An Advantage That Effective Teams Can Bring to Organizations Is
Introduction
In recent years, leadership researchers have emphasized a team-level phenomenon, where leadership is carried out by the team as a whole, rather than exclusively by those at the top or by those in formal leadership positions (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce et al., 2014). As such, the notion of shared leadership has gained more traction in the extant literature. By definition, shared leadership is described as "a dynamic, interactive influence process amongst individuals in groups for which the objective is to pb one some other to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both" (Pearce and Conger, 2003, p. 1). Every bit Acar (2010) noted, shared leadership represents a fundamental shift away from the notion of a single, appointed leader, to the idea that team members mutually influence each other and collectively share leadership roles, responsibilities and functions. Recent empirical work has provided evidence for the important part of shared leadership in groups (Nielsen and Daniels, 2012; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Sousa and Van Dierendonck, 2016; Sun et al., 2016). More than interestingly, some studies accept even plant that shared leadership is more than influential than convectional vertical leadership for team effectiveness (Pearce and Sims, 2002; Ensley et al., 2006). However, our understanding of whether shared leadership is positively related to team effectiveness and when shared leadership is more likely to be effective is still limited in at least three fundamental ways.
Offset, in recent years, researchers and practitioners take advocated the benefits of shared leadership as a way to promote team effectiveness. For case, Ramthun and Matkin (2012) stated that shared leadership is often advantageous, since members are more likely to follow the person having the all-time cognition and skills than depending solely on the vertical influence process of traditional leadership. Indeed, many other empirical studies have also demonstrated that teams with shared leadership yield college team effectiveness (Pearce and Sims, 2002; Wang et al., 2014; Serban and Roberts, 2016). However, we must circumspection that this is not always the case. Fausing et al. (2013) and Mehra et al. (2006) failed to find support for this significant and positive relationship, and Boies et al. (2011) even found that shared leadership exerts a negative influence on team effectiveness. Such inconsistent findings betoken to the need for more empirical show. Therefore, in order to enrich our understanding of the value of shared leadership, the outset purpose of our study is to explicitly examine the shared leadership – team effectiveness relationship. In this study, we define team effectiveness equally the extent to which teams come across the expectations of organizations (Essens et al., 2009). This viewpoint encourages the states to think about team effectiveness from a multidimensional perspective. Consequently, nosotros follow Aube and Rousseau (2005), Balkundi and Harrison (2006), and Mathieu et al. (2008), who consider team effectiveness from two distinct aspects: team task operation and team viability. Squad task performance refers to how well the grouping meets (or even exceeds) work expectations while team viability is the potential of teams to retain its members and to part effectively over time (Balkundi and Harrison, 2006).
Second, in order to gain a more fine-grained understanding of the impacts of shared leadership, unanswered questions must be addressed. More specifically, there is a clear need to investigate the temporally relevant moderators for its effectiveness. Researchers have emphasized that shared leadership is a dynamic, emergent, time-varying construct (Avolio et al., 2009) that is afflicted past the surround of a team (Carson et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2020) and task characteristics (Serban and Roberts, 2016; Hans and Gupta, 2018). Therefore, continuous changes in the inputs, processes and outputs of unlike phases of the project life cycle could influence the emergence of shared leadership in teams (Wu and Cormican, 2016) equally well as its relationship with team effectiveness. Still, the potential moderating impact of the project life cycle for the effectiveness of shared leadership is not well theoretically developed nor rigorously empirically tested. This important unaddressed gap needs farther attention then as to provide insights into the boundary weather regarding when shared leadership is more or less influential to team effectiveness. Consequently, the 2d inquiry goal is to focus on the dynamic nature of shared leadership and investigate the moderating effect of the project life cycle in the human relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness.
Tertiary, although there is growing interest in the shared leadership domain, studies concentrating on project teams are all the same limited and under-developed (Scott-Young et al., 2019). Shared leadership theory has been widely spread and applied across a range of team types, east.1000., top management teams (Singh et al., 2019), entrepreneurial teams (Zhou, 2016), consulting teams (Carson et al., 2007), and change management teams (Pearce and Sims, 2002). Even so, there is a dearth of investigations relating to project teams. While the current workplace is becoming increasingly project-centric (Scott-Young et al., 2019), at that place remain very few studies focusing on shared leadership theory in the project management context. In gild to extend the external validity of the shared leadership construct in project settings, this study examines the effectiveness of shared leadership in project-based engineering science design teams. Moreover, as project teams uniquely have definitive outset and cease times based on the elapsing of the tasks (Farh et al., 2010), it is well suited to help explain when shared leadership is more likely to be effective in teams.
Taken together, this research seeks to enrich our understanding of the mechanisms of shared leadership and investigates whether and when shared leadership is positively related to team effectiveness in engineering design teams. To practise this, nosotros used the social network arroyo to measure the construct of shared leadership by computing network density and creating binary matrices equally well as sociograms. Squad effectiveness was measured using nine items consisting of two separate, theoretically derived subscales: squad task performance and team viability. Moreover, an internal consistency analysis and confirmatory gene analysis was performed to assess the reliability and validity of our measurement model. We so conducted a two-way moderated hierarchical regression assay (Carson et al., 2007; Erkutlu, 2012; Fausing et al., 2013) in this study so as to test hypotheses proposed. By doing and so, our study makes several significant contributions: (1) information technology extends a line of enquiry and explicitly examines the relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness; (2) it builds on the dynamic nature of shared leadership and is amid the first to investigate an of import temporal moderator, the project life wheel, for the effectiveness of shared leadership; (iii) it adds to the academic fence by extending the external validity of shared leadership theory in engineering design teams; (4) it brings insightful thoughts to the field of project direction by providing applied suggestions for projection managers in business organization who seek to implement best practice in their organizations.
Theory and Hypotheses
Shared Leadership Theory
Leadership scholars have realized the importance of shared leadership and worked to empathise how to conceptualize it, measure out it, and to assess what impacts it brings to teams. Table 1 presents details of relevant prior empirical studies. Equally illustrated, conceptually, shared leadership is a team-axial phenomenon (Ensley et al., 2006; Serban and Roberts, 2016) whereby team members engage in "leadership roles and responsibilities on behalf of the team" (Robert and Yous, 2018, p. 503), and "accepts their colleagues' leadership" (Aubé et al., 2017, p. 199). Furthermore, shared leadership is not a static process; it is defined every bit an emergent, dynamic phenomenon that unfolds over time (Avolio et al., 2009; Drescher et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). Co-ordinate to Carson et al. (2007), shared leadership is considered in terms of a continuum ranging from low to loftier, which implies that shared leadership is not a rigid either-or category, just occurs in every grouping at diverse levels (Liu et al., 2014).
Table 1. Definitions, measures, and impacts of shared leadership.
While progress has been made relating to the definitions of shared leadership, many empirical studies take centered on what impacts shared leadership brings. As shown in Table 1, the positive relationship between shared leadership and squad performance has received much attention (Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; Ensley et al., 2006; Mehra et al., 2006; Carson et al., 2007; Drescher et al., 2014). Additionally, shared leadership is also demonstrated to be positively related to team functioning (Bergman et al., 2012), team proactive behavior (Erkutlu, 2012), squad and individual learning (Liu et al., 2014), team member' variety and emotional disharmonize (Acar, 2010), team members' trust, autonomy and satisfaction (Robert and You, 2018). These findings are encouraging and propose the need for more sophisticated designs on the notion of shared leadership. Accordingly, this study extends a line of research to further examine its human relationship with team effectiveness and goes beyond elementary relationships to investigate when shared leadership plays a stronger or weaker role in the effectiveness of teams. The relevant research hypotheses are proposed beneath.
Shared Leadership and Team Effectiveness
Based on the work of Aube and Rousseau (2005), Balkundi and Harrison (2006), and Mathieu et al. (2008), team effectiveness is considered in terms of 2 distinct aspects: team chore performance (how well the group meets (or even exceeds) work expectations) and team viability (the potential of teams to retain its members and to role finer over fourth dimension). This assessment conforms to the classic piece of work of Barrick et al. (1998), who suggested that a comprehensive assessment of team effectiveness should capture both current team effectiveness (i.due east., present chore performance) and future team effectiveness (i.e., capability to continue working together). Therefore, this inquiry adopts a broad perspective to team effectiveness and explores the relationship betwixt shared leadership and team effectiveness.
Beginning of all, this study expects that shared leadership is positively associated with team task operation. As suggested by Twenty-four hour period et al. (2004), shared leadership advances the social capital of the team via the utilization of team resources such as the knowledge and capability of group members, which afterwards fosters squad task performance. Katz and Kahn (1978) also proposed that when group members offer leadership to others and to the mission or purpose of their group, they bring more than personal and organizational resources to the chore, share more than information, and they feel greater delivery. Further, when grouping members are influenced past their fellows, team functioning is improved as high levels of respect and trust are evidenced among grouping members. Collectively, teams exhibiting these characteristics, tin also showroom greater levels of performance (Day et al., 2004). This premise aligns with many empirical studies (see Tabular array i). For example, Carson et al. (2007), in a study of 59 consulting teams, establish that shared leadership is positively associated with team operation every bit rated by clients. Ensley et al. (2006), in a written report of 66 top management teams, demonstrated that shared leadership is a more significant predictor than vertical leadership of new venture performance when considered in terms of revenue and employee growth. Furthermore, Drescher et al. (2014), in a longitudinal examination of 142 teams who engaged in a strategic simulation game, besides demonstrated back up for the positive influence of shared leadership on team task performance. Taken these together, this study proposes:
Hypothesis 1a: Shared leadership is positively related to team task performance in engineering science design teams.
Shared leadership, as an of import intangible resource available to teams (Carson et al., 2007), fosters not only squad task performance, just also team viability. Every bit Woods and Fields (2007) suggested, shared leadership exerts a series of positive impacts on squad members' job perceptions: information technology brings depression levels of role overload, role disharmonize, function ambiguity and job stress, every bit well equally loftier levels of task satisfaction. Similarly, Bergman et al. (2012) likewise demonstrated that teams with shared leadership experience less disharmonize, greater consensus, and college intragroup trust and cohesion. This may foster team viability every bit members in shared leadership teams experience increased interdependence, more than collaboration, and they sense greater levels of satisfaction. Additionally, when there is effective coordination and collaboration among team members fulfilling leadership responsibilities, it is easier for them to identify the potential causes of conflicts and propose potential solutions. It thus reduces the corporeality of conflict and promotes team consensus and trust (Balkundi and Harrison, 2006). As a issue, team viability, which retains members and maintains good team operation over time, could be enhanced. This research therefore posits:
Hypothesis 1b: Shared leadership is positively related to team viability in engineering science design teams.
Taken these ii hypotheses (hypothesis 1a and 1b) together, this written report expects that shared leadership will foster team effectiveness by enhancing team task performance and team viability. As Wang et al. (2014) suggested, shared leadership nurtures a collective identity amid members of the squad and strengthens the level of engagement with and commitment to the group, which in turn enhances squad effectiveness. Moreover, Mathieu et al. (2015) mentioned that shared leadership fosters social inclusion and enhances team cohesion, which can, subsequently, facilitate squad effectiveness. In light of this, this inquiry suggests:
Hypothesis 1c: Shared leadership is positively related to team effectiveness in technology design teams.
The Moderating Part of the Projection Life Wheel
Notwithstanding the fact that enquiry on the human relationship betwixt shared leadership and team effectiveness brings valuable insights into the understanding of shared leadership in teams, in that location is an important omission in prior studies regarding its temporal moderating roles on such a relationship (Carson et al., 2007; D'Innocenzo et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). In an attempt to open the blackness box, this study seeks to examine a potential moderator of shared leadership, namely the project life cycle, and expects that the positive association between shared leadership and team effectiveness volition be stronger at the early phase than the later phase of the project. This is considering the focal concern of the early stage is toward planning and strategy generation (Chang et al., 2003; Farh et al., 2010), where projection team members are more willing to engage in mutual leadership as they become proactively involved in constructive communication and decision-making (Wu and Cormican, 2016). Information technology thus allows individuals to bring more than resources to the task, share more information, and to experience college levels of commitment (Bergman et al., 2012). Collectively, these consequences would result in greater team effectiveness (Day et al., 2004; D'Innocenzo et al., 2014). Furthermore, as time and resources are less constrained at the early stage (Farh et al., 2010), members are able to take initiative to develop their ain leadership abilities every bit well equally to facilitate the leadership skills of others, which subsequently fosters the effectiveness of projection teams (Ensley et al., 2006; Serban and Roberts, 2016). Nonetheless, when the project advances into the later stage, resources are dedicated to execute project plans (Farh et al., 2010). This leads to a change in the leadership distribution from many team members to a few individuals, who assume the responsibility of integrating resources, controlling the development of the project to meet deadlines and keeping costs within budget (Wu and Cormican, 2016). Teams may no longer afford to spend too much time cultivating a positive team environment to promote shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007). As such, whatsoever potential of shared leadership for enhancing team effectiveness would be more hard to realize in the later phase of the project life wheel. Therefore, this research expects that:
Hypothesis two: The phase of the projection life cycle moderates the positive association between shared leadership and squad effectiveness, such that this relationship will be stronger at the early phase than at the afterwards phase of the project in engineering science design teams.
Methodology
Research Setting and Sample
A survey-based blueprint was conducted in this report. The sample comprised 26 project-based engineering design teams working in the construction industry in Red china. As suggested by Carson et al. (2007), shared leadership is effective for teams equanimous of knowledge-based employees, considering people having high levels of expertise and skills seek autonomy in how they apply their specialties, and thus desire more opportunities to shape and participate in the leadership functions for their groups. Engineering design teams comprising cognition workers have the potential to leverage the expertise of a diverse group of members by pooling their talent and knowledge. This kind of team is likely to nourish the emergence or evolution of shared leadership. This perspective thus adds to the academic debate on the relationship betwixt shared leadership and team effectiveness and extends the external validity of shared leadership theory into engineering design teams. Moreover, we chose a Chinese sample due to the fact that the conceptualization and operationalization of shared leadership is predominantly developed in the Western countries (encounter Tabular array 1) and it remains uncertain whether its theoretical models concord up in Chinese cultural settings. Furthermore, scholars, like Whetten (2009), have called for more attention to be paid to explaining cultural context effects. Therefore, to plug this gap, this study seeks to extend the validity of the shared leadership construct to a Chinese context, whereby its organizational culture differs from Western countries. Specifically, according to Hofstede et al. (2005), the power distance and collectivism in China are rated stronger than in Western cultures. Initially, a pilot test was conducted with sixteen employees from three engineering design teams. Based on feedback provided, pocket-size modifications to the survey items were made. Side by side, 146 members from 34 applied science design teams were invited to participate in this study. Of the 146 participants who received the questionnaire, 127 returned information technology, yielding an 87% response rate. Teams with less than 3 members were eliminated from the sample. It resulted in a sample of 119 employees working in 26 project teams. The average squad size of the sample is 5.26. The specific participant demographics are outlined in the Table 2.
Table ii. Sample characteristics.
Measures
Shared Leadership
This research study adopted a social network approach to assess the nature of shared leadership. The social network technique is an intrinsically relational method that advocates a natural theoretical and analytical method to modeling the patterns of the relationships among interconnected individuals (D'Innocenzo et al., 2014). This written report used the most common index of social network analysis, network density, to explicitly measure the extent to which team members are perceived to be involved in the sharing of leadership (Wang et al., 2014). This pop measurement was employed in many empirical studies of shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2015; Chiu et al., 2016; Serban and Roberts, 2016). Following Carson et al. (2007), this written report assessed the level of shared leadership by requiring every team member to rate each of his/her peers on the following question: "To what caste does your team rely on a particular private for leadership?" A 5-point Likert calibration was used to measure the level of perceived leadership, where 1, represents "not at all," and 5, "to a very great extent." Network density was and then calculated by summing all of the responses from grouping members divided past the total number of possible relations among group members (Carson et al., 2007; Mathieu et al., 2015). The values of density ranged from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate higher degrees of shared leadership inside a team. Furthermore, every bit shared leadership is a team-level miracle, agreement among the respondents' ratings of group members was also measured thus proving advisable interrater reliability [mean r wg = 0.75, ICC(i) = 0.44, ICC(ii) = 0.77].
To visually represent the density of shared leadership, this study developed leadership sociograms for each sample squad similar to Carson et al. (2007) and Pastor and Mayo (2002). To do this, binary matrices were created, which were then used to quantify the degree of leadership influence for each team and to represent the presence or absence of leadership relations between pairs of team members. More than specifically, the raw leadership ratings collected from each participant were aggregated and included in g × g squared matrices. These data were so dichotomized, where values of 4 (to a great extent) or v (to a very nifty extent) are considered equally ane, and values of three and less are given a value of 0. The 2nd footstep was to create leadership sociograms based on these binary matrices. Effigy 1 shows the leadership sociograms in our study. Specifically, it illustrates three examples with low, middle and loftier levels of density of shared leadership networks. Among all of our sample information (26 engineering blueprint teams), 0.52 is the lowest score, 0.66 is the medium score, and 0.75 is the highest score of network density. The nodes symbolize team members and the arrows represent leadership relations. One arrow points from squad fellow member (A) to member (B), indicating that B is perceived as a source of leadership by A. In this vein, 2-headed arrows imply that two members perceive each other as a source of leadership.
Effigy one. Leadership sociograms in this report. Depression caste of shared leadership Medium degree of shared leadership (Network density = 0.52) (Network density = 0.66). High degree of shared leadership (Network density = 0.75).
Squad Effectiveness
Team effectiveness was measured past squad participants (including team leaders and members) via nine items consisting of ii dissever, theoretically derived subscales: squad chore operation and team viability using a v indicate Likert scale ranging from 1 "strongly disagree" to v "strongly agree." Squad task performance was assessed using five items derived from Sousa and Van Dierendonck (2016) and Suprapto et al. (2018). It measures the degree to which the projection meets its goals, quality, schedule, budget, and overall level of customer satisfaction. Team viability was measured using four items derived from Aube and Rousseau (2005). These include the extent of a team's capacity to solve problems, the power to integrate new members, the power to adapt to changes, as well as the ability to continue to work together in the futurity. In order to test for the discriminant validity, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. This yielded a good fit to the data (Xii 27 = 33.90, CFI = 0.99, GCI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.09, RMSEA = 0.05). These CFA results demonstrate the support for the hypothesized structure to measure squad effectiveness. This study further examined the correlation between these two subscales to check the convergent validity of this measurement model. The finding provides evidence that these 2 subscales are highly correlated with each other (r = 0.92, p < 0.001). Given the strong support of the hypothesized measurement model, this written report aggregated these two subscales to the group level and and then averaged the scores to generate a single variable to stand for team effectiveness (Cronbach α = 0.95). To justify whether this assemblage is appropriate, this inquiry used the interrater agreement statistic, r wg (James et al., 1993). The mean r wg value of 0.82 was much larger than the conventional cut-off value of 0.70 (James et al., 1993), which implies that on boilerplate, there is a high degree of agreement among different raters with a group. Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC (1) and the reliability of the group-level mean, ICC (2) were likewise calculated to test between-group variance and within-group understanding (Bliese, 2000). The results showed that the ICC (1) value of 0.73 suggested that team membership accounted for significant variance and the ICC (two) value of 0.92 demonstrated that the grouping-level means were reliable.
Project Life Bicycle
Led by the inquiry of Farh et al. (2010), the phase of the project life cycle was measured from the per centum of the project work completed at the time of the survey, equally reported past project managers. In the sample of our study, the mean project completion charge per unit across 26 teams was 56%. This research checked journal guidelines and similar papers (run across Farh et al., 2010) and used a hateful divide, where teams with a percentage of project completion equal to and beneath 56% were classified equally beingness at an early phase and teams above 56% were classified as being at a later phase. Appropriately, there are 14 project teams in the early phase subgroup with the percent of project completion ranging from 5% to 56%, and 12 in the afterwards stage subgroup with 57–100% project completion. Figure 2 graphically illustrates the distribution of network density of shared leadership in the early phase vs. later phase.
Figure 2. The distribution of network density of shared leadership in the early phase vs. later phase.
Control Variables
Several command variables were included in the report. Starting time is squad size, as information technology has been proposed to be negatively related to the emergence of shared leadership (Cox et al., 2003) and negatively to customer ratings and team cocky-ratings of squad effectiveness (Pearce and Sims, 2002). The second control variable is team tenure (the length of time an individual has worked on a specific squad). It was included as it reflects the feel of grouping members working together which may influence team effectiveness (Marrone et al., 2007) and shared leadership considering team longevity affects mutual familiarity, trust and interaction among team members (Cox et al., 2003). 3rd is team members' educational levels, since the team member's diversity has been demonstrated to moderate the relationship between shared leadership and squad outcomes (Hoch, 2014). Therefore, team members' educational levels were controlled, together with squad size, squad tenure for the assay of this present research.
Results
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations and nil-guild correlations of all the constructs. As illustrated, shared leadership is positively and significantly correlated to team task performance (r = 0.52, p < 0.01), team viability (r = 0.43, p < 0.05) as well as team effectiveness (r = 0.fifty, p < 0.05), which provides preliminary evidence to support hypothesis 1a, 1b, and 1c. Figure three, a three-console correlation plot, visually depicts the relationship betwixt shared leadership and team chore performance, team viability as well as team effectiveness.
Tabular array 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Effigy 3. The three-panel correlation plot.
To farther test the human relationship between shared leadership and squad effectiveness, as well as the moderating function of the projection life wheel in such relationships, this research employed a two-fashion moderated hierarchical regression analysis (Carson et al., 2007; Erkutlu, 2012; Fausing et al., 2013). Led by the procedure delineated in Cohen et al. (2014), in the regression model, the command variables, squad size, team tenure and educational variety were entered in the commencement step for this research; shared leadership every bit an independent variable was entered in the second step; the interaction terms (predictor variable, shared leadership and moderator variable, project life wheel) was entered in the tertiary step. In order to avert multicollinearity bug, the standardized scores were utilized in the regression assay (Aiken et al., 1991). Tabular array four depicts the results of the moderated regression analyses.
Table four. Results of regression analysis for team effectiveness.
As can be seen in step 1 in Table iv, the control variables were not significantly associated with team effectiveness. In footstep two, nosotros observe that there is a meaning positive relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness (β = 0.53, p < 0.05), supporting hypothesis 1c (shared leadership is positively related to team effectiveness in engineering design teams). Moreover, the result of step 3 shows that the interaction betwixt shared leadership and the project life cycle is significantly related to team effectiveness (β = −0.47, p < 0.05). We then graphically plotted the relationship betwixt shared leadership and team effectiveness equally chastened by the project life cycle (Figure 4) every bit recommended past Aiken et al. (1991). We see that a positive human relationship is stronger in the early phase, when compared to the later stage of the project life bike. Therefore, hypothesis 2 (the stage of project life cycle moderates the positive association between shared leadership and team effectiveness, such that this relationship volition be stronger at the early phase than at the later phase of the project in engineering design teams) was fully supported in this study.
Figure 4. The moderating effect of the projection life bicycle on the relationship betwixt shared leadership and team effectiveness.
Discussion
By integrating concepts from shared leadership, team effectiveness and project management literature, the current inquiry sheds low-cal on our understanding of whether and when shared leadership is positively related to team effectiveness. More specifically, this research advances prior piece of work past demonstrating that there is a positive relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness in Chinese engineering science blueprint teams. Furthermore, we likewise demonstrated that the stage of the projection life cycle moderates the relationship betwixt shared leadership and squad effectiveness; where the positive association is stronger at the early on phase than at the later phase of project life cycle. These findings provide pregnant theoretical contributions equally well every bit practical implications.
Theoretical Contribution
First of all, by joining a handful of researchers in the field of shared leadership (Liu et al., 2014; Chiu et al., 2016; Serban and Roberts, 2016), this study farther confirms that shared leadership plays a significant role in building effective team outcomes. Specifically, this research linked shared leadership with team task operation [defined in terms of how well the group meets (or even exceeds) expectations regarding its assigned tasks]. Shared leadership has been consistently shown to be disquisitional for improving team performance in exercise and in the extant literature (Ensley et al., 2006; Carson et al., 2007; D'Innocenzo et al., 2014; Hoch, 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Chiu et al., 2016; Fransen et al., 2018). Although these studies have advocated the benefits of shared leadership on team functioning, there is withal some disagreement and controversy surrounding it (Mehra et al., 2006; Boies et al., 2011; Hmieleski et al., 2012). This current study therefore extends this line of enquiry by demonstrating that the positive association between shared leadership and team job functioning holds up in engineering science design teams, thus supporting denoting work in the field of shared leadership. Moreover, the results of the current study also suggest that shared leadership is positively associated with team viability (considered in terms of the potential of teams to retain its members and to keep expert team functioning over fourth dimension). This finding is consequent with previous studies that suggested that shared leadership fosters team functioning and team member satisfaction. For example, Bergman et al. (2012) suggested that teams with shared leadership experience less disharmonize, greater consensus, and higher intragroup trust and cohesion than teams without shared leadership. Wood and Fields (2007) proposed that shared leadership exerts positive impacts on the chore satisfaction of team members equally shared leadership inherently advocates greater empowerment and autonomy. Therefore, as demonstrated in the current study, members of teams who share leadership, experience increased interdependence, higher levels of collaboration, and a greater sense of satisfaction. Furthermore, the power to retain team members and to maintain positive team operation over time is enhanced.
Another important theoretical contribution is that this report provides interesting insights into an important boundary condition of shared leadership effects. Specifically, this study investigated and demonstrated that phases of the project life cycle moderate the shared leadership-squad effectiveness relationship; such human relationship is stronger at the early stage than the afterward phase. The effect of this investigation is consistent with the theory on the dynamic nature of shared leadership. As Avolio et al. (2009) noted, shared leadership is not a static, but a transferable and quite a fluid process, wherein roles and relations amidst individuals merge, co-evolve, and change throughout the entire life cycle of the projection. Moreover, this upshot also supports the proposition proposed by Ford and Sullivan (2004) who asserted that creative ideas and strategies generated at the early stage of the team cycle are more probable to be valued and integrated into effective outcomes. Our findings extend this theory by identifying shared leadership equally a potential source to encourage novel ideas. Specifically, at the early stage of the projection life cycle where the focus is on planning and strategy generation, squad members proactively participate in constructive communication and determination-making process. Information technology thus provides a positive environment to nourish shared leadership. Such high-levels of leadership shared by individuals helps to generate more than novel ideas, which could sequentially exist valued and incorporated into constructive results. Therefore, by integrating the projection life bicycle as a moderator, this written report demonstrated how the temporal gene influence the shared leadership-team effectiveness association.
Practical Lmplications
This research brings several meaning practical implications to project direction practitioners. Most notably, our findings confirm the positive human relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness in engineering design teams. It indicates that shared leadership can be a useful way to improve projection team outcomes. This suggests that projection managers seeking to foster high-levels of effectiveness should be supportive of sharing leadership within their groups and take steps to encourage group members to share leadership roles and responsibilities and provide them with adequate opportunities to interact with each other. Moreover, this study demonstrated that the association between shared leadership and team effectiveness is stronger at the early phase of the project life bike. This emphasizes the need for managers to support shared leadership forms particularly at the early on phase of the project in society to leverage benefits and maximize squad effectiveness. Moreover, this research provides a benchmark with social network technique to help managers to assess their leadership development programs, in lodge to make up one's mind the extent to which they are reinforcing the notion of leadership every bit a collective process.
Limitation and Futurity Research
Equally is the instance for any enquiry, there are some limitations related to this current written report which are worthy of being acknowledged. Kickoff of all, since the measurements for the variables used in the study were taken from the same source, in that location could exist common source bias influencing the relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness. Still, this research assessed team effectiveness past measuring the entire team's behavior and outcomes, while shared leadership measured the beliefs of individual members and was analyzed by a social network method. As such, the common source bias was mitigated to some extent because of this measurement distinction. In improver, the sample of this experimental written report consisted of 26 teams for both the early on and later phase of the project life bike. Replications of current enquiry and hereafter studies are encouraged to increase the sample size so equally to achieve greater statistical ability.
Second, while the definition of squad effectiveness (measured in terms of squad task performance and team viability) is multidimensional in nature, it does not have every possible aspect into consideration, east.thousand., happiness of the team members. In other words, the predictors used in this inquiry are not an exhaustive list. There can be other consequences of shared leadership that have not been accounted for. This study thus encourages more studies to examine boosted predictors of shared leadership, peculiarly predictors from a multilevel perspective. For instance, more consequences at the house and organizational level should be examined, e.g., house competitive advantage, organizational effectiveness and creativity. Furthermore, since our inquiry focused only on engineering blueprint teams, it limits the generalizability of the results. Therefore, hereafter studies can brand a valuable contribution past examining the relationship betwixt shared leadership and its outcomes from a wide variety of contexts.
Third, an important premise of this investigation, regarding when shared leadership influences team effectiveness across the projection life bicycle, is the dynamic nature of shared leadership. Its emergence is probable to be influenced by squad environments (i.e., cross-functional communication and coordination, and active participation in the decision-making process); likewise as chore characteristics (i.due east., creative tasks). Unfortunately, the design of the current study did not directly examine these factors that could simulate the occurrence and development of shared leadership. It thus would be a promising research direction for hereafter studies. Moreover, since shared leadership is a dynamic and emergent procedure, enquiry with a longitudinal design that captures multiple iterations and cyclic feedback loops of shared leadership, to sympathize how it changes or evolves throughout stages of the project team life cycle, is some other fruitful avenue for future studies.
Quaternary, this report is among the first to explore the moderating part of the project life cycle in the relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness. We thus encourage futurity research to provide a more complete understanding of the boundary weather condition of shared leadership effectiveness, peculiarly for project-related moderators. Examples like project complexity, projection uncertainty, and project creativity are worthy of attending in futurity studies. Moreover, the potential temporal indicators should likewise be examined because shared leadership is a dynamic procedure in nature. This would serve as another promising direction for future research.
Fifth, shared leadership, every bit a new leadership pattern that has been demonstrated to facilitate team effectiveness in the engineering design teams. However, nosotros do non advocate that shared leadership is a panacea for all organizational woes. In that location may be many circumstances where shared leadership is not suitable e.g., non-noesis teams. Furthermore, Pearce (2004) suggested that shared leadership is a more complex and time-consuming procedure than traditional vertical leadership. In lite of this, enquiry concerning when and for whom shared leadership is inappropriate should be another interesting avenue and thus worthy of further attention.
Contribution
The current study was designed to produce novel theoretical and empirical insights regarding whether shared leadership is positively related to squad effectiveness and when shared leadership is more likely to be constructive. By demonstrating a positive clan betwixt shared leadership and team effectiveness in engineering science pattern teams, this study adds to a growing literature extolling the value of shared leadership. Another important contribution of the present research is that it is amongst the first to investigate a temporally relevant moderator, the project life bicycle, for the effectiveness of shared leadership. The authors promise that the insightful findings gained through this event will spur future studies aimed at understanding the dynamics of shared leadership in project teams and farther explore temporal factors for its effectiveness.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article volition exist made bachelor by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics Argument
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Graduate Research Commission (GRC), National University of Republic of ireland, Galway. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
QW was responsible for conducting assay and writing the outset draft. KC contributed to the construction and content and revised all versions of the manuscript. QW and KC both participated in idea development.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the enquiry was conducted in the absence of any commercial or fiscal relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
Acar, F. P. (2010). Analyzing the effects of multifariousness perceptions and shared leadership on emotional disharmonize: a dynamic arroyo. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 21, 1733–1753. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2010.500492
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Aiken, L. South., W, Southward. Thou., and Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Aube, C., and Rousseau, 5. (2005). Squad goal commitment and squad effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 9, 189–204. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.nine.iii.189
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., and Brunelle, E. (2017). Menstruum experience in teams: the role of shared leadership. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23, 198–206.
Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., and Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: electric current theories, enquiry, and future directions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 421–449.
Google Scholar
Balkundi, P., and Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inference about network structure's effects on team viability and operation. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 49–68. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.20785500
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Barrick, Thou. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., and Mount, M. (1998). Relating member power and personality to piece of work-team processes and team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 377–391. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, East. E., Davenport, S. W., and Bergman, S. 1000. (2012). The shared leadership procedure in decision-making teams. J. Soc. Psychol. 152, 17–42.
Google Scholar
Bliese, P. D. (2000). "Inside-group understanding, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis," in Multilevel Theory, Enquiry, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, eds K. J. Klein and S. Westward. J. Kozlowski (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 349–381.
Google Scholar
Boies, G., Lvina, Eastward., and Martens, K. L. (2011). Shared leadership and team performance in a business concern strategy simulation. J. Pers. Psychol. nine, 195–202. doi: ten.1027/1866-5888/a000021
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. Eastward., and Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of ancestor weather and performance. Acad. Manag. J. l, 1217–1234. doi: ten.5465/amj.2007.20159921
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Chang, A., Bordia, P., and Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: toward a new understanding of group development. Acad. Manag. J. 46, 106–117. doi: 10.5465/30040680
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Chiu, C. Y. C., Owens, B. P., and Tesluk, P. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: the office of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team functioning capability. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 1706–1720.
Google Scholar
Cohen, P., West, Southward. 1000., and Aiken, 50. S. (2014). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. London: Psychology Printing.
Google Scholar
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. 50., and Perry, One thousand. L. (2003). "Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: how shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness," in Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, eds C. Fifty. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), 48–76. doi: 10.4135/9781452229539.n3
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
D'Innocenzo, 50., Mathieu, J. E., and Kukenberger, M. R. (2014). A meta-assay of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. J. Manag. 42, 1964–1991. doi: 10.1177/0149206314525205
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., and Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadersh. Q. 15, 857–880. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Drescher, 1000. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. Yard., Picot, A., and Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: building trust and enhancing performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 771–783. doi: ten.1037/a0036474
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ensley, Chiliad. D., Hmieleski, G. M., and Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership inside new venture summit management teams: implications for the performance of startups. Leadersh. Q. 17, 217–231. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Erkutlu, H. (2012). The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadership and squad proactivity. Squad Perform. Manag. xviii, 102–119. doi: ten.1108/13527591211207734
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Essens, P., Vogelaar, A. L., Mylle, J. J., Blendell, C., Paris, C., Halpin, Southward. Yard., et al. (2009). Team Effectiveness in Complex Settings: A Framework. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Fausing, M. South., Jeppe Jeppesen, H., Jønsson, T. S., Lewandowski, J., and Bligh, M. (2013). Moderators of shared leadership: work function and team autonomy. Squad Perform. Manag. 19, 244–262. doi: 10.1108/tpm-eleven-2012-0038
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ford, C., and Sullivan, D. (2004). A time for everything: how the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 279–292. doi: 10.1002/job.241
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Fransen, 1000., Delvaux, E., Mesquita, B., and Van Puyenbroeck, Due south. (2018). The emergence of shared leadership in newly formed teams with an initial structure of vertical leadership: a longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 54, 140–170. doi: 10.1177/0021886318756359
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Hans, S., and Gupta, R. (2018). Job characteristics affect shared leadership: the moderating consequence of psychological condom and perceived self-efficacy. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 39, 730–744. doi: 10.1108/lodj-03-2018-0101
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, Thousand. Southward., and Baron, R. A. (2012). Shared authentic leadership and new venture performance. J. Manag. 38, 1476–1499. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415419
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Hoch, J. E. (2014). Shared leadership, multifariousness, and information sharing in teams. J. Manag. Psychol. 29, 541–564. doi: 10.1108/jmp-02-2012-0053
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Hofstede, Thou. H., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Listen. New York, NY: Mcgraw-loma.
Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. Chiliad., and Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 306–309. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Lee, D. S., Lee, M. C., and Seo, Y. W. (2015). An analysis of shared leadership, diversity, and team creativity in an e-learning environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 42, 47–56. doi: x.1016/j.chb.2013.10.064
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Liu, S., Hu, J., Li, Y., Wang, Z., and Lin, 10. (2014). Examining the cross-level relationship between shared leadership and learning in teams: bear witness from Prc. Leadersh. Q. 25, 282–295. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.006
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. East., and Carson, J. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of squad member boundary-spanning behavior. Acad. Manag. J. fifty, 1423–1439. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.28225967
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. East., Kukenberger, Grand. R., D'innocenzo, L., and Reilly, G. (2015). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion–performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members' competence. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 713–734. doi: 10.1037/a0038898
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., and Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the time to come. J. Manag. 34, 410–476. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., and Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: the network of leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadersh. Q. 17, 232–245. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, 1000. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, South. J., et al. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: a meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. Leadersh. Q. 25, 923–942. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Nielsen, Yard., and Daniels, K. (2012). Does shared and differentiated transformational leadership predict followers' working weather condition and well-being? Leadersh. Q. 23, 383–397. doi: ten.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.001
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Pastor, J. C., and Mayo, M. (2002). "Shared leadership in work teams: a social network arroyo," in Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, eds C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), 239–251.
Google Scholar
Pearce, C. 50. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Acad. Manag. Exec. 18, 47–57. doi: 10.5465/ame.2004.12690298
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Pearce, C. 50., and Conger, J. A. (2003). "All those years ago: the historical underpinnings of shared leadership," in Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, eds C. Fifty. Pearce and J. A. Conger (One thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), i–18. doi: 10.4135/9781452229539.n1
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Pearce, C. L., and Sims, J. H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership every bit predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Grouping Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. six, 172–197. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.half dozen.ii.172
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Pearce, C. Fifty., Wassenaar, C. L., and Manz, C. C. (2014). Is shared leadership the cardinal to responsible leadership? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 28, 275–288. doi: ten.5465/amp.2014.0017
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ramthun, A. J., and Matkin, G. South. (2012). Multicultural shared leadership: a conceptual model of shared leadership in culturally diverse teams. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 19, 303–314. doi: x.1177/1548051812444129
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Robert, L. P., and You, Southward. (2018). Are you lot satisfied withal? Shared leadership, individual trust, autonomy, and satisfaction in virtual teams. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69, 503–513. doi: x.1002/asi.23983
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Scott-Young, C. M., Georgy, Yard., and Grisinger, A. (2019). Shared leadership in project teams: an integrative multi-level conceptual model and research agenda. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 37, 565–581. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.002
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Serban, A., and Roberts, A. J. (2016). Exploring antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in a artistic context: a mixed-methods approach. Leadersh. Q. 27, 181–199. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.009
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, G., Tarba, S. Y., and De Bernardi, P. (2019). Summit management team shared leadership, marketplace-oriented culture, innovation adequacy, and firm functioning. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1–eleven. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2946608
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, Due west. D., Avolio, B. J., and Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group functioning. Group Organ. Manag. 27, 66–96. doi: 10.1177/1059601102027001005
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Sousa, Chiliad., and Van Dierendonck, D. (2016). Introducing a short measure of shared servant leadership impacting squad performance through squad behavioral integration. Front. Psychol. 6:2002. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02002
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Sun, 10., Jie, Y., Wang, Y., Xue, G., and Liu, Y. (2016). Shared leadership improves squad novelty: the mechanism and its purlieus status. Forepart. Psychol. 7:1964. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01964
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Suprapto, Y. L., Wibowo, A., and Harsono, H. (2018). Intra-firm causal ambivalence on cantankerous-functional project team's performance: does openness and an integrative capability matter? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. eleven, 901–912. doi: 10.1108/ijmpb-09-2017-0109
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. (2009). An test of the interface between context and theory applied to the report of Chinese organizations. Manag. Organ. Rev. 5, 29–56. doi: ten.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00132.x
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Forest, Due south. M., and Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team fellow member job outcomes. Balt. J. Manag. 2, 251–272. doi: 10.1108/17465260710817474
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Wu, Q., and Cormican, K. (2016). Shared leadership: an analysis of the evolvement process across the project life cycle. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. seven, 299–303. doi: 10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.6.690
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Wu, Q., Cormican, K., and Chen, K. (2020). A meta-assay of shared leadership: antecedents, consequences, and moderators. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 27, 49–64. doi: x.1177/1548051818820862
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zhou, W. (2016). When does shared leadership matter in entrepreneurial teams: the office of personality limerick. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 12, 153–169. doi: ten.1007/s11365-014-0334-three
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.569198/full
Postar um comentário for "An Advantage That Effective Teams Can Bring to Organizations Is"