SHARED LEADERSHIP
The influence of vertical leadership on shared leadership and
the mediating role of empowerment
Bianca Kuipers Student number: 1480014
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Msc Human Resource Management
Saffierstraat 174 9743 LM Groningen
Telephone number: +31629475143 E-mail address: G.B.Kuipers@student.rug.nl
First supervisor: Prof. dr. G.S. van der Vegt Second supervisor: Dr. F. Walter
ABSTRACT
Over the last decades researchers have argued that leadership can be shared or distributed among team members. In shared leadership, leadership is distributed among team members instead of centralised within a single leader. Team members influence each other in order to reach team goals. I examined the influence of vertical leadership, which is leadership of the formal leader, on the emergence of shared leadership and the mediating role of empowerment. A distinction is made between two vertical leadership styles that are expected to stimulate the emergence of shared leadership, namely vertical transformational leadership and vertical participative leadership. There is also made a distinction between two shared leadership styles, namely shared transformational leadership and shared directive leadership. The expectation that vertical transformational leadership has a positive effect on both shared transformational leadership and shared directive leadership is confirmed by the results. But these relationships are not mediated by empowerment. It is not confirmed that vertical participative leadership has a positive effect on the emergence of shared leadership.
1. INTRODUCTION
Historically, leadership has been conceived around a single leader and the relationship of that leader to subordinates or followers (Pearce & Conger, 2003). But this leader-centered perspective may be limited because it assumes that there is only one leader in a team, while researchers during the last decades have argued that leadership is an activity that can be shared among several team members (Pearce & Conger, 2003). It may also be limited because it views leadership as an exclusively top-down process between the leader and team members (Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006). This means the leader gives directions to subordinates and makes all decisions. In shared leadership team members influence each other and therefore influence is provided horizontally instead of top-down. Shared leadership is defined as “a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (Pearce & Conger, 2003, p.1).
Within organizations there is a growing demand for shared leadership. Most organizations experience an increasing complexity of their environment. In order to react fast and adequately, a broad set of skills is needed which can not be possessed by one individual leader (O‟Toole, Galbraith, & Lawler, 2002). When leadership is shared in a team, there is a broad set of skills at the team‟s disposal and the team will be able to respond adequately to a complex and dynamic environment. Shared leadership may therefore be more appropriate than traditional, vertical leadership in today‟s organizations. As there is a growing demand for shared leadership in organizations it is important to learn more about this type of leadership.
2007). These mechanisms explain the positive effect of shared leadership on team performance and team effectiveness.
More recently, research began to examine antecedents of shared leadership. Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone (2007) concluded that both the internal team environment, which consists of shared purpose, social support, and voice, and vertical leadership are important predictors of the emergence of shared leadership in teams. In this research I will also focus on the role of the vertical leader, which is critical to the ongoing success of shared leadership (Pearce, 2004). A leader has great impact on the attitudes and behaviours of team members (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). A leader can have this kind of impact by expressing ongoing support, articulating trust and confidence in the team, and emphasizing the importance of self-leadership of team members, lateral influence, and upward influence (Pearce, 2004). The leader can also provide the team with a shared vision and shared purpose which will increase the levels of motivation, empowerment, and commitment. As a consequence team members will be more willing to share the team‟s leadership responsibilities (Carson et al., 2007). Therefore, the vertical leader can create a team environment where team members are willing to both offer leadership influence and rely on the leadership of other team members (Carson et al., 2007). I will focus on how shared leadership can be stimulated by looking at vertical transformational leadership and vertical participative leadership.
1.1 Vertical and shared leadership
Bass and Stogdill (1990) define leadership as a social influence process. A vertical leader can influence team processes and functioning as well as the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours of team members (Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999). Traditional leadership research defines a variety of strategies leaders make use of to influence the behaviour of team members in order to reach team goals. Some examples of these strategies are relying on their authority, making team members responsible for team outcomes, and providing personal and material rewards. A vertical leader projects downward influence on team members (Pearce, 2004) and in vertical leadership the leadership behaviour resides in one person (Carson et al., 2007). “Traditional vertical leadership emphasizes the role of the formal leader who is positioned hierarchically above and external to a team, has formal authority over the team, and is responsible for the team‟s processes and outcomes” (Carson et al., 2007, p.1218). Shared leadership on the other hand is leadership of several team members. It occurs when team members are willing to influence and guide their fellow team members (Pearce, 2004). Consequently, leadership influence is shared among multiple team members (Carson et al., 2007). While vertical leadership is about influencing team processes and team members‟ behaviour, shared leadership is a team process where team members influence each other towards the attainment of team goals (Carson et al., 2007). As each team member brings his own unique knowledge, skills, and abilities to the team and each team member has a unique perspective, team members need to take on the leadership tasks and responsibilities for which they are best suited (Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006). The leadership needs of a team differ at various moments in time. Therefore, different team members can fulfil the leadership needs of the team at different moments because of their unique backgrounds (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Although research has demonstrated different positive outcomes of shared leadership and shared leadership seems more appropriate than vertical leadership in today‟s organizations, shared leadership does not necessarily exclude vertical leadership. A vertical leader must support and encourage the ongoing development of shared leadership in order to make shared leadership work in a team (Pearce, 2004).
If the vertical leader sets high expectations for team interaction and performance, this can contribute to the development of shared leadership, as it will focus team members on the task and on goal attainment. The vertical leader must also articulate a vision, trust, and confidence in the team (Pearce, 2004), in order to make team members feel committed to the team and to induce their confidence. Moreover, a vertical leader can contribute to shared leadership by stimulating, motivating, providing support, and creating a sense of self-competence (Carson et al., 2007). Team members will feel appreciated, competent, and committed to the team and will therefore be willing to take on leadership responsibilities and share leadership with other team members. A leader can also contribute to shared leadership by encouraging initiatives of the team (Carson et al., 2007). This type of behaviour can be linked to participative leadership. Team members will be encouraged to take on leadership responsibilities and they will be held responsible for team outcomes.
Transformational leadership refers to the leader moving team members beyond immediate self-interests (Bass, 1999), whereby the team members are willing to perform beyond what is expected by the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). A transformational leader encourages the development of team members and the interaction between team members and promotes joint motivation (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Transformational leaders make team members aware of the importance and values of task outcomes (Podsakoff, et al., 1990). They also emphasize the importance of communication, collective motivation, and collective outcomes (Bass, 1999). Transformational leaders inspire and stimulate team members, create a sense of team spirit, and set high expectations. Their relation with team members is personal, emotional, and inspirational (Jung & Sosik, 2002). According to Podsakoff et al. (1990) there are six key behaviours associated with transformational leadership: identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, formulating high performance expectations, providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation.
Leadership is often classified by differentiating between person-focused leadership and task-focused leadership. Person-focused leadership deals with the facilitation of team interaction and team development and focused leadership deals with task-accomplishment (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006). Since I had no expectations with regard to specific shared leadership behaviours, I used this broad framework to operationalize shared leadership. More specifically, I focused on shared transformational leadership as an example of person-focused leadership behaviour and on shared directive leadership as an example of task-focused leadership behaviour.
When a team exhibits shared transformational leadership, team members will create a shared vision, they will inspire each other, and they will formulate high performance expectations in order to reach goals and to go beyond what is expected of the team (Ensley et al., 2006). Teams that engage in shared transformational leadership encourage and stimulate each other to be committed to the team (Pearce, 2004). Team members respect each other and create a feeling of team spirit.
Shared directive leadership includes the assignment of tasks and specification of the way work needs to be done (Burke et al., 2006). It is about giving direction and focusing others on the task that needs to be done (Pearce, 2004). Directive leaders initiate and organize team activity and emphasize the importance of attaining team goals (Pearce, Sims Jr., Cox, Ball, Schnell, Smith, & Trevino, 2003). When the team engages in directive leadership they provide direction about how to develop strategic initiatives, how to approach assignments, and how to create internal systems and structures (Ensley et al., 2006).
his or her values, vertical transformational leadership is likely to bring about shared transformational leadership.
Vertical transformational leadership can also bring about task-focused leadership of the team, that is shared directive leadership. According to Carson et al. (2007), encouraging and supporting a team, which are behaviours that can be linked to a transformational leader, are likely to result in team initiatives such as shared leadership. As the transformational leader induces confidence of team members in their skills, team members are more likely to engage in leadership in order to work together toward team goals. Also, by formulating high performance expectations the vertical leader focuses team members on the task and on goal attainment. Team members will strive to realize these performance expectations. As vertical transformational leadership can result in shared leadership and a transformational leader focuses team members on the task and on goal attainment, vertical transformational leadership can bring about shared directive leadership.
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between vertical transformational leadership and a) shared transformational leadership and b) shared directive leadership.
Vertical participative leadership can also bring about both person-focused leadership and task-focused leadership within a team. Participative leadership implies that the team is consulted before making decisions (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997) what increases team member commitment. As a result it is likely that they will engage in person-focused leadership as team members feel competent and able to influence others. A participative leader emphasizes the idea that every team member is of equal importance and he or she encourages team members to consider other points of view (Somech, 2006), which creates an environment where team members want to work together and listen to each other. Therefore, team members will stimulate and encourage each other to reach their full potential. As the team members feel committed to the team, they will set high expectations for the team as a whole in order to reach team goals. Since vertical participative leadership creates commitment and commitment creates a team environment where team members feel able to influence each other, want to work together, stimulate and encourage each other, and set high expectations, vertical participative leadership can bring about shared transformational leadership.
reflect on their own point of view and to consider other factors and options (Somech, 2006). Furthermore, participative leaders expect team members to contribute to team processes and to give their opinion (Kahai et al., 1997). By expecting team members to contribute and by forcing them to reflect on their own point of view, participative leaders create a feeling of responsibility for the team outcomes. As a result, team members will not only fulfil their own tasks, but they will make sure that the team meets its goals by giving direction, focusing other team members on the task, and emphasizing the importance of goal attainment. Since vertical participative leadership creates a feeling of responsibility and responsibility can bring about shared directive leadership, vertical participative leadership can bring about shared directive leadership.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between vertical participative leadership and a) shared transformational leadership and b) shared directive leadership.
1.2 The mediating role of empowerment
Empowerment is defined as „increased intrinsic task motivation‟ (Spreitzer, 1995, p.1443). Empowered team members perceive that they have power and as it is assumed that individuals have a need for power, empowerment has a positive effect on the self-efficacy and motivation of team members (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Furthermore, empowered team members feel capable and able to influence team processes. According to Spreitzer (1995), empowerment is manifested in a set of four cognitions that reflect an individual‟s orientation to his or her work role: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning refers to the value an individual places on a certain task or goal based on the individual‟s own standards. Competence refers to an individual‟s belief that he or she is capable to successfully perform activities. Self-determination refers to an individual‟s feeling of autonomy in making decisions and initiating work behaviours. The last cognition, impact, refers to the degree to which an individual can influence work outcomes. Together, these four cognitions reflect an active orientation to a work role.
increase their feeling of having impact within the organization, which are both aspects of empowerment (Avolio et al., 2004). Finally, transformational leaders emphasize the importance of independence and proactivity of team members (Barroso Castro et al., 2008), which provides team members with a feeling of self-determination.
Participative leaders make team members feel that they are valuable to the team and that their ideas and suggestions are appreciated. In this way participative leaders provide meaning to the work of team members. Participative leaders also stimulate team members to participate, they consider their ideas, and are open to their suggestions (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006). Consequently, team members are likely to feel more competent to shape their work and work environments (Spreitzer, 1995). Also, participative leaders direct responsibility to the team, which enhances the feeling of self-determination among team members (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Finally, since a participative leader asks team members for input and takes into account their ideas, they provide them with a feeling of having impact (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006).
Empowerment affects both initiation and persistence of followers‟ behaviour (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Empowered team members see themselves as competent and able to influence their jobs and work environments (Spreitzer, 1995). As a result, they get involved in activities and will handle situations that would normally be intimidating (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Empowered teams have the authority and power to direct, manage, and lead themselves (Perry et al., 1999), what enables engagement in leadership tasks that where before accomplished by the vertical leader. I therefore argue that empowerment is a crucial aspect in the emergence of shared leadership in teams.
Since empowered team members see themselves as competent and able to influence their job activities (Spreitzer, 1995), I argue that they will also engage in task-focused leadership behaviours. Carson et al. (2007) concluded that team members who see themselves as competent for managing the work of their team, are more likely to demonstrate leadership behaviour as they are convinced that they can have a positive influence on team processes and outcomes. Consequently, they will assign tasks and provide feedback about how these have been accomplished in order to reach high team performance. Empowerment will therefore mediate the relationship between on the one hand vertical transformational and participative leadership and on the other hand shared directive leadership.
Hypothesis 3: Empowerment mediates the relationship between a) vertical transformational leadership and b) vertical participative leadership and shared transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 4: Empowerment mediates the relationship between a) vertical transformational leadership and b) vertical participative leadership and shared directive leadership.
The variables and relations between variables are depicted in the model in figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Mediation model
2. METHOD
2.1 Procedure and respondents
39 teams have participated in this research. 21 teams were from a Dutch bank. The other teams were from companies in different lines of business like telecommunication, accountancy offices, and governmental institutions. The teams differed in size from four to thirteen members with a mean size of 6.28 team members (SD = 2.7). In total, the 39 teams consisted of 251 team members. 244 of the 251 team members participated (response rate of
97,2%). In total, there were 118 female respondents and 126 male respondents. The age of the respondents ranged from 17 to 58 years (M = 35.06, SD = 10.24), and the average number of years that the team members had worked in their current team was 2.78 (SD = 3.9).
The data were collected through surveys. In the introduction of the surveys, information was given about the procedure. Confidentiality was guaranteed and it was made clear that the answers of individual team members could not be traced back.
2.2 Measures
(Shared) transformational leadership was measured by a scale by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). This scale consists of six dimensions and from each of these dimensions one item was used in the survey. All six items were used Round Robin, which means that each team member had to rate all other team members on the different items. The team members rated the items on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”), to 7 (“to a very strong degree”). One example is “To what degree inspires each of the persons below you with his/her ideas and plans for the future?”. To calculate the scores of the vertical leader, I computed the mean score given by each team member. For the scores of shared transformational leadership I first calculated the mean for each individual team member. Then I aggregated the scores to the team level. Cronbach‟s alpha was .81 for vertical transformational leadership and .91 for shared transformational leadership.
Vertical participative leadership was measured by a scale by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades,
and Drasgow (2000). The team rated their vertical leader on the five items in the survey. They rated the items on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”), to 7 (“to a very strong degree”). An example is “My superior encourages me to express ideas/suggestions”. I calculated the mean of the scores given by each individual team member. Cronbach‟s alpha for vertical participative leadership was .90.
Shared directive leadership was measured by a scale of Kahai, Sosik, and Avolio
(2004). This scale consists of three items. The three items where used Round Robin. The team members rated the items on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”), to 7 (“to a very strong degree”). One example is “To what degree does each of the persons below tell you how you should do your job?”. First I calculated the mean for each individual team member. Then I aggregated the scores to the team level. Cronbach‟s alpha for shared directive leadership was .90.
Empowerment was measured by a scale by Spreitzer (1995). The scale consists of four
(“strongly agree”), to 7 (“strongly disagree”). Two examples are “I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work” and “I have significant influence over what happens in my department”. Empowerment was measured on the individual level. I calculated the mean for each individual team member and then I aggregated the scores to the team level. Cronbach‟s alpha for empowerment was .88.
2.3 Data analysis
Since empowerment is a variable which consists of several components, a factor analysis is conducted. A factor analysis is a statistical procedure which is used to identify the interrelationships that exist among a large amount of variables. A factor analysis considers all variables and how they are related to each other. The results of the analysis can be found in Appendix A. The rotated component matrix showed that four subgroups of empowerment could be distinguished: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. The rotated loadings should be over .722 in order to be significant and for the other components the loadings should not be over .3. As the table in Appendix A shows, one item of self-determination had a loading of .346 for another component. However, no items were excluded.
To test the effects of transformational leadership, participative leadership, empowerment, and directive leadership, I conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The hierarchical regression analysis consists of three steps. In the first step the control variables (team size and how long someone is working in the team) are entered. I controlled for team size because it seems likely that the emergence of shared leadership has a greater chance to succeed in smaller teams. Also, team members who have been working in the same team for a longer period of time are more likely to adopt leadership behaviour. In the second step the independent variable, vertical leadership, is introduced by entering transformational leadership and participative leadership to assess the main effects of these variables. In the third step empowerment is added to determine the mediation effect.
should be zero to demonstrate that empowerment has a complete mediation effect on the relation between vertical leadership and shared leadership.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Correlations and descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of the variables are displayed in table 1. As expected, there is a positive and significant relationship between vertical transformational leadership and shared transformational leadership (r = .42, p<.01). The relation between vertical transformational leadership and shared directive leadership is positive but not significant (r = .28, n.s.), contrary to expectations. The relation between vertical participative leadership and shared transformational leadership is positive but not significant (r = .23, n.s.) and the relationship between vertical participative leadership and shared directive leadership is negative and not significant (r = -.06, n.s.). The table shows one significant relation for empowerment, namely with vertical participative leadership (r = .55, p<.01). The relation between vertical transformational leadership and empowerment is positive but not significant (r = .18, n.s.). The relation between empowerment and shared transformational leadership is positive but not significant (r = .24, n.s.) and the relation between empowerment and shared directive leadership is negative but not significant (r = -.31, n.s.).
TABLE 1
Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and Pearson correlations of the variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Team size 6.28 2.71
2 Years working in the team 2.59 1.83 .29
3 Vertical transformational leadership 5.06 .76 .12 -.04 4 Vertical participative leadership 5.29 .70 .16 -.02 .71 ** 5 Shared transformational leadership 4.18 .49 -.16 -.06 .42 ** .23
6 Shared directive leadership 3.05 .54 -.32 * -.33 * .28 -.06 .52 **
7 Empowerment 5.02 .50 .54 .25 .18 .55 ** .24 -.31
* p<.05
** p<.01
3.2 Testing the hypotheses
In table 2 and 3 the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the mediating role of empowerment in the relation between vertical transformational and shared transformational leadership are displayed. After controlling for team size and the number of years working in the team, it turns out that vertical transformational leadership has a significant effect on shared transformational leadership (b = .22, p<.01). This means the results are supporting hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between vertical transformational leadership and shared transformational leadership.
The second condition to test mediation is that there has to be a relation between vertical transformational leadership and empowerment. Table 3 shows that the results do not support the second condition (b = .20, n.s.). There is also no significant relation between empowerment and shared transformational leadership, controlled for vertical transformational leadership (condition three). Therefore, hypothesis 3a: Empowerment mediates the relationship between vertical transformational leadership and shared transformational leadership, is not supported.
TABLE 2
Unstandardized regression coefficients
Shared transformational leadership
Step Variable 1 2 3
1 Team size -.08 -.11 -.10
Years working in the team -.01 .01 -.01 2 Vertical transformational leadership .22 ** .20 *
3 Empowerment .10
R² .02 .22 ** .25
∆ R² .02 .19 ** .03
1 Team size -.08 -.10 -.09
Years working in the team -.01 .00 -.02 2 Vertical participative leadership .13 .09
3 Empowerment .08
R² .02 .09 .11
∆ R² .02 .07 .02
* p<.05
TABLE 3
Unstandardized regression coefficients
Empowerment
Step Variable 1 2
1 Team size -.02 -.05
Years working in the team .25 .27 2 Vertical transformational leadership .20
R² .06 .1
∆ R² .06 .04
* p<.05
** p<.01
In table 4 the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the mediating role of empowerment in the relation between vertical transformational leadership and shared directive leadership are displayed. It turns out that vertical transformational leadership has a significant effect on shared directive leadership (b = .17, p<.05). This means that the results support hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship between vertical transformational leadership and shared directive leadership.
The second condition that has to be met is the same as the second condition in the first hierarchical multiple regression analysis. It is already mentioned that table 3 shows that the results do not support this second condition. There is a significant negative relation between empowerment and shared directive leadership, controlled for vertical transformational leadership (b = -.18, p<.05). The third condition is met, but the relation is negative instead of positive. As the second condition was not met the results do not support hypothesis 4a: Empowerment mediates the relationship between vertical transformational leadership and shared directive leadership.
TABLE 4
Unstandardized regression coefficients
Shared directive leadership
Step Variable 1 2 3
1 Team size -.13 -.16 -.16 *
Years working in the team -.14 -.12 -.08 2 Vertical transformational leadership .17 * .20 *
3 Empowerment -.18 *
R² .16 * .26 * .35 *
∆ R² .16 * .09 * .1 *
1 Team size -.13 -.13 -.15
Years working in the team -.14 -.14 -.08 2 Vertical participative leadership -.01 .10
3 Empowerment -.19
R² .16 * .16 .24
∆ R² .16 * .00 .08
* p<.05
** p<.01
TABLE 5
Unstandardized regression coefficients
Empowerment
Step Variable 1 2
1 Team size -.02 -.12
Years working in the team .25 .29 * 2 Vertical participative leadership .57 **
R² .06 .38 **
∆ R² .06 .32 **
* p<.05
** p<.01
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the mediating role of empowerment in the relation between vertical participative leadership and shared directive leadership are also displayed in table 4. The results show that vertical participative leadership has no significant effect on shared directive leadership (b = -.01, n.s.). This means that the results do not support hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between vertical participative leadership and shared directive leadership. Although there is a relation between vertical participative leadership and empowerment (condition two) as is displayed in table 5 (b = .57, p<.01), the first condition was not met and therefore the results do not support hypothesis 4b: Empowerment mediates the relationship between vertical participative leadership and shared directive leadership. As well as in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis for hypothesis 4a, the relation in the third condition is found to be negative, but the relation between empowerment and shared directive leadership, controlled for vertical participative leadership is not significant.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Findings
leadership, is not confirmed. Moreover, I found a significant negative relation between empowerment and shared directive leadership, controlled for vertical transformational leadership, whereas this relation was expected to be positive. Finally, I found no relationship between vertical participative leadership and the emergence of shared leadership, which takes away any chance of finding mediating effects.
4.2 Theoretical implications
This research supports the idea that transformational leadership of the vertical leader increases person-focused as well as task-focused leadership of team members. Team members can develop behaviour by observing and modelling the behaviour of the vertical leader (Weiss, 1977). So the vertical leader sets an example, which is followed by team members. Transformational leaders also focus on higher-order needs of the team, like team members‟ confidence in their own abilities (Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999). Team members feel competent and able to influence team processes what makes vertical transformational leadership a facilitator of shared leadership (Perry et al., 1999).
to say that team members actually need to be encouraged and stimulated to take on leadership behaviours. Apparently, empowerment does not lead to the behavioural responses among team members which will lead to shared leadership, like appropriate citizenship behaviour, effort, and communication (Perry et al., 1999), since they are not actually stimulated and encouraged to take on these behaviours.
When team members are empowered, this decreases the degree of shared directive leadership in teams. I expected that empowered team members would give each other directions in order to reach team goals, as they feel competent and able to influence team processes. As empowerment makes team members belief that they can have a positive influence on team processes and outcomes (Carson et al., 2007), I expected that team members would assign tasks to other team members and provide them with feedback in order to reach high performance. However, empowerment decreases instead of increases the degree of shared directive leadership. Besides the fact that empowered team members feel competent, self-determined, and feel that they can have impact on the team, they also value their work and their fellow team members. In shared leadership, multiple team members share and participate in the leadership tasks of the team (Perry et al., 1999). The team members are all of equal importance to the team and working together in order to reach team goals is essential. As empowered team members value their work and their fellow team members, they will also feel that it is important to work together and to respect each other. Since shared directive leadership is about giving each other directions (Pearce, 2004), and not fundamentally about working together, it is likely that empowered team members will not be stimulated to engage in this type of leadership.
like transformational leaders do. Transformational leaders encourage the development of team members (Jung & Sosik, 2002) and they provide intellectual stimulation (Podsakoff et al., 1990). In doing so, they stimulate team members to question assumptions, and they encourage innovative and creative solutions to problems (Barroso Castro, et al., 2008). Therefore, transformational leaders provoke extraordinary behaviours of team members as opposed to participative leaders.
4.3 Strengths and limitations
A strength of this research is the fact that 39 teams from different lines of business participated in this research. Therefore the results of this research can be generalized across different kinds of teams. Another strength is the way in which shared leadership is measured. Every team member had to rate the other team members on the different leadership styles. This provides insight into the contribution of each individual team member to the leadership of the team and accordingly reflects a more accurate measurement instrument than asking team members about the leadership behaviours of the whole team.
A limitation of this research is the fact that we can not draw any conclusions concerning causality as the results are based on correlational data. Further research with for example a longitudinal design is necessary to understand the relations between vertical leadership, empowerment, and shared leadership and how these relations develop over time.
4.4 Practical implications and conclusion
This research helps in clarifying how vertical leadership influences shared leadership. The most important implication is that some vertical leadership styles influence the emergence of shared leadership and other leadership styles do not.
Since the effects of shared leadership on team performance and effectiveness are found to be positive, a lot of organizations could benefit from shared leadership. Organizations need to know how the realization of shared leadership can be stimulated. This research shows that transformational leadership of vertical leaders has a positive influence on shared leadership. Therefore, when organizations want to stimulate the emergence of shared leadership, it is important that the vertical leaders of teams stimulate and inspire team members. They must set an example and encourage team members to perform beyond what is expected of them.
REFERENCES
Adler, S. 1983. Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: the role of supervisor power and subordinate self-esteem. Social Behavior and Personality, 11 (2): 5-10.
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A., & Drasgow, F. 2000. The empowering questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21: 249-269.
Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., & May, D.R. 2004. Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 801-823.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. 2004. Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 951-968.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173-1182.
Barroso Castro, C., Villegas Periñan, M.M., & Casillas Bueno, J.C. 2008. Transformational leadership and followers‟ attitudes: the mediating role of psychological empowerment.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19 (10): 1842-1863.
Bass, B.M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L., & Kohles, J.C. 2006. The importance of self- and shared leadership in team based knowledge work: a meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21 (4): 296-318.
Bowers, D.G., & Seashore, S.E. 1966. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four- factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11 (2): 238-263.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. 2006. What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17: 288-307.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. 2007. Shared leadership in teams: An
investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 50 (5): 1217-1234.
Chen, Y.F., & Tjosvold, D. 2006. Participative leadership by American and Chinese
managers in China: the role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (8): 1727-1752.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. 1988. The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3): 471-482.
Ensley, M.D., Hmielski, K.M., & Pearce, C.L. 2006. The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: implications for the
performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17: 217-231.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J.J. 2002. Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance.
Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J., & Avolio, B.J. 1997. Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment.
Personnel Psychology, 50: 121-146.
Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J., & Avolio, B.J. 2004. Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group & Organization Management, 29 (1): 67-105.
Locke, E. A. 2003. Leadership: Starting at the top. In: C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Eds.),
Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mehra, A., Smith, B.R., Dixon, A.L., & Robertson, B. 2006. Distributed leadership in teams: the network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17: 232-245.
O‟Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. 2002. When two (or more) heads are better than one: the promise and pitfalls of shared leadership. California Management Review, 44 (4): 65-83.
Pearce, C.L. 2004. The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18 (1): 47-57.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. 2002. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6 (2): 172-197.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. 2003. All those years ago. In: C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perry, M.L., Pearce, C.L., & Sims, H.P. 1999. Empowered selling teams: How shared
leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 19 (3): 35-51.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers‟ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1 (2): 107-142.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W.D., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. 2002. A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group &
Organization Management, 27 (1): 66-96.
Somech, A. 2003. Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 1003-1018.
Somech, A. 2005. Directive versus participative leadership: two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41 (5): 777-800.
Somech, A. 2006. The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32 (1): 132-157.
Spreitzer, G.M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5): 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 39 (2): 483-504.
APPENDIX A FACTOR ANALYSIS
TABLE A1
Factor analysis empowerment
