Author/ Year/Title/Journal
approach
Craig L. Pearce, and Henry
P. Sims Jr. (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.
2002, Vol. 6, No. 2, 172–
197.
Linda Lambert (2002). A
Framework for Shared
Leadership. Educational
Leadership. 59 (8) pp. 37-
40
Michael D. Ensley a,1,
Keith M. Hmieleski b,2,
Craig L. Pearce (2006).The
importance of vertical and
shared leadership within
new venture top
management teams:
Implications for the
performance of startups.
The Leadership Quarterly
17. 217–231
Kathi J. Lovelace, Charles
C. Manz, José C.
Alves(2007). Work stress
and leadership
development: The role of
self-leadership,
shared leadership, physical
fitness and flow in
managing demands
and increasing job control.
Human Resource
Management Review 17,
pp. 374–387
Jay B. Carson, Paul E.
Tesluk, and Jennifer A.
Marrone (2007). Shared
Leadership In Teams:
An Investigation of
Antecedent Conditions
And Performance. The
Academy of Management
Journal. 50 (5), pp. 1217–
1234.
Lucia Crevani
Monica Lindgren
Johann Packendorff
(2007). Shared Leadership:
A Postheroic Perspective
on Leadership as a
Collective Construction.
International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 3(1),
pp. 40-67
Purpose Design/methodology/ Findings Practical implications Originality/value
1.This study investigated vertical versus shared 3.Team effectiveness 4.the authors found both
leadership as predictors of the effectiveness was measured approximately 6 vertical and shared
of 71 change management teams. months after the assessment of leadership to be
2.Vertical leadership stems from an appointed leadership and was also significantly related to team
or formal leader of a team, whereas shared measured from the viewpoints of effectiveness ( p _ .05),
leadership (C. L. Pearce, 1997; C. L. Pearce managers, internal customers, and although shared leadership
& J. A. Conger, in press; C. L. Pearce & H. P. team members. appears to be a more useful
Sims, 2000) is a group process in which Using multiple regression, predictor of team
leadership is distributed among, and stems effectiveness than vertical
from, team members. leadership.
3. The old model of formal, one- 4. Our lesson is clear:
1.Instead of looking to the principal alone for person leadership leaves the Instructional leadership must
instructional leadership, we need to develop substantial talents of teachers be a shared, community
leadership capacity among all members of the largely untapped. Improvements undertaking. Leadership is
school community. achieved under this model are not the professional work of
2.The days of the principal as the lone easily sustainable; when the everyone in the school.
instructional leader are over. We no longer principal leaves, promising
believe that one administrator can serve as the programs often lose momentum
instructional leader for an entire school without and fade away. As a result of these
the substantial participation of other educators and other weaknesses, the old
(Elmore, 2000; Lambert, 1998; Lambert et al., model has not met the
1995; Lambert, Collay, Dietz, Kent, & Richert, fundamental challenge of
1997; Olson, 2000; Poplin, 1994; Spillane, providing quality learning for all
Halverson, & Diamond, 2001) students.
1. The current study investigated the relative 3.New venture 4.Both vertical and shared
influence of vertical versus shared leadership performance was considered in leadership were
within new venture top management terms of revenue growth and found to be highly
teams on the performance of startups using two employee growth. The first significant predictors of new
different samples. sample was comprised of 66 top venture performance.
2.Vertical leadership stems from an appointed management teams of firms drawn Further, hierarchical
or formal leader of a from Inc. Magazine's annual list regression analysis found the
team (e.g., the CEO), whereas shared of America's 500 fastest growing shared leadership variables
leadership is a form of distributed leadership startups. The seconded to account for a significant
stemming from within a team. sample consisted of 154 top amount of variance in new
Transformational, transactional, empowering, management teams of startups venture performance beyond
and directive dimensions of both vertical and randomly drawn from Dun and the vertical leadership
shared leadership were examined. Bradstreet, which compiles the variables. These results were
most consistent across both
extensive database available for samples, thus providing
identifying relatively young robust evidence for the value
American-based ventures. of shared leadership, in
addition to the more
traditional concept of
vertical leadership.
1. Leaders work in highly stressful 2.We examine the effects of high- 3.We argue that self- and 4.Our multi-
environments, yet few leadership development strain jobs; identify the outcomes shared leadership, and the disciplinary model
efforts have focused on managing work stress. of active jobs, and highlight consequent and entailed offers a proactive way
We posit that self- and shared leadership physical fitness as a key strategy fitness and flow benefits, for leaders to
practices can help leaders manage high job of, and flow as a natural outcome support healthful manage the stressful
demands and increase long-term job control. of self- and shared leadership. regeneration and increased demands of today's
engagement and are thus work environments
vital to the leader's ability
to manage work stress and
create an active work
environment.
2.We examined antecedent 3.in a sample of 59 consulting 4.In turn, shared leadership 5.We conclude by discussing 1. Shared leadership
conditions that lead to the development of teams. Both the was found to predict team the implications of these refers to a team
shared leadership and the influence internal team environment, performance as rated by findings for team leadership property whereby
of shared leadership on team performance consisting of shared purpose, clients. and effectiveness. leadership is
social support, and voice, distributed among
and external coaching were team members rather
important predictors of shared than focused on a
leadership emergence. single designated
leader.
1.Within the field of leadership practices, there 2.Thematic data from four 3. A discussion towards
is an emergent movement towards viewing qualitative case studies of future research agendas
leadership in terms of collaboration between organizations are presented. where the articulation and
two or more persons. At the same time, questioning of the
traditional literature on leadership and foundations of leadership
organization theory has been dominated almost practices and leadership
exclusively by the perspective that leadership is research are central to the
something that is exercised by a single development of postheroic
person—the idea of unitary command (Pearce leadership ideals concludes
& Manz, 2005). This has been challenged by the paper.
the theoretical perspective of postheroic
leadership, of which one practical consequence
is to view leadership activities as collective
rather than individual. In this paper, we argue
that by shifting perspective from viewing
leadership as a single-person activity to
viewing it as collective construction processes,
we will see new patterns in how leadership is

Maria Arnone and Stephen
A. Stumpf (2010) Shared
leadership (Arnone &
Stumpf, 2010): From rivals
to co-CEOs. Strategy and
Leadership. 38(2). pp.15-
21.
Philip Hallinger and
Ronald H. Heck (2010).
Leadership for Learning:
Does Collaborative
Leadership Make a
Difference in School
Improvement?Educational
Management
Administration &
Leadership 2010 38: 654
Kathleen Boies, Elena
Lvina, Martin L. Martens
(2010). Shared Leadership
and Team Performance in a
Business Strategy
Simulation. Journal of
Personnel Psychology
(2010), 9, pp. 195-202
Jane Wakahiu and Diane
Keller (2011). Capacity
Building: A
Phenomenological Study
of the African Women
Perceptions and
Experiences in the
Leadership Training
Program. Advancing
Women in Leadership. 31,
pp. 125-135.
Kun Chang Lee, Dae Sung
Lee, Young Wook Seo
(2011) Effects of Shared
Leadership on Team
Creativity through
Knowledge-sharing in an
e-Learning Environment.
Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference
on Ubiquitous Information
Management and
Communication. Article
81. Seoul, Korea –
February 21-23.
Nathan J. Hiller, Leslie A.
DeChurch, Toshio Murase
and Daniel Doty (2011).
Searching for Outcomes of
Leadership: A 25-Year
Review. Journal of
Management. 37(4), pp.
1137-1177.
exercised in practice.
1.As businesses confront a world of increasing
complexity, some global organizations
have responded by placing co-CEOs at their
helm, judging that the demands of the
job merit the commitment of two executives.
2.This response has yielded mixed results
and continues to generate controversy. Notable
successful examples of firms run by
co-CEOs include Research in Motion, Twitter,
California Pizza Kitchen, and Motorola. Other
partnerships have ended in much publicized
failures including Martha Stewart Living,
Omnimedia, Unilever, and Kraft. And, there
are firms that remain committed to the structure
of shared leadership despite mixed results, such
as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. In these
organizations, the shared leadership structure is
an accepted leadership strategy used
throughout the organization – sometimes at the
top, and more often at the business-unit
level, with the added benefit of grooming
business leaders and providing a testing ground
for the top spot).
3.To address the dynamics and efficacy of
shared leadership,
1.Although there has been a sizable growth
spurt in empirical studies of shared leadership
over the past decade, the bulk of this research
has been descriptive. Relatively few published
studies have investigated the impact of shared
leadership on school improvement, and even
fewer have studied effects on student learning.
1.This study examined the relations between
shared leadership in teams, team trust, potency,
and performance.
1.The promotion of leadership skills among
women leaders in developing nations is
essential in order for change and progress to
occur in these countries. 2. In this
phenomenological study, we examined the
perceptions and experiences of nine women
religious of Africa who were engaged in a
three-year leadership development initiative in
three developing nations: Kenya, Uganda, and
Ghana.
1. Main focus of this paper is placed on team
creativity. In order for an organization to
remain competitive, team creativity level
should be controlled to stay higher than an
average level that rival companies are believed
to show.
3. Since a team is composed of individual
members, and a certain kind of leadership and
trust exist in the team to affect team
creativity, it is necessary to investigate
relationships between leadership, trust and
team creativity in a rigorous way.
1. A significant question in management
research is, “What criteria should be used to
evaluate the effects of leadership?”
2.In this review, the authors systematically
summarize various ways the field of leadership
has (and has not) sought to answer questions
about whether, when, and how leadership
affects outcomes.
4.we interviewed 19 co-heads,
the majority of whom have shared
the role more than once. They
discussed reasons for their
sharing leadership, and the
benefits and pitfalls for them and
their organizations.
2.This longitudinal study
examines the effects of
collaborative leadership on school
improvement and student reading
achievement in 192 elementary
schools in one state in the USA
over a 4-year period.
2.Forty-nine teams participating in
a business simulation game rated
their team potency, trust, and team
leadership styles.
3.We described how, by
subsequently practicing acquired
leadership skills, these women
brought about change in their
educational, health care, social
and pastoral ministries. Data were
collected using in-depth
interviews, observation of the
changes in the participants’
ministries, and field notes.
4.In this sense, we propose a team
creativity model in which shared
leadership, interpersonal trust
(affect-based trust and cognition
based trust), and knowledge-
sharing are included and their
subsequent influence on team
creativity is analyzed. For the sake
of empirical analysis, an e-
learning course was administered
in a private university, and 40
teams were organized for this
study. 249 valid questionnaires
were garnered, and analyzed by
structural equation model.
3. A total of 1,161 empirical
studies over 25 years, spanning
micro and macro-oriented
perspectives, were content coded
to answer six basic questions that
set the scope of leadership
science.
5.Most found the experience
benefited the firm and
accelerated their growth as
global leaders.
6.They identified practices
that would lead to a more
strategic approach to the use
of co-heads.
3.Using latent change
analysis, the research found
significant direct effects of
collaborative leadership on
change in the schools’
academic capacity and
indirect effects on rates of
growth in student reading
achievement.
3. Team potency and trust
were positively related to
shared transformational
leadership and negatively
related to passive avoidant
leadership, but only the latter
was significantly negatively
related to team performance
in the business strategy
simulation.
4. The findings indicated
that leadership development
training enhanced
participants’ capacity for
effective service delivery
and allowed for the
expansion of their ministries,
thus improving life for their
people.
5.Results show that shared
leadership,
knowledge sharing and
cognition-based trust
significantly influence team
creativity.
4.The authors first
descriptively summarize
these criterion issues in the
empirical literature and
draw comparisons across
areas (e.g., To what extent
have leader member
exchange, transformational,
and strategic leadership
research differentially
examined various
outcomes?).
4.In addition, the study 4.The study supports a
identified three different perspective on
growth trajectories among leadership for learning
schools, each characterized that aims at building
by variations in associated the academic capacity
school improvement of schools as a means
processes. of improving student
learning outcomes.
4. These results suggest that
teams might not always
benefit from
transformational leadership
qualities, but that “negative”
leadership styles might be
detrimental to performance
and to the trust and
confidence in the team.
5. Participants engaged their
communities constructively
and positively transformed
their projects.
2.Beyond managers’
control, we emphasize
a voluntarily and
informally emergent
structure and introduce
a social network
perspective within
team creativity.
5. Second, the authors
explore the implications of
criterion selection issues for
the further advancement of
leadership theory and offer
concrete recommendations
for future leadership
research.
Keith M. Hmieleski, 1. This study applied affective
Michael S. Cole, & Robert events theory (AET) as a
A. Baron (2012). Shared framework for understanding the
Authentic Leadership and relationship between the shared
New Venture Performance. authentic leadership of new
Journal of Management venture top management teams
38 (5), 1476-1499 (TMTs) and the performance of
their firms.
2. based on a national (United
States) random sample of new
ventures,
3.Results demonstrated a
positive indirect effect of
shared authentic leadership
behavior on firm
performance, an effect that
operated through TMTs’
positive affective tone.
4.These findings contribute
to entrepreneurship and
strategic management
literatures by
illustrating that AET (a
micro-level theory) is a
conceptually relevant
framework for
understanding the impact of
TMTs on firm performance
(i.e., upper echelons theory
and
research).
5. With respect to the
leadership and
organizational
behavior literatures,
the authors’
results indicate that
authentic leadership
may be particularly
beneficial when shared
among
team members.

Miriam Muethel, Sarah 2.Taking a functional perspective on shared 3.Based on data from 96 dispersed 4.Further, we find the socio- 1.Companies increasingly 5.Theoretical and
Gehrlein, and Martin leadership, we thus investigate the relationship teams, we show that shared demographic characteristics make use of geographically managerial
Hoegl (2012). Socio- between shared leadership behaviors and team leadership behavior fosters team typical for dispersed teams dispersed teams to capture implications for human
Demographic Factors and performance in dispersed teams. Furthermore, performance. to foster shared leadership. knowledge residing at resource management
Shared Leadership we analyze how socio-demographic factors that different locations. In this are discussed.
Behaviors in Dispersed are characteristic for dispersed teams (i.e., context, shared leadership is
Teams: Implications For high female-to-male ratio, high mean age, and considered a key enabler of
Human Resource high levels of national diversity) affect shared team performance.
Management. Human leadership behaviors.
Resource Management, 51
(4), pp. 525–548 .
Julia E. Hoch (2013). The purpose of this study was to investigate the Data were obtained from Shared and vertical Understanding how This is one of the first
Shared Leadership and relationship between shared leadership, as a a field sample of 43 work teams, leadership, but not team organizations can enhance studies to provide
Innovation: The Role of collective within-team leadership, and comprising 184 team members composition, was positively their own innovation is evidence of the
Vertical Leadership and innovative behavior, as well as and their team leaders from two associated with the teams’ crucial for the organizations’ relationship between
Employee Integrity. antecedents of shared leadership in terms of different companies. Team leaders level of innovative behavior. competitiveness and shared leadership and
Journal of Business and team composition and vertical transformational rated the teams’ innovative Vertical transformational survival. Furthermore, the innovative behavior, an
Psychology. 28:159–174 and empowering leadership. behavior and their own leadership; and empowering leadership increasing prevalence of important
team members provided and team composition in teams, as work arrangements organizational
information on their personality terms of integrity were in organizations, raises the outcome. In addition,
and their teams’ shared leadership. positively related to shared question of how to the study explores two
leadership. successfully manage teams. important predictors of
This study suggests that shared leadership,
organizations should transformational and
facilitate shared leadership empowering
which has a positive leadership, and the
association with innovation. team composition in
respect to integrity.
While researchers and
practitioners agree that
shared leadership is
important, knowledge
on its antecedents is
still in its infancy.
Julia E. Hoch and Steve 2. We expected structural support and shared 1.Using a field sample of 101 3. Results from moderation 4. However, shared team 5.Results are discussed
W.J. Kozlowski (2014). team leadership to be more, and hierarchical virtual teams, this research analyses indicated that the leadership was significantly in terms of needed
Leading Virtual Teams: leadership to be less, strongly related to team empirically evaluate the impact of extent to which tams were related to team performance research extensions for
Hierarchical Leadership, performance when teams were more virtual in traditional hierarchical leadership, more virtual attenuated regardless of the degree of understanding
Structural Supports, and nature. structural supports, and shared relations between virtuality. leadership processes in
Shared Team Leadership. team leadership on team hierarchical leadership and virtual teams and
Journal of Applied performance. team performance but practical implications
Psychology. 99 (3), strengthened relations for for leading virtual
pp.390-403. structural supports and team teams.
performance.
Julia E. Hoch (2014). Shared leadership is increasingly important in The research used a field study Shared leadership was The results found support for Research highlight
Shared leadership, today’s organizations. The purpose of this design, quantitative data of positively associated with moderating and mediating shared leadership,
diversity, and information paper is to examine the association between employees from two different team performance and this variables, explaining under diversity, and
sharing in teams. Journal shared leadership and team performance, the organizations. Data were analyzed association was mediated by what conditions and how information are
of Management moderating role of demographic diversity and with structural equation modeling information sharing. shared leadership is increasingly important
Psychology. 29(5),pp.541- the mediating role of information sharing on analysis. Demographic diversity associated with team in today’s
564 this relationship. moderated was more performance in organizations and
strongly associated with organizations. should be considered
team performance in more Practical: Research from a more positive
diverse teams and less in less highlights the importance of standpoint.
diverse teams. nurturing shared leadership, Value: This research
in particular as teams tend to explored the
grow more diverse in our association between
taday’s work settings. They shared leadership,
also highlight the importance demographic diversity,
of diversity in how shared and information
leadership unfolds its sharing with team
potential. performance. It
represents a first step
in examining the
moderating and
mediating variables of
the shared leadership
and team performance
association.
Craig L. Pearce & 1.Leadership is generally thought to flow from 4. Does shared leadership predict
Christina L. Wassenaar the top to the bottom in organizations. In fact, a group outcomes? What kinds of
(2015). Shared Leadership cursory glance at the popular press shows very shared leadership behavior
In Practice: When Does It clearly that top organizational leaders—the are more or less potent? Is shared
Work Best? Academy of Chief Executive Officer or Managing leadership
Management Perspectives Director—are often glorified as being the more predictive of different types
29(3), pp. brains behind the success of the entire of group outcomes?
organization (e.g., Ray Kroc of McDonald’s, Are certain types of contexts more
Bill Gates of Microsoft) or vilified as the cause or less suited for
of an organization’s downfall (e.g., Kenneth shared leadership? How does the
 Lay of Enron). 2. Recently, there has been a way in which shared
growing recognition that leadership is not a leadership is assessed impact its
solo act. Aswedrive further into the age of predictive utility?
knowledgework, for example, there has been an And, finally, is shared leadership a
increasing use of team-based organizational better predictor of
structures. 3. While scholars have presented groupoutcomesthantop-down,
considerable theoretical discussions of shared hierarchical leadership?
leadership (see Pearce & Conger, 2003 for a
thorough foundation), there has been far less
empirical study of the phenomenon.
Grille, A. & Kauffeld, S. 1.Shared leadership is viewed as an effective 2.Based on literature in leadership 3.Significant correlations 4.its advantages for
(2015). Development and management form to encounter increased and team work research, a with related scales support research and human
Preliminary Validation of complexity in modern work life. However, the questionnaire was developed to convergent and criterion resource development
the Shared Professional lack of reliable and valid instruments to assess assess four different aspects of validity. This study therefore are discussed.
Leadership Inventory for shared leadership behaviors has limited shared leadership behavior—task-, provides researchers with a
Teams (SPLIT). empirical research. relation-, change- and valid and reliable instrument
Psychology, 6, 75-92. micropolitic-oriented leadership. to assess different aspects of
The final version consisted of 20 shared leadership behavior
items. Confirmatory factor and,
analyses confirmed the
theoretically hypothesized model
in two independent German
samples.
Sun X, Jie Y, Wang Y, 1.Previous research has revealed the significant 3.The results showed that
Xue G and Liu Y (2016) impact of shared leadership on team creativity, shared leadership enhanced
Shared Leadership yet the mechanism underlying this relationship the novelty dimension of
Improves Team Novelty: has rarely been investigated. team creativity by improving
The Mechanism and Its 2.The current research examined how shared constructive controversy.
Boundary Condition. leadership influenced team creativity (novelty Furthermore, team goal
Frontiers in Psychology and usefulness) across 3 studies using both orientation moderated this
7:1964 long-term project teams and temporal task effect. The indirect effect of
teams in the laboratory. constructive controversy
holds for teams with
learning goal orientation but
not for those with
performance goal
orientation. Such patterns
were not found in the
usefulness dimension of
team creativity.
Sekiwu, D., & Kaggwa, V. 1.This study investigated the dynamics of 2.Using data from two public 3.a host of factors 4.while networking for a
T. (2017). The Dynamics shared leadership in university management in universities and a sample of 100 influencing shared common institutional vision
of Shared Leadership in Uganda. participants, the results from a leadership in a university is least valued as motivators
Institutional Management: univariate analysis show that, the management context have of shared leadership in
The Case of Public practice of shared leadership in been reduced whereby university management in
Universities in Uganda. university has since improved but institutional cohesion, expert Uganda. The researchers
Advances in Social much felt at the lower and middle- contacts and shared concluded that shared
Sciences Research Journal, line management levels. responsibility are highly leadership can be optimally
4(16) 236-253. Employing a Factor Analysis, valued factors; mutual practiced where a
support, communicating participative management
institutional expectations, model prevails to allow
and autonomy and self- room for the vertical
management are moderately distribution of authority
valued factors; throughout all the
institutional structures.
Lauren D’Innocenzo; 4.We highlight the relative value of employing 1. Using 50 effect sizes from both 2. Employing a random 3.Analyses also revealed
John E. Mathieu; Michael social network theories and measures as published and unpublished studies effects model, we found that lower average effect sizes
R. Kukenberger (2014), A compared to aggregate theories and measures (team n = 3,198), we provide the theoretical foundation when the sample studied was
Meta-Analysis of Different of shared leadership. Directions for future meta-analytic support for the and associated measurement in the classroom/ lab as
Forms of Shared research and application are discussed. positive relationship between techniques used to index compared to the field. Task
Leadership-Team shared leadership and team shared leadership complexity significantly
Performance Relations. performance. significantly moderated moderated the shared
Journal of Management, effect size estimates. leadership, with lower effect
20(10), pp.1-28. Specifically, as compared to sizes observed with more
studies that conceptualized complex tasks. No
and employed assessments significant influence of team
of overall shared leadership task interdependence was
from members (i.e., an observed.
aggregation approach),
network conceptions and
measures of shared
leadership evidenced higher
effect sizes. Both network
density and
(de)centralization
approaches to the study of
shared leadership–
performance relations
exhibited significant and
higher effect sizes than did
the aggregation-based
studies.
Marcus A. Drescher, M. 1.In this study, we examined how the dynamics 2. Longitudinal data from 142 3. Our findings contribute to
Audrey Korsgaard, Isabell of shared leadership are related to group groups engaged in a strategic the literature on shared
M. Welpe, Arnold Picot, performance. We propose that, over time, the simulation game over a 4-month leadership and group
and Rolf T. Wigand expansion of shared leadership within groups is period provide support for positive dynamics by demonstrating
(2014). Journal of Applied related to growth in group trust. In turn, growth changes in trust mediating the how the growth in shared
Psychology 99(5):771-783 in group trust is related to performance relationship between positive leadership contributes to the
improvement. changes in shared leadership and emergence of trust and a
positive changes in performance. positive performance trend
over time.