Search results

Previous studies show that sharing leadership in teams offers potential performance benefits across various contexts. This paper aims to investigate moderators of the effectiveness of shared leadership. In particular, it seeks to explore the moderating effects of team work function – manufacturing versus knowledge team work – and team autonomy.

In order to test the hypotheses, the authors conducted hierarchical regression analyses and ran moderated two‐way regression analyses using a field sample of 552 employees comprising 81 teams in a Danish manufacturing company.

Contrary to expectations, the results demonstrated a non‐significant relationship between shared leadership and team performance. However, as expected, work function significantly moderated this relationship such that shared leadership exhibited a negative relationship with manufacturing team performance and a positive relationship with knowledge team performance. Moreover, team autonomy was positively related to performance, and it significantly moderated the relationship between shared leadership and team performance.

The study provides a potentially useful framework for understanding boundary conditions for the effectiveness of shared leadership. However, since the design of the study is cross‐sectional, direct causation cannot be inferred. Moreover, the study took place within a single organization in a Danish context and, therefore, care must be taken in generalizing the findings without additional evidence from further research.

To the authors' knowledge, the study is the first to obtain evidence which indicates that the success of shared leadership may depend on the team work function and the level of team autonomy.

To address the increasing need for novel approaches to leadership that deal with the challenges organizations face as they flatten, diversify, and confront increasingly complex problems.

A meso‐level theoretical model is developed that outlines the relationship between self‐ and shared leadership, focusing on the intermediary processes of trust, potency, and commitment that may lead to the development of shared leadership and ultimately more innovative knowledge creation.

Nine propositions are developed, addressing the relationships between self‐ and shared leadership, concluding with some of the theoretical and practical implications of the model and specific recommendations for future empirical work in this area.

An important boundary condition of the model is that it assumes team and organizational incentives are in place to encourage team building and the facilitation of team over individual achievements.

Conceptualizing leadership in this way leads to numerous unanswered questions regarding how team dynamics influence, and are influenced by, various forms of leadership (including lateral, upward, and downward influence attempts). Greater dialogue between the team dynamics literature and the leadership literature may lead to new insights into how shared leadership is influenced by a variety of team characteristics, including team ability, size, member maturity, familiarity, likeability, cohesion, etc., all of which are potential areas for future research.

Important research questions that stem from consideration of these two theories in concert will prove critical in understanding the complex interrelationships among self‐leadership, shared leadership, and the creation of new knowledge in today's complex and dynamic organizations.

This volume is dedicated to furthering our understanding of the importance of context in the development and application of leadership theory, advancing our knowledge of when, how, and under what conditions context matters most. Leadership is fundamentally a contextual phenomenon, constantly evolving, changing, and being applied in a specific environment. In this introductory chapter, I highlight key themes and aspects of dynamic and often paradoxical leadership across a wide domain of industries and contexts. First, I examine the importance of context across the chapters of the volume, including different domains, to different degrees, and from different theoretical angles. In some of the domains, context shapes the style or type of leadership that is needed, while in others, the context highlights to an extreme degree the aspects of leadership that may be invisible or less salient in different settings, but nevertheless characterize most leadership situations. I subsequently provide an overview of each of the chapters of the volume, examining leadership in the context of sports and competition, extreme “life or death” contexts, creative industries, and values-based and caring organizations. The four parts of the volume highlight leadership themes and connections across contexts and settings, including adaptability, dealing with paradox, and relational leader–follower and team dynamics.

Executive coaching is commonly utilized in organizations to facilitate the personal and professional growth of executives. Executive coaches utilize a variety of proactive influence tactics to create behavioral change in their clients. The current study aimed to examine coaches' perceived use and effectiveness of the outcome, timing, and objective of proactive influence tactics in coaching relationships.

Members of ten organizations affiliated with executive coaching were targeted for participation. A total of 110 participants completed the online survey.

Influence tactics including coalition, consultation, inspirational appeals, and rational persuasion were more frequently associated with client commitment. Consultation was more frequently utilized during initial influence attempts; pressure was more frequently utilized during follow‐up attempts. Coaches also reported using different tactics depending on the desired outcome of the influence attempt: coalition and pressure were utilized to change behavior, whereas coaches used consultation and rational persuasion to both change behavior and assign work.

The results offer insights into executive coaching engagements, areas for potential training and development of practicing coaches, and techniques for creating more successful outcomes with coaching clients. The findings are limited by sample size, self‐report measures, and the lack of contextual or organizational information. Future research should expand these findings to provide additional information regarding the use of influence tactics in the executive coaching industry.

There is little empirical data regarding how executive coaches effectively influence behavioral change in their clients. The current study applies research on proactive influence tactics to the context of executive coaching, bridging these two previously disparate streams of research.

Previous research on psychological contracts has assumed that managers play a unidimensional role as either a contractual agent or an employee of the organization. These assumptions are examined in light of a recent article advocating a “multiple foci” conceptualization of psychological contracts.

As psychological contracts become increasingly salient in times of rapid change, qualitative data from 16 nurse managers in a post‐merger hospital consolidation were examined.

Results indicate that managers have a bi‐directional obligation with both the organization and their subordinates. Specifically, managers have strong upward contracts with top management with regard to material support, resources, and strategic communication. Manager‐to‐subordinate contracts, on the other hand, reflect a greater emphasis on the areas of employee involvement and emotional support.

These findings challenge researchers and practitioners to explicitly consider a multiple foci conceptualization of psychological contracts, particularly in the context of organizational change. In practice, this means that one must dedicate more attention to uncovering the constituents with whom managers hold psychological contracts, as well as how managers prioritize their multiple contracts within the organization.

Given the conflictual role managers often face in a post‐merger environment, it may be increasingly difficult to understand managerial contracts using traditional approaches. Although exploratory, this study provides the first empirical support for the above recent argument, and suggests that taking into account the multifaceted content and structure of managerial contracts may play a critical role in successful change initiatives.