a designated contact person for team members who may feel
uncomfortable or hesitant to approach the sole peer leader.
For the peer leader in question, fulfilling all leadership was generally viewed as disadvantageous
because an excessive workload would be placed on this person. It was deemed unlikely that one
person could effectively handle the demands of every leadership aspect simultaneously or could
possess the necessary competencies or expertise to excel in all areas of leadership. Participants also
raised concerns about the potential for free-riding within the team (i.e., when the rest of the team
feels less involved and, as a consequence, does not take up responsibilities anymore). Concentrating
all leadership on one peer leader was also perceived to harm the well-being of the peer leader (e.g.,
by experiencing heightened stress due to overwhelming responsibility of fulfilling all leadership
aspects, or by feeling detached from the team). Finally, participants also mentioned potential
disadvantages for the formal leader, such as limited information transfer and perceived loss of
control (e.g., feeling replaced or overshadowed by the peer leader, risk of missing relevant
information).
Alternative suggestions. First, the most commonly suggested approach was a combination of both
options, where team members are involved in and aware of each leadership role to some extent,
while also designating one person to maintain a focus on leadership, assume final responsibility, and
coordinate the process. Participants believed that this hybrid approach would depend on the presence
of individuals within the team who possess the necessary talents for these leadership roles. Second, it
was argued that not all leadership roles need to be exclusively fulfilled within the team itself.
Participants proposed the possibility of seeking leadership expertise from individuals outside of the
team, thus bringing in external perspectives and skills.
A third suggestion put forth was that the distribution of leadership within the team should
consider the specific content of the leadership role. Participants suggested that social leadership
aspects, such as team cohesion and well-being, could be effectively fulfilled by most team members,
particularly those who are external to the core group. On the other hand, task-related aspects, such as
task distribution, may be best handled by a single designated peer leader. Additionally, participants
mentioned that distributing leadership roles throughout the team is most efficient when a role
encompasses multiple significant tasks. Conversely, if the roles are too similar in content, it may be
more effective for these roles to remain consolidated and fulfilled by a single individual.
26 Leadership 0(0)
Taken together, our findings indicate that the idea of dividing the leadership across different peer
leaders was perceived as the most effective option by participants while centering all leadership on
a single peer leader received less support. This aligns with previous research conducted in both
organizational teams (DeRue et al., 2015) and sports teams, where team performance was found to
be higher when leadership was distributed among multiple team members (instead of concentrated in
a single team member; Fransen et al., 2014). Besides, our findings point to the risk of disagreement
within the team when the required tasks do not align with the skills of a particular peer leader.
Consequently, the different leadership aspects may not be performed equally well, as it is unlikely
that one person possesses the talent and expertise to effectively handle every aspect of leadership
(Yukl, 2010). Previous research by Edelmann et al. (2020) supports the notion that in most teams
(i.e., 83%), leadership is fulfilled by multiple team members rather than being centralized in a single
individual.
Research Question 3: One versus multiple leaders on a particular leadership role
Participants were introduced to two options for appointing peer leaders: only one peer leader for each
of the leadership roles (e.g., John takes on role X, Pete takes on role Y, etc.), or multiple peer leaders
per role, so that the leadership responsibility is shared (e.g., John and Pete both taking on role X). For
the team, we coded seven advantages and six disadvantages of having multiple peer leaders for one
leadership role. For peer leaders specifically, five additional advantages and three disadvantages
were identified (see Table 4). The opinions were divided and less univocal than in Research Question
2; 57.14% of the participants were in favor of having multiple peer leaders fulfill one particular role,
while 11.43% (all formal leaders of a team) preferred to have only one peer leader per role, and
31.43% either could not decide between the two distribution approaches or suggested alternative
options that are described below.
Advantages. For team members, the most reported advantages of having multiple peer leaders per
leadership role were primarily related to the diversity of input (e.g., diverse perspectives, ideas,
approaches, and skills that cater to the varied needs of the team), followed by independence and
leadership continuity. The team is less reliant on the formal leader and when one peer leader is
unavailable (e.g., due to holidays), another peer leader can seamlessly assume the responsibilities,
which not only reassures team members but also alleviates the pressure on any individual peer
leader. Another perceived benefit of having multiple peer leaders in each role was that the team
members have multiple peer leaders to choose from as a preferred point of contact. If a team member
encounters difficulties with one peer leader (e.g., due to personal conflicts or a lack of rapport), they
can still approach another peer leader who fulfills the same role. Next, the presence of multiple peer
leaders within each role was seen as advantageous for the efficiency of the team’s work (e.g., the
leadership role is fulfilled more rapidly and agreements on clear goals can be reached more easily), as
well as the team cohesion (e.g., increased dialogue within the team promoting cooperation and
a sense of shared ownership over their teamwork).
For the peer leaders, sharing one leadership role was reported to be advantageous for the well-
being of the peer leaders (e.g., they can support and encourage one another as needed). Additionally,
the distribution of responsibilities within the role among the peer leaders based on their respective
interests and competencies results in a reduced workload for each individual. Moreover, participants
stated that co-performing a role facilitates the establishment of a stronger leadership status (e.g., the
peer leaders can collectively address the team and garner greater support and credibility among team
Edelmann et al. 27
members). Another advantage pertained to the shared accountability of peer leaders (e.g., there is not
only one peer leader who is held responsible if the leadership role is not fulfilled well).
Disadvantages. Participants also identified some disadvantages associated with the appointment of
multiple peer leaders to a single role, primarily centered around the need for role clarity (e.g.,
insufficient coordination among peer leaders can lead to a loss of information, resulting in in-
adequate performance of the leadership role). In addition, concerns were raised about potential
conflicts among the different peer leaders (e.g., due to divergent views/opinions on how the shared
role should be fulfilled) and inefficiency (e.g., increased dialogue among peer leaders can be time-
consuming). Moreover, the presence of multiple peer leaders in a shared role was seen as potentially
fostering clique formation (e.g., subgroups can form between the peer leaders themselves or between
peer leaders and the remaining team members), and team members may face challenges in
identifying a clear point of contact (e.g., it may be unclear for team members which peer leader to
approach for specific matters). Furthermore, one notable concern raised was the increased difficulty
in aligning roles effectively (e.g., heightened risk of contradictory information being communicated
to external parties).
Participants also pointed out potential risks such as free-riding among peer leaders (e.g., the
workload is unfairly distributed) and power abuse (e.g., peer leaders prioritize personal ambitions
over the collective interests of the team). For peer leaders specifically, having multiple leaders per
role was perceived to lead to conflicts among peer leaders (e.g., feelings of jealousy or competitive
behavior), thereby impeding decision-making processes.
Participants generally expressed favorable views towards the practice of co-performing a specific
leadership role, aligning with existing scholarly suggestions that combining talents can enhance
team performance while alleviating the pressure and workload on an individual peer leader
(Evaggelia and Vitta, 2012). Conversely, this diversity of talents also entails the risk of conflicting
views among peer leaders regarding the fulfillment of their shared role, potentially leading to
conflicts or competitive behaviors. Furthermore, as previously posited by Zhu et al. (2018), some
peer leaders may exhibit reduced effort, relying on the assumption that others will shoulder the
workload. Then again, Chreim (2014) argues that too many peer leaders assuming the same
leadership role can lead to an “overcrowded leadership space”(page 538), resulting in overlapping
contributions or wasted time and effort. Consequently, to mitigate miscommunications and in-
efficiencies, it is vital to have a clear understanding of each individual’s responsibilities and to
effectively coordinate activities when co-performing the same role (Pearce and Conger, 2003;
Chreim, 2014).
Alternative suggestions. Approximately one-third of the participants advocated for a more nuanced
approach instead of choosing between the two approaches. According to them, the optimal approach
to role distribution may vary depending on factors such as team size (e.g., larger teams with smaller
subteams, particularly during challenging times, may benefit from having multiple leaders for
a specific role). In addition, participants emphasized the importance of the relationship between team
members (e.g., peer leaders who share the same role should have a harmonious rapport with one
another). To foster a sense of responsibility throughout the team, participants proposed the idea of
rotating roles among team members at different intervals (e.g., changing roles every trimester).
Moreover, participants emphasized that the nature of the role itself should influence the approach to
role distribution. To illustrate, task-related roles (e.g., task distribution) were suggested to be al-
ternated among team members, while this might not be possible for social-related roles where
competence may be more innate or personality-dependent.
28 Leadership 0(0)
General discussion
To date, the research on the effectiveness of shared leadership has been fragmented. This is partly
due to the fact that shared leadership has mainly been studied as one general concept, and not
sufficient attention has been paid to the various ways in which shared leadership can be implemented
(e.g., informal vs formal appointment, one peer leader vs multiple peer leaders across the team and
within one role; Manheim, 2017). Moreover, plenty of empirical studies on shared leadership focus
on its benefits, while the potential challenges are mostly limited to theoretical arguments and
comments. In the present study, we argue that shared leadership might not always yield the expected
benefits and that its impact may depend on the manner in which it is implemented (along with other
potential moderating factors such as team, task, or individual characteristics). Therefore, we took
a step toward addressing the contradictory views on shared leadership effectiveness and empirically
investigated the potential (dis)advantages of different implementations.
The insights obtained through this explorative research advance our understanding of different
shared leadership approaches and reveal how they can drive but also undermine teamwork (e.g.,
increasing the team functioning and independency of the team, but also instigating more status
differences and role ambiguity). Another important observation is that the participants in our sample
mentioned numerous benefits and challenges with respect to a variety of outcomes that go beyond
mere performance. This finding is in line with the previous suggestion that the effects of shared
leadership on other outcomes, such as well-being, should not be overlooked (e.g., Manheim, 2017).
Practical implications
Organizations striving to flatten their leadership structure and embracing shared leadership as
a promising concept often assume it to be a universal solution for enhancing team effectiveness.
However, our findings indicate that organizations should be more cautious and considerate when
implementing shared leadership, as unforeseen challenges may arise that could undermine its
effectiveness or lead to less favorable outcomes for the team and/or the formal leader (e.g., conflicts).
Drawing from the insights shared by our participants, we derive four conclusions that are important
to consider when adopting different shared leadership approaches in practice.
First, we recommend that the formal leader of a team should be treated as part of the team and be
included in all stages of the implementation. Most participants preferred to involve the formal leader
in the process of selecting peer leaders, which is in line with earlier research in which teams believed
that the formal leader still plays a critical role under shared leadership conditions (Miller et al.,
2007). Changing from a traditional hierarchical structure in the team to delegating leadership to team
members not only creates contradictory demands for formal leaders (e.g., to flatten the hierarchy and
at the same time be in charge of coordinating this process) but can also cause resistance in the formal
leader. Indeed, scholars agree that “the introduction of shared leadership requires extensive pre-
paratory work to overcome traditional professional demarcations”(Steinert et al., 2006: page 51).
Hence, an initial briefing about what constitutes shared leadership and how it may work in his/her
team can motivate the formal leader to empower the team members to take up leadership themselves.
This step is crucial because shared leadership is most effective when the formal leader fully supports
and understands the concept, recognizing that it does not render them obsolete. Offering practical
guidance beforehand on how to manage and mitigate negative emotions towards peer leaders can
help minimize any adverse effects they may have.
Second, when selecting peer leaders, participants suggested that an anonymous rating method with
the entire team may be the most ideal option. On the other hand, open group discussions can work for
Edelmann et al. 29
some teams, too. If possible, we recommend formal leaders assess the dynamics in the team and make
areflective decision on what may work best for his/her team. Participants emphasized that the choice of
peer leaders should be accepted by the team. This aligns with the idea that simply claiming authority is
not enough, but that this authority also needs to be granted (Barnard, 1938). Indeed, regardless of the
nature of the appointment procedure, participants preferred to involve the formal leader and all team
members in this process. This inclusive approach serves to minimize the risk of disagreement or
disapproval from the formal leader or team members regarding the selection of individuals to fulfill
leadership roles and how they perform in those roles, thereby reducing the chance of conflicts (Roth,
2022) or leader overemergence (Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015). Moreover, in line with procedural
justice research on promotion decisions (e.g., Lemons and Jones, 2001), transparent communication
about why someone has been selected as peer leader is important to avoid frustrations, conflicts, or even
leader corruption in the team (Pearce et al., 2007;Ulhøi and Müller, 2014).
A possible method to overcome subjective biases that may lead to (inappropriate) leader
overemergence is to consistently employ 360-degree feedback programs and then compare team
members’own ratings with their ratings of others (Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015). Additionally, by
means of “after-event reviews”and reflection exercises the team can set common ground rules (e.g.,
priorities) to organize the process and discuss potential dilemma’s that they are facing (Derue et al.,
2012;Raelin, 2018). Finally, adopting rotating leadership programs (Erez et al., 2002), where every
team member has the opportunity to take up leadership, can help to identify the most qualified peer
leaders over time.
Yet, the most optimal technique to identify the best-qualified team member for a specific role that
addresses several of the perceived challenges of formally appointing peer leaders may be the Shared
Leadership Mapping (SLM; Fransen et al., 2015;Fransen et al., 2020). SLM adopts social network
analysis by relying on team members’perceptions of each other’s leadership qualities in order to
create a visual map of the team’s leadership structure. Together with the perception of the formal
leader, this visualized network can support an informed decision for whom to appoint as a peer
leader, thereby ensuring that the peer leaders have a large support base in their team. Furthermore,
SLM addresses Hanna et al.’s (2021) caution for the potential risks when team members take up
leadership against their will (e.g., due to role overload). More specifically, SLM also takes into
account team members’personal motivation to take up leadership, which is an important predictor
for (peer) leadership effectiveness (Badura et al., 2020). As such, team members who are not
motivated to take up leadership (or a specific leadership role) will not be appointed as peer leaders.
However, knowing that there is a support base in the team and that their leadership is accepted by
their team members will likely boost the motivation of the appointed peer leaders to take the lead.
Third, when delegating leadership authority and specific roles to peer leaders, strategies should be
in place to avoid the potential risks they may encounter throughout time (e.g., wasted time/efforts
due to a lack of role clarity, power abuse) and that can lead to conflicts or poorer team functioning.
Given that the team composition can change with time, it is important to regularly analyze whether
the initially appointed peer leaders for each role are still perceived as the best peer leaders. In line
with the dominance complementarity theory, formal leaders can avoid disharmony in the team by
ensuring a team composition in which the power (i.e., leadership) of one peer leader can be clearly
differentiated from the leadership of the other peer leaders (Sinha et al., 2021). To prevent negative
dynamics, practitioners may be advised to look at the team compositional state to maximize the
diversity of power bases, so that the leadership shared among several peer leaders can be fully
exploited. Providing specificdefinitions for each role, as well as for the different responsibilities
within one role, can clarify the boundaries of a peer leader’s responsibilities. Finally, providing
leadership skills training may alleviate role stress in peer leaders who face role ambiguity or role
30 Leadership 0(0)
overload when fulfilling multiple roles (Chen and Zhang, 2022). Difficulties related to role am-
biguity can also be circumvented by focusing on clearly differentiated and specified roles rather than
on general leadership, which in turn impedes miscommunication.
Another strategy to mitigate negative dynamics or potential stalemates in teams where multiple
team members claim leadership is to strengthen the team’s collective identification. By fostering
a shared sense of belonging, common goals, and unified team identity, individuals are more likely to
prioritize collaborative decision-making and cooperative behaviors rather than engaging in com-
petitive power struggles. A high level of collective team identification can serve as a motivational
mechanism for team members, including peer leaders, to prioritize the team’s interests over their
individual motives. When team members strongly identify with the team as a collective entity, they
are more inclined to set aside personal interests and work towards common goals. This fosters
a harmonious and cohesive team environment, reducing the likelihood of conflicts arising from
conflicting leadership claims. By embracing a shared sense of “us,”team members are more likely to
collaborate effectively and contribute to the overall success of the team. (i.e., to take the lead,
Siangchokyoo and Klinger, 2022).
Instead of engaging in competitive behaviors, team members can contribute to the team’s interests
by willingly sharing their leadership with other peer leaders. Organizing social events or teambuilding
activities (especially in the early phases of teamwork) can nourish a team’s collective identity
(Hannum, 2011). In addition, formal leaders can learn how to engage in identity leadership (Haslam
et al., 2011). Here, the formal leader can be taught how to create, strengthen, and maintain a shared
social identity in the team, which can prevent individualistic behaviors that harm shared leadership
effectiveness. In doing so, it may also encourage the formal leader to think in terms of the collective
goals, which can reduce hostile feelings towards the peer leaders (e.g., due to power struggles).
In addition, it is important to recognize the extra efforts of peer leaders but just as well keep in
mind the well-being and development opportunities of those who do not fulfill a leadership role. It is
worth noting that, from a hierarchical functionalist perspective, the inherent instability in shared
leadership structures may give rise to power struggles among team members who are not in
leadership positions (e.g., a hostile attitude towards peer leaders, Greer et al., 2018). By proactively
addressing and discussing potential challenges, such as conflicts between peer leaders and other
team members, teams can prevent future obstacles in the implementation of shared leadership.
Providing training to formal leaders can enable them to identify early indications of detrimental
dynamics within the team and intervene accordingly when necessary.
Fourth, the reality is that today’s organizational teams evolve dynamically throughout time (e.g.,
team members come and go quickly), are highly interdependent, and are more multicultural
compared to older forms of teamwork (Kirkman and Harris, 2017). This dynamism and complexity
not only require proper planning but also commitment and continuous monitoring of the process. As
Scott and Caress (2005) point out, shared leadership is “an ongoing and fluid process, requiring
continual assessment and re-evaluation in order to be flexible and responsive to an ever-changing
environment”(page 4). To be able to successfully adapt to team changes our results suggest that
teams can best distribute a leadership role among multiple peer leaders, hereby avoiding dependence
on one peer leader who might leave the team at some point. This finding is in line with previous
research in sports teams that showed that the optimal leadership sharedness involved multiple
leaders (but was also restricted to a selected number of peer leaders; Leo et al., 2019;Mertens et al.,
2020). However, in line with previous theorizing, our data suggest that having multiple peer leaders
can also have disadvantages (e.g., free-riding). When leadership is shared, peer leaders can feel less
psychologically empowered in their role, which can reduce their motivation to take initiative and
enhance team performance (Chen and Zhang, 2022). Nordb ¨
ack and Espinosa (2019) describe
Edelmann et al. 31
several leadership coordination mechanisms that can help peer leaders to synchronize their influence
behaviors and that motivate them to act as a collective (rather than a mix of individuals).
Taken together, the present study not only highlights the benefits of certain shared leadership im-
plementations but more importantly so, sheds light on their potential challenges. Thereby, our research
findings provide the necessary insights that can assist teams in implementing an effective shared
leadership structure. Based on the perceived challenges, an intervention program may be developed that
avoids these challenges as much as possible. Moreover, it may be worthwhile for practitioners to raise
awareness of the relevance of leadership claiming and granting among team members (e.g., using role
plays to teach the team how to engage in these processes, Siangchokyoo and Klinger, 2022).
Our findings have indirect implications for practitioners, suggesting that a cautious approach and
critical evaluation are necessary before implementing a specific format of shared leadership in practice.
Understanding and addressing the potential barriers associated with shared leadership can help mitigate
the negative consequences of this leadership model. Additionally, practitioners should remain open to the
possibility that hierarchical leadership structures, characterized by a clear formal leader who makes final
decisions and assumes responsibility for them (Pearce et al., 2007),maybemoreeffectiveinspecific
contexts. For instance, in teams with members who have conflicting goals or diverse personalities,
a hierarchical leadership approach may yield better results. By considering these factors, practitioners can
make informed decisions about the most suitable leadership approach for their specificcircumstances.
Strengths and limitations of the present study
The strengths of this study include both substantive and methodological choices. First, on
a methodological level, we maximized validity by pilot-testing the interview questions prior to data
collection (Sampson, 2016). Throughout the analytic stages, we ensured trustworthy data by audio
recording, peer-reviewing the coding process, and implementing post-interview reflections.
Credibility was further achieved through extensive discussions and reflections on the categorization
process (i.e., lumping content-related codes) by the involved researchers (i.e., researcher tri-
angulation; Carter et al., 2014). Second, our chosen study sample is relatively large (N= 35),
compared to previous studies with a similar aim (i.e., Herbst et al., 2019: with N= 7). While their
study focused on church communities as a specific work context, the present study aimed for greater
external validity. More specifically, by including a sample stratified across organization type (profit,
non-profit), education level (high, low), and a wide range of sectors, this study offers a more detailed
and representative picture of how shared leadership is perceived in the broader work population.
Despite all efforts to maximize the validity and reliability of our qualitative research design, this
study is subject to some limitations. In addressing those, opportunities for future research emerge.
First, our study results are purely descriptive. Although theoretical saturation was reached and
recurring themes should get particular recognition, we believe that more emphasis should be placed
on their perceived importance instead of the frequency of mention. We encourage future researchers
to complement our insights with additional research. Ideally, an intervention study with several
points of data collection can be set up in which the various approaches are implemented and their
impact on outcomes compared to each other. Next, longitudinal research may provide insights into
the dynamic nature of shared leadership. For instance, in some phases of team development,
a different approach may be more efficient than in others.
A second limitation of our study pertains to the speculative nature of our approach, as the conclusions
are derived solely from participants’perceptions. Besides, although all participants appeared to be
unfamiliar with the different formalized shared leadership implementations, we cannot entirely exclude
the possibility that some may have had prior experiences with such implementations. Therefore, we
32 Leadership 0(0)
cannot differentiate between opinions based on actual experiences and those influenced by employees’
beliefs regarding the potential consequences of shared leadership. Future research should delve into
whether employees’experience with shared leadership plays a role in employees’perceptions of the
different (dis)advantages. Given that this study did not assess individuals’actual experiences of shared
leadership in real-world settings, but rather draws on their expectations, our findings are only preliminary
andneedtobeconfirmed in future research. Consequently, the practical implications of this research may
not fully capture the complexities of everyday organizational life and should be interpreted with caution.
Nevertheless, we believe that these findings provide first insights into participants’preferences on
how shared leadership should be implemented and on the potential perceived risks of the different
implementations. In the next step, intervention studies can be conducted to test the effects of the
different structures of shared leadership in practice. Although it will not be easy to create an
environment that controls for the many confounding variables (e.g., team composition, formal
leader, etc.), these studies might provide additional evidence on the effectiveness of different shared
leadership implementations and on whether the challenges identified in this study indeed arise (or
can be countered based on our suggestions). Moreover, the emergence of leaders within a team is
intricately influenced by interpersonal dynamics at the group level, which offers an explanation for
the varying shared leadership structures observed in teams (DeRue et al., 2015).
Thus, to understand why specific shared leadership structures arise in certain teams while others do
not, it would be valuable to direct greater attention toward the underlying social-psychological processes.
This entails examining team members’perceptions of one another, rather than solely concentrating on
immutable individual traits. Longitudinal research can shed more light on these processes. Furthermore,
incorporating a temporal dimension into the study of shared leadership can provide more clarity about the
complex interaction between shared leadership and hierarchical leadership over time (Holm and
Fairhurst, 2018). This approach allows for an examination of the sustainability of shared leadership
practices in teams with lower levels of team stability (e.g., due to turnover; De Br´
un and McAuliffe,
2022). By considering the temporal aspect, we can gain valuable insights into how shared leadership
evolves and adapts within dynamic team environments.
It is important to note that the context into which a leadership implementation is introduced is an
important dimension of complexity (Hawe et al., 2009). Indeed, additional analysis of the responses
revealed that participants with a given profile preferred a specific format of shared leadership. This
preference could be attributed to internal factors (e.g., personality, personal interests), as well as external
factors (e.g., organizational culture). For instance, different cultures may exhibit preferences for distinct
leadership styles, which could impact their perception and acceptance of peer leadership (Hanna et al.,
2021). In companies with a traditional hierarchical structure, the concept of shared leadership may
encounter greater resistance from formal leaders and team members compared to more progressive and
egalitarian organizations. Furthermore, the specific implementation of shared leadership may vary
depending on a country’s culture. For instance, it is conceivable that shared leadership is more widely
embraced in individualistic cultures as opposed to collectivistic cultures that prioritize conformity.
However, it is important to consider that in individualistic cultures, peer leaders may also become more
competitive in their roles, potentially leading to power struggles and knowledge hiding, which contrasts
with the cooperative nature of collectivistic cultures (Hanna et al., 2021;Chen and Zhang, 2022).
Finally, further research is warranted to examine team-level variables that could serve as boundary
conditions in mitigating negative outcomes associated with shared leadership structures. It would be
valuable to investigate whether the optimal distribution of leadership (roles) varies based on team type
(e.g., management teams vs factory worker teams), team size, or team interdependency. In sum,
contextual factors may play a significant role in determining the acceptance and outcomes of shared
Edelmann et al. 33
leadership practices. Exploring these factors can provide valuable insights into understanding the
nuances of shared leadership effectiveness and inform the development of context-specific approaches.
Conclusion
The advantages and disadvantages of different shared leadership approaches identified in this research are
in line with previous theorizing of scholars, thus providing valuable considerations when implementing
a particular shared leadership approach in practice. The findings indicate that employees generally perceive
shared leadership to be most beneficial when leadership responsibilities are distributed across the team,
rather than concentrated in a single peer leader. Similarly, a single leadership role is perceived to be best
fulfilled by multiple peer leaders as opposed to a sole peer leader. The research also emphasizes the
importance of including the formal leader in the shared leadership process to address concerns related to
control and leader status. Failure to involve the formal leader may lead to fear and negative emotions that
could hinder the effective implementation of shared leadership. Accordingly, it is recommended that formal
leaders participate in the selection process of peer leaders, which can be done through anonymous or open
group discussions. Overall, this study offers an overview of the benefits and challenges associated with
different shared leadership formats, contributing to the existing body of shared leadership literature. At the
same time, the findings provide theoretical guidance that can assist teams in making informed decisions
regarding the suitability of specific shared leadership structures, as well as in anticipating and addressing
potential issues that may arise.
Appendix
Appendix A
Interview protocol with the research questions of the present study
Research Question 1a: Suppose we were to assign specific leadership roles within your team to
specific team members and thereby implement a shared leadership structure:
·What are the potential benefits of formally appointing peer leaders?
o For the team members
o For the formal leader
·What are the possible disadvantages of formally appointing peer leaders?
o For the team members
o For the formal leader
Research Question 1b: To what extent do you think is it possible that the formal leader ex-
periences rivalry and jealousy when implementing a shared leadership structure in your team?
·Can such feelings possibly be counteracted? How?
Research Question 1c: Who ideally makes the decision on which team member is appointed as
a peer leader to which role? And how?
a. The formal leader (e.g., by identifying which team member may exhibit the role ‘best’)
34 Leadership 0(0)
b. The team - in an anonymous way (e.g., through an online assessment in which each team
member rates the leadership quality of the other team members, and the person with the
highest rating score is then appointed as peer leader)
c. The team - in an open discussion in the group
d. Based on a combination of the team members’and the formal leader’s opinions (e.g., both rate
the leadership quality of each team member for each role in an anonymous online assessment.
The person with the highest rating score of both the team members and the formal leader is
then appointed as the peer leader)
e. Or can you think of another ‘best practice’in which peer leaders can be ideally appointed
within the team?
Research Question 2: Now imagine a set of distinct leadership roles to be distributed within the
team. Here, several options are possible for the distribution of these roles; one option is that one
team member takes up all the roles (i.e., one peer leader), and another option is that these roles are
distributed among several people in the team (i.e., multiple peer leaders).
·Which do you think would be the best option?
·What are the possible advantages of centering all leadership on one peer leader within the team
(compared to distributing the leadership among multiple peer leaders)?
·What are the possible disadvantages of this?
Research Question 3: There is also the possibility of appointing only one person for each of the
leadership roles; e.g. John as a task leader, Pete as a social leader, etc., or appointing multiple peer
leaders per role, so that the leadership responsibilities of this role are shared.
·Which do you think is the best option?
·What are the possible advantages of appointing multiple peer leaders for one role (compared to
one peer leader for one role)?
·What are the possible disadvantages of this?
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: The authors hereby declare that this study was carried out in the absence of any
financial or commercial relationships that could be seen as a potential conflict of interest with respect to the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: The research, authorship, and publication of this article was financially supported by a grant from
Internal Funds KU Leuven.
ORCID iD
Charlotte M. Edelmann https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7258-6846
Edelmann et al. 35
References
Acar FP (2010) Analyzing the effects of diversity perceptions and shared leadership on emotional conflict:
a dynamic approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management 21(10): 1733–1753.
Ali A, Wang HW and Johnson RE (2020) Empirical analysis of shared leadership promotion and team cre-
ativity: an adaptive leadership perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 41(5): 405–423.
Badura KL, Grijalva E, Galvin BM, et al. (2020) Motivation to lead: a meta-analysis and distal-proximal model
of motivation and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 105(4): 331–354.
Barnard CI (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barry D (1991) Managing the bossless team - lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics 20(1):
31–47.
Bligh MC, Neck CP, Pearce CL, et al. (2006) The importance of self- and shared leadership in team based
knowledge work. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(4): 296–318.
Boies K, Lvina E and Martens ML (2010) Shared leadership and team performance in a business strategy
simulation. Journal of Personnel Psychology 9(4): 195–202.
Borgatti SP, Everett MG and Johnson JC (2013) Analyzing Social Networks. London: Sage Publications.
Brass DJ and Krackhardt D (1999) Social capital for twenty-first century leaders. Out-of-the Box Leadership
Challenges for the 21st Century Army, pp. 179–194.
Brown TA (2014) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Brown G and Robinson SL (2011) Reactions to territorial infringement. Organization Science 22(1): 210–224.
Brown G, Lawrence TB and Robinson SL (2005) Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management
Review 30(3): 577–594.
Bryman A (2004) Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but appreciative review. The Leadership
Quarterly 15(6): 729–769.
Burke CS, Fiore SM and Salas E (2003) The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team
adaptability. In: Pearce CL and Conger JA (eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 103–122.
Carson JB, Tesluk PE and Marrone JA (2007) Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent
conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal 50(5): 1217–1234.
Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. (2014) The use of triangulation in qualitative research.
Oncology Nursing Forum 41(5): 545–547.
Casciaro T, Gino F and Kouchaki M (2014) The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: how
networking can make us feel dirty. Administrative Science Quarterly 59(4): 705–735.
Chaput A (2012) The impact of the use of favoritism on work groups In: Schmidt Labor Research Center
Seminar Series. University of Rhode Island.
Chen W and Zhang J-H (2022) Does shared leadership always work? A state-of-the-art review and future
prospects. Journal of Work-Applied Management 15(1): 51–66.
Chiu CC, Owens BP and Tesluk PE (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(12): 1705–1720.
Chreim S (2014) The (non)distribution of leadership roles: considering leadership practices and configurations.
Human Relations 68(4): 517–543.
Chun Tie Y, Birks M and Francis K (2019) Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice re-
searchers. Sage open medicine, vol. 7.
Contractor NS, DeChurch LA, Carson J, et al. (2012) The topology of collective leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly 23(6): 994–1011.
Creswell J (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
36 Leadership 0(0)
De Br´un A and McAuliffe E (2022) When there’s collective leadership, there’s the power to make changes”:
a realist evaluation of a collective leadership intervention (Co-Lead) in healthcare teams. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies 30(2): 155–172.
Denis JL, Langley A and Sergi V (2012) Leadership in the plural. The Academy of Management Annals 6(1):
211–283.
DeRue DS, Nahrgang JD, Wellman N, et al. (2011) Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration
and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology 64(1): 7–52.
Derue DS, Nahrgang JD, Hollenbeck JR, et al. (2012) A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and
leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(5): 997–1015.
DeRue DS, Nahrgang JD and Ashford SJ (2015) Interpersonal perceptions and the emergence of leadership
structures in groups: a network perspective. Organization Science 26(4): 1192–1209.
Drescher G and Garbers Y (2016) Shared leadership leadership and commonality: a policy-capturing study. The
Leadership Quarterly 27(2): 200–217.
Dust SB and Ziegert JC (2016) Multi-leader teams in review: a contingent-configuration perspective of ef-
fectiveness. International Journal of Management Reviews 18(4): 518–541.
D’Innocenzo L, Mathieu JE and Kukenberger MR (2016) A meta-analysis of different forms of shared
leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management 42(7): 1964–1991.
Eatough EM, Chang CH, Miloslavic SA, et al. (2011) Relationships of role stressors with organizational
citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(3): 619–632.
Edelmann CM, Boen F and Fransen K (2020) The power of empowerment: predictors and benefits of shared
leadership in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 582894.
Erez A, Lepine JA 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 55(4): 929–948.
Evaggelia F and Vitta A (2012) Is shared leadership the new way of management? Comparison between vertical
and shared leadership. Science Journal of Business and Management 2012(2).
Fausing MS, Jeppesen HJ, Jonsson TS, et al. (2013) Moderators of shared leadership: work function and team
autonomy. Team Performance Management 19(5–6): 244–262.
Fletcher J and K¨
aufer K (2003) Shared Leadership: Paradox and Possibility. Sage.
Fransen K, Vanbeselaere N, De Cuyper B, et al. (2014) The myth of the team captain as principal leader:
extending the athlete leadership classification within sport teams. Journal of Sports Science 32(14):
1389–1397.
Fransen K, Van Puyenbroeck S, Loughead TM, et al. (2015) Who takes the lead? Social network analysis as
a pioneering tool to investigate shared leadership within sports teams. Social Networks 43: 28–38.
Fransen K, Haslam SA, Steffens NK, et al. (2020) All for us and us for all: introducing the 5R shared leadership
program. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 51: 101762.
Friedrich TL, Vessey WB, Schuelke MJ, et al. (2009) A framework for understanding collective leadership: the
selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly 20(6):
933–958.
Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Gockel C and Werth L (2010) Measuring and modeling shared leadership traditional approaches and new ideas.
Journal of Personnel Psychology 9(4): 172–180.
Gonzalez-Navarro P, Zurriaga-Llorens R, Tosin Olateju A, et al. (2018) Envy and counterproductive work
behavior: the moderation role of leadership in public and private organizations. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 15(7): 1455.
Gratton C and Jones I (2010) Research Methods for Sports Studies. London: Taylor and Francis.
Greer L (2014) Power in Teams: Effects of Team Power Structures on Team Conflict and Team Outcomes.
Handbook of Conflict Management Research 93–108.
Edelmann et al. 37
Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, et al. (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: a meta-
analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology 103(6): 591–613.
Gressick J and Derry SJ (2010) Distributed leadership in online groups. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning 5(2): 211–236.
Gronn P (2015) The view from inside leadership configurations. Human Relations 68(4): 545–560.
Groysberg B, Polzer JT and Elfenbein HA (2011) Too many cooks spoil the broth: how high-status individuals
decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science 22(3): 722–737.
Hanna AA, Smith TA, Kirkman BL, et al. (2021) The emergence of emergent leadership: a comprehensive
framework and directions for future research. Journal of Management 47(1): 76–104.
Hannah ST, Avolio BJ, Luthans F, et al. (2008) Leadership efficacy: review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly 19(6): 669–692.
Hannum K (2011) Social Identity: Knowing Yourself, Knowing Others. New Jersey: John Wiley & Son.
Haslam SA, Reicher SD and Platow MJ (2011) The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and
Power. New York: Psychology Press.
Hawe P, Shiell A and Riley T (2009) Theorising interventions as events in systems. American Journal of
Community Psychology 43(3–4): 267–276.
Herbst N, Rios-Collazo C and Denison J (2019) Does sharing leadership actually work? An evaluation of the
benefits and drawbacks of shared leadership. Journal of Education, Innovation, and Communication 1(1):
31–41.
Hoch JE (2014) Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams. Journal of Managerial
Psychology 29(5): 541–564.
Hogler R, Gross MA and Byrne ZS (2009) Making governance work in academia Nonunion arbitration as
a method of dispute resolution for university faculty. International Journal of Conflict Management 20(1):
31–45.
Hollensbe EC, Khazanchi S and Masterson SS (2008) How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are
fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal
51(6): 1099–1116.
Holm F and Fairhurst GT (2018) Configuring shared and hierarchical leadership through authoring. Human
Relations 71(5): 692–721.
Houghton JD, Pearce CL, Manz CC, et al. (2015) Sharing is caring: toward a model of proactive caring through
shared leadership. Human Resource Management Review 25(3): 313–327.
Howitt D and Cramer D (2008) Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology. Harlow, UK: Pearson
Education Limited.
Ji H (2018) Uncovering the dark side of shared leadership: a perspective of hierarchical functionalism. Doctoral
Dissertation. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University.
Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, et al. (2002) Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review.
Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 765–780.
Kirkman BL and Harris TB (2017) 3D Team Leadership: A New Approach for Complex Teams. Stanford
University Press.
Klein KJ, Ziegert JC, Knight AP, et al. (2006) Dynamic delegation: hierarchical, shared and deindividualized
leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 51(4): 590–621.
Kwamie A, van Dijk H and Agyepong IA (2014) Advancing the application of systems thinking in health:
realist evaluation of the Leadership Development Programme for district manager decision-making in
Ghana. Health Research Policy and Systems 12(1): 29.
Lanaj K and Hollenbeck JR (2015) Leadership over-emergence in self-managing teams: the role of gender and
countervailing biases. Academy of Management Journal 58(5): 1476–1494.
Landis JR and Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of
majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 3(2): 363–374.
38 Leadership 0(0)
Leheta D, Dimotakis N and Schatten J (2017) The view over one’s shoulder: the causes and consequences of
leader’s envy of followers. The Leadership Quarterly 28(3): 451–468.
Lemoine GJ, Koseoglu G and Blum TC (2015) An integrative network approach to shared leadership: an
illustrative case with creative tasks. Academy of Management Proceedings 2015(1): 18135–18135.
Lemons MA and Jones CA (2001) Procedural justice in promotion decisions: using perceptions of fairness to
build employee commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology 16(4): 268–281.
Leo FM, Garcia-Calvo T, Gonzalez-Ponce I, et al. (2019) How many leaders does it take to lead a sports team?
The relationship between the number of leaders and the effectiveness of professional sports teams. PLoS One
14(6): e0218167.
Liden RC, Sparrowe RT and Wayne SJ (1997) Leader-member exchange theory: the past and potential for the
future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 15: 47–119.
Liu D, Hernandez M and Wang L (2014) The role of leadership and trust in creating structural patterns of team
procedural justice: a social network investigation. Personnel Psychology 67(4): 801–845.
Liu H, Geng J and Yao P (2021) Relationship of leadership and envy: how to resolve workplace envy with
leadership - a bibliometric review study. Journal of Intelligence 9(3): 44.
MacMillan JH and Schumacher S (2001) Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction. Boston:
Longman.
Manheim N (2017) Shared Leadership in Teams: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. University of
Groningen, SOM research school.
Mason M (2010) Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative Social Research 11(3): 1428.
Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR, D’Innocenzo L, et al. (2015) Modeling reciprocal team cohesion-performance
relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’competence. Journal of Applied Psychology
100(3): 713–734.
McClean EJ, Martin SR, Emich KJ, et al. (2018) The social consequences of voice: an examination of voice type
and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal 61(5):
1869–1891.
McGrath J (1962) Leadership Behavior: Some Requirements for Leadership Training. U.S. Civil Service
Commission.
Mehra A, Smith BR, Dixon AL, et al. (2006) Distributed leadership in teams: the network of leadership
perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly 17(3): 232–245.
Mertens N, Boen F, Steffens NK, et al. (2020) Leading together towards a stronger ‘us’: an experimental test of
the effectiveness of the 5R Shared Leadership Program (5R(S)) in basketball teams. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport 23(8): 770–775.
Miller K, Walmsley J and Williams S (2007) Shared leadership: an idea whose time has come in healthcare? The
International Journal of Leadership in Public Services 3(4): 24–37.
Morgeson FP, DeRue DS and Karam EP (2009) Leadership in teams: a functional approach to understanding
leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management 36(1): 5–39.
Nicolaides VC, LaPort KA, Chen TR, et al. (2014) The shared leadership of teams: a meta-analysis of proximal,
distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 25(5): 923–942.
Nordb¨
ack ES and Espinosa JA (2019) Effective coordination of shared leadership in global virtual teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems 36(1): 321–350.
Northouse PG (2010) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Toole J, Galbraith J and Lawler EE (2002) When two (or more) heads are better than one: the promise and
pitfalls of shared leadership. California Management Review 44(4): 65–83.
Offermann LR and Scuderi NF (2009) Sharing leadership. In: Uhl-Bien M, Pillai R and Bligh MC (eds),
Follower-centered Perspectives on Leadership. IAP, pp. 71–91.
Pearce CL and Conger JA (2003) Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edelmann et al. 39
Pearce CL and Sims HP (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.
Pearce CL, Conger JA and Locke EA (2007) Shared leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly 18(3):
281–288.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Bommer WH (1996) Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and
Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology 81(4): 380.
Raelin JA (2018) What are you afraid of: collective leadership and its learning implications. Management
Learning 49(1): 59–66.
Robson C (2002) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Roth P (2022) How social context impacts the emergence of leadership structures. Leadership 18(4): 539–562.
Salovey P and Rodin J (1984) Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 47(4): 780–792.
Sampson H (2016) Navigating the waves: the usefulness of a pilot in qualitative research. Qualitative Research
4(3): 383–402.
Sandelowski M (1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health 18(2): 179–183.
Scott L and Caress AL (2005) Shared governance and shared leadership: meeting the challenges of im-
plementation. Journal of Nursing Management 13(1): 4–12.
Seers A (1996) Better leadership through chemistry: toward a model of emergent shared team leadership. In:
Beyerlein M, Johnson D and Beyerlein S (eds), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams.
Greenwich: JAI Press, pp. 145–172.
Seibert SE, Sparrowe RTand Liden RC (2003) A group exchange structure approach to leadership in groups. In:
Pearce CL and Conger JA (eds), Shared Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 173–192.
Shane Wood M and Fields D (2007) Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team member
job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management 2(3): 251–272.
Siangchokyoo N and Klinger RL (2022) Shared leadership and team performance: the joint effect of team
dispositional composition and collective identification. Group and Organization Management 47(1):
109–140.
Sinha R, Chiu CY and Srinivas SB (2021) Shared leadership and relationship conflict in teams: the moderating
role of team power base diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 42(5): 649–667.
Starks H and Trinidad SB (2007) Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis,
and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research 17(10): 1372–1380.
Steinert T, Goebel R and Rieger W (2006) A nurse-physician co-leadership model in psychiatric hospitals:
results of a survey among leading staff members in three sites. International Journal of Mental Health
Nursing 15(4): 251–257.
Strauss AL and Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss AL and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tong A, Sainsbury P and Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item
checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19(6): 349–357.
Ulhøi JP and Müller S (2014) Mapping the landscape of shared leadership: a review and synthesis. International
Journal of Leadership Studies 8(2): 66–87.
Vecchio RP (1995) It’s not Easy Being Green: Jealousy and Envy in the Workplace. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
vol. 13.
Wang H and Peng Q (2022) Is shared leadership really as perfect as we thought? Positive and negative outcomes
of shared leadership on employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 56(3): 328–343.
40 Leadership 0(0)
Wang D, Waldman DA and Zhang Z (2014) A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology 99(2): 181–198.
Yammarino FJ, Salas E, Serban A, et al. (2015) Collectivistic leadership approaches: putting the “We ”in
leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 5(4): 382–402.
Yukl GA (2010) Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhang Z, Waldman DA and Wang Z (2012) A multilevel investigation of Leader-Member Exchange, informal
leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology 65(1): 49–78.
Zhao T (2013) A study on the influence of shared leadership on knowledge hiding. Doctoral Dissertation.
Guangzhou: Jinan University.
Zhu JL, Liao ZY, Yam KC, et al. (2018) Shared leadership: a state-of-the-art review and future research agenda.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 39(7): 834–852.
Author biographies
Charlotte Marie Edelmann obtained her PhD in shared leadership in organizations at the De-
partment of Movement Sciences at KU Leuven. She obtained her master’s degree in Work and
Organizational Psychology in 2019. Her research interest lies in team dynamics, leadership, and how
leaders can enhance the well-being of their employees. She is now a postdoctoral researcher at the
Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Filip Boen is professor in Sport and Exercise Psychology at the Department of Movement Sciences
(KU Leuven). He obtained his PhD in Social Psychology in 2000 on reactions to membership in
a low-status group. His current research focuses on 1) the underlying social-psychological and
motivational processes of physical activity promotion (especially among the elderly); 2) athlete
leadership in team sports; 3) sports fan behaviour; 4) the promotion of stair-use.
Jeroen Stouten is professor at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at KU Leuven
and the founder and coordinator of Caffè Sapienza (www.caffesapienza.org). He was an Associate
Researcher at Cambridge University Judge Business School, and is currently a visiting professor at
Ghent University and Affiliate at Sauder School of Business (University of British Columbia) and
the Erasmus Center of Behavioral Ethics (Rotterdam School of Management).
Gert Vande Broek is professor in Sport and Exercise Psychology at the Department of Movement
Sciences (KU Leuven). He was a coach in elite sports for many years. Now he conducts research on
the impact of a coach on group dynamics and provides educational training for top coaches.
Katrien Fransen is Associate Professor in Leadership & Coaching at the Department of Movement
Sciences at KU Leuven. Her research focuses on the nature of shared leadership and its impact on
team effectiveness and well-being in diverse contexts. Relying on social identity principles, she has
developed an evidence-based leadership program that supports teams in implementing an effective
structure of shared leadership and further strengthens the leadership potential of the team.
Edelmann et al. 41
