This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in HRDI on 18
Apr 2022, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2065442.
Collective Achievement, Cohesive Support, Complementary Expertise: 3Cs Emergent
Model for Shared Leadership

Cong Xu, Liang Zhao
Graduate School of Advanced Integrated Studies in Human Survivability (Shishu-Kan), Kyoto
University, Japan
Feb. 2022

Abstract
Society is asking for a shared leadership approach to deal with diverse, complex, and dynamic situations.
Existing studies on shared leadership, however, lack clear theoretical analysis and/or sufficient
empirical evidence. To fill this research gap, this article first clarifies conceptual ambiguities regarding
shared leadership. Second, inspired by social exchange theory (SET) and emergence theory on teamcooperation, it proposes a novel model, 3Cs, to characterize shared leadership through three dimensions:collective achievement leadership, cohesive support leadership, and complementary expertiseleadership. This model explains how macro-level shared leadership phenomenon emerges throughmicro individual behaviours, and is compatible with but more concrete and comprehensive than thecurrent understanding of shared leadership in either a composition form (i.e., team members perform
homogeneous leadership behaviours) or a compilation form (i.e., team members perform heterogeneousleadership behaviours). A mixed-methods approach combining a qualitative study on 12 international
graduate students in a leadership program and a quantitative study on 86 leaders and 370 team members
from Chinese enterprises was conducted to confirm the validity of the proposed model. This model
provides human resource development (HRD) professionals with a comprehensively practical approach
regarding how to develop shared leadership.

Keywords: shared leadership, emergence theory, collective achievement leadership, complementary
expertise leadership, cohesive support leadership1. Introduction
Traditional studies on leadership are dominated by top-down and bureaucratic paradigms (UhlBien, Marion, and McKelvey 2007). While this individualistic approach is efficient in executing
decisions, its effectiveness is problematic given an unpredictable world with much more diversity,
complexity, and dynamics than ever before in human history. It is important to study a less hegemonic
and more diverse perspective for practising leadership (Pearce and Sims 2000; Brink and Tanggaardb
2016).
For that purpose, increasing attention has been given to a plural form of leadership approach, i.e.,shared leadership, that overcomes the limitations of traditional individualistic leadership models by
sharing influence and leadership responsibilities among peers (Pearce and Conger 2003; Denis, Langley,
and Sergi 2012). This concept has been shown to be positively related to team and organizational
performance (e.g., Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone 2007; Wang, Waldman, and Zhang 2014; Barnett andWeidenfeller 2016), innovation behaviour and knowledge creation (Hoch 2013), as well as
contributions to mutual learning, organizational adaptive capacity, and active problem solving (Clarke2013).
However, despite the blossoming of studies on shared leadership in recent decades, there remains
no consensus on how it should be defined or measured (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, and Kukenberger 2016;
Zhu et al. 2018). The existing literature on the definition of shared leadership is fragmented due to alack of rigorous theoretical analysis and/or large-scale empirical evidence (Avolio, Walumbwa, andWeber 2009; Zhu, Liao, Yam, and Johnson 2018). We know little regarding how team members
dynamically adopt and perform leadership roles (Clarke 2013). Therefore, characterizing and measuring
shared leadership is a major challenge that leadership researchers are facing (Hoch and Kozlowski2014).
Many existing studies have primarily relied on one aggregate approach that assumes that sharedleadership consists of five types of leadership behaviours (i.e., transformational, transactional, aversive,
directive, and empowering leadership; see Pearce and Sims [2002]). Although this approach touches on
one of the core issues in shared leadership research – “what is being shared in shared leadership” (Zhu
et al. 2018) – it is limited because it is inherently based on the traditional micro view of individualistic2

leadership. The aggregate approach emphasizes a top-down process and does not reflect how macro
leadership functions may be allocated when peers step into the role of leading one another. Furthermore,this approach neither differentiates among individuals in shared leadership nor captures the uniqueleadership influence of team members (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, and Kukenberger 2016).
In contrast, some recent studies have attempted to characterize shared leadership from a macro
view of team behaviours. A prevalent measurement method is to capture the overall degree of sharedleadership at a team level from a social network aspect, e.g., evaluating the density of shared leadershipin a team by asking each team member to rate the degree to which the team depends on their peers forleadership and then calculating the overall shared leadership density in that team by dividing the sumof all ratings of one another’s leadership by the total relationship ties among members (Carson, Tesluk,
and Marrone 2007). Compared with the aggregate approach, this macro approach recognizes thedifferent leadership influences of different team members, thus incorporating interpersonal influence
nuances to understand shared leadership. However, existing macro studies do not capture sharedleadership behaviour content well and only provide a very rough overall sense of how much leadershipinfluence is shared among team members (Zhu et al. 2018). Furthermore, the current literature contains
no theory connecting macro team behaviours and micro individual behaviours in which sharedleadership members may engage.
This study considers developing a shared leadership theory combining micro individual
behaviours and macro team behaviours. Supporting this approach is the well-known social exchange
theory (SET), which suggests that two or more individuals may implement a cost–benefit analysis byexchanging the taking of risks and enjoyment of benefits (Gouldner 1960). We note that SET is
supported by a biological theory that evolution has resulted in life itself implementing give-and-takebehaviour (Dawkins 1976), and a recent study provides theoretical evidence for this theory bymathematically proving that “cooperation flourishes most in societies that are based on strong pairwiseties” (Allen et al. 2017, Abstract).
Another support for our approach, emergence theory, studies a process of emergence in which
complex social phenomena manifesting at a higher, collective level system are created throughinteractions of lower-level subsystems (Kozlowski and Chao 2012; Kozlowski et al. 2013). This theory3

argues that certain team states representing member perceptions, cognitions, affections, and motivations
will be developed through social interactions such as communications and perception exchanges (Marks,
Mathieu, and Zaccaro 2001).
The root of emergence theory came from the Boids model for mimicking bird flocking behaviour(Reynolds, 1987), which states that flocking can be explained by the interaction of individual agents
following three rules: separation to avoid crowding neighbours, alignment to move towards the averageheading of neighbours, and cohesion to move towards the centre of neighbours. An interesting extensionof Boids, the Autonomous Boids model adds a “change of leadership” rule, in which a boid seeing aclear space begins to lead the flock and other boids follow it and absorb it back into the flock (Hartman
and Benes 2006).
We note that the emergence approach is compatible with the current understanding of sharedleadership as a composition form (i.e., team members perform homogeneous leadership behaviours;
Kozlowski and Klein 2000) or a compilation form (i.e., team members perform heterogeneousleadership behaviours; Kozlowski and Klein 2000). In fact, emergence theory suggests that interactive
processes make team members’ perceptions, values, beliefs, and behaviours converge homogeneously(i.e., composition) through alignment and cohesion or make them remain heterogeneous (i.e.,compilation) through separation.
Unfortunately, we observe that while SET and emergence theory seem good for explaining work
teams, they are insufficient to explain shared leadership. One missing point is that they allow theexistence of free riders. An agent in the centre of a flock can play no leadership role at all but simply
continue being a follower. Such a free rider does not contribute to leading the team with sufficient input
and thus should be explicitly excluded from a shared leadership definition. Additionally, we contend
that a common goal is also missing in SET and emergence theory but should be included in a sharedleadership definition (Pearce and Conger 2003).
Therefore, we conclude that a comprehensive theory on shared leadership should include four
elements: common goal, composition form, compilation form, and no free riders. This study attempts
to clarify the definition and provide a model for shared leadership based on this observation. We
develop a novel scale for measuring our model through careful and large-scale empirical research4consisting of a mixed-methods approach with qualitative and quantitative studies. As a result, we
propose an emergent model of shared leadership, 3Cs, in which (1) collective achievement
leadership and (2) cohesive support leadership represent the content arising through convergent
interaction dynamics, while (3) complementary expertise leadership represents the content arisingthrough divergent dynamics. This model explains both the theoretical and empirical aspects of sharedleadership better than existing studies, e.g., the common goal is addressed by collective achievement
leadership, and the no free-rider rule is covered by complementary expertise leadership. We believethat this research provides human resource development (HRD) professionals an intriguing perspective
on how to develop shared leadership.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. In Section 2, drawing on SET and emergence
theory, we provide a theoretical discussion of our 3Cs model by reviewing the literature on sharedleadership. Sections 3 and 4 present a qualitative and a quantitative approach, respectively, to study the
proposed theory and to develop a scale for measuring the 3Cs model. Finally, Section 5 summarizes thearticle by discussing the limitations and future work.

2. An emergent 3Cs model for shared leadership through social exchange processes
This section, drawing on SET and emergence theory, provides a theoretical discussion of the
proposed emergent 3Cs model from a review of the literature on shared leadership.
2.1. Defining shared leadership
Current research on shared leadership lacks a unified definition of the concept (D’Innocenzo,
Mathieu, and Kukenberger 2016; Zhu et al. 2018). As shown in Table 1, there are numerous ways inwhich shared leadership is defined. One major controversy among them is the nature of sharedleadership. The discussion diverges in considering it a team process or an emergent team state. For
example, Ensley and colleagues (2006, 220) define shared leadership as “a team process whereleadership is carried out by the team as a whole, rather than solely by a single designated individual.”
A contrasting view defines shared leadership as an emergent property in which leadership influence isdistributed among team members (e.g., Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone 2007).

5

We agree that shared leadership is an emergent team property rather than a team process because
shared leadership is dynamic in nature and represents particular team cognitive, motivational, andaffective states as a function of team inputs, processes and outcomes (Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro2001). Adapted from D’Innocenz and colleagues (2016), we define shared leadership as an emergent
team phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are combined or distributed among teammembers according to team needs. This definition aligns with Pearce and Conger’s (2003) suggestionin the sense that shared leadership is dynamic in nature and that the source of leadership influences
derives from multiple directions. Our definition differs, however, in arguing that shared leadership isan emergent property in which team members perform both identical and nonidentical leadershipbehaviours. It also suggests that shared leadership, as structured collective behaviour, emerges throughindividual interactions within a team.

【Insert Table 1 about here】
Kozlowski and Klein (2000) suggest two forms of emergence: composition and compilation. The
composition form occurs when member interactions, depending on contextual contingencies, lead to acoalescence of member perceptions, feelings, behaviours, and other characteristics over time
(Kozlowski and Chao 2012). Homogeneous understandings among individuals of a unit are thus
generated. In this case, “entities combine to create a new entity with a more complex composition andnew qualities due to the coalescence of the parts” (Fulmer and Ostroff 2016, S123). In contrast,compilation divergence may also emerge through micro interaction dynamics and engender a complex
combination of lower-level characteristics, perceptions, and behaviours (Kozlowski and Klein 2000).
We remark that SET also supports the emergence process of shared leadership behaviours
through reciprocal processes. SET argues that individual interactions, which are intrinsically endorsedby mutually expected rewards, generate obligations among those involved, which may result in or
fortify high-quality social relationships (Blau 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). Social
relationships are formed based on exchange rules, which Gouldner (1960, 162) called “the norm ofreciprocity”. Reciprocity refers to social equilibrium, which depends on “the schema of giving and6

returning the equivalence”. Gouldner posited that reciprocity is the basic and universal principle towhich all social structures should conform. In reciprocal processes, interpersonal influence is exerted
by identifying interactions and specifying everyone’s role in the social system (Seers, Keller, andWilkerson 2003). This proposition provides an understanding of how shared leadership behaviours may
emerge through reciprocal processes, as authority in this social system is not assumed to be limited toan appointed leader but rather extant in the form of “fluid expertise” through which group members
mutually exert leadership influence (Fletcher and Käufer 2003). In other words, different types ofleadership influence may emerge through social exchanges based on reciprocity. These leadershipinfluences eventually generate both composition and compilation forms of leadership behaviours.
In the following, we further discuss how different forms of shared leadership may emerge
through the social-psychological processes of social exchanges by reviewing the literature on sharedleadership. As a result, we can formulate a novel model of shared leadership by embedding the
aforementioned four elements (i.e., common goal, composition form, compilation form, and no freeriders) with existing literature on share leadership. The final model consists of three dimensions, i.e.,collective achievement, cohesive support, and complementary expertise; therefore, it is called 3Cs inthis study.
2.2. Collective achievement leadershipCollective achievement leadership occurs when team members collectively organize tasks andengage with others to find solutions for mistakes and conflicts that arise within the team (Avolio, Bass,and Jung 1999). This type of leadership is manifested by encouraging everyone in the team to think
differently, ask challenging questions, and seek different ideas and solutions (Bass 2008).
According to Gouldner (1960), people reciprocate because they believe that the transactions ofgoods and services will ultimately result in a fair equilibrium in which everyone is content. In thecontext of shared leadership, behaviour choices result mainly from the following three types of beliefs:
that everyone is qualified and essential to stay in the team, helping achieve team goals and making
collective decisions; that the efforts exerted by each team member will ultimately attain balance; andthat team goals will ultimately be achieved if all members adhere to the group decisions and collaborate.
In other words, the group members believe that the task loads are equitable and that solutions to7

problems are the best choice for the group because they are the results of “the sum of all members’
wisdom”, based on which the group will achieve positive results that will ultimately benefit all members(Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).
Shared leadership behaviours are greatly improved compared to unshared behaviours because
the interests of any single individual are not violated in terms of the distribution of task loads or expected
outcomes. A collective agreement on task flows and problem solving eventually protects the collective
beliefs shared by team members. However, if the tasks related to team goals are poorly planned or
arranged, if the strategy is perceived as inequitable or infeasible, or the issues within the team cannot
be solved, it is highly possible that team goals will not be achieved and that team members will beunsatisfied.
Similarly, Wellman (2017) suggests that contextual factors cause teams to converge either on an
authority ranking relational model (i.e., leadership systems are constructed based on a hierarchicalordering of group members) or on a communal sharing relational model (i.e., leadership systems areconstructed based on group members’ consensus and unity) to guide their leadership activities. Groups
adopting the communal sharing relational model are more likely to develop a system with widespread
leadership participation than groups adopting the authority ranking relational model because individuals
in the former groups believe that every member in the team can engage in leadership. If only a few
individuals in the team dominate all leadership interactions, it will violate the groups’ core relational
principles that everyone is qualified and important to achieving team goals.
Wellman (2017) further suggests that intellectual stimulation is one type of prevalent leadershipbehaviour in communal sharing groups. Intellectual stimulation behaviours refer to seeking
perspectives from others and collectively generating solutions to shared problems. Team members seek
opinions from one another to reach a shared consensus regarding group behaviours because they
consider everyone in the group qualified for leadership. Those behaviours include seeking andconsidering alternative perspectives on what the group should do and engaging others to cogenerate
solutions to group problems. Group futures and management do not depend on the individual will of
any of the group members (Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone 2007). Instead, they derive from a mutuallysatisfactory agreement shared by team members. We call this type of emergent shared leadership8behaviour collective achievement leadership, referring to the extent to which team members seek
perspective to manage group work and solve team problems collectively. Note that the common goal
and compilation form elements are covered by this dimension.
2.3. Cohesive support leadership
Homans (1958) argued that the dynamics of social exchange behaviours generate an equilibrium
status in small groups by shaping the group norms that define the values of the members – “the work
towards group cohesiveness”. Team cohesion refers to the degree to which a group attracts members toremain within the group (Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks 2001). In a cohesive group, all members are
satisfied with what they give and what they receive; “the more cohesive a group is, the larger the numberof members that conform to its norms” (Homans 1958, 600).
Members exercising shared leadership believe that mutual support and help are essential tomotivate everyone to stay on the team, as individual success intrinsically depends on others’ success.
Consequently, team members care about others’ status and development, as indicated by theirencouragement of those who are discouraged and willingness to help peers grow. At the same time,
team members engage in reciprocity, such as sharing information and knowledge, to facilitate acohesive work environment. When teams develop mutual support and cohesiveness, group norms
influence the behaviour of team members. Helping other team members is perceived as both an
obligation and the rule in shared leadership settings because every team member believes it is the rightthing to do.
Furthermore, team members in shared leadership perceive one another as worthy of respect, care,and devotion because, in essence, they define their teammates as equals (Wellman 2017). Therefore,
they engage in reciprocal consideration behaviours such as listening to others’ problems, caring aboutothers’ feelings, providing psychological support to others, taking others’ suggestions, and sharing
information and knowledge to support others in need (Bass 2008). Those behaviours intend to establish
strong interpersonal connections with other team members by showing kindness, respect, and support.
We call such behaviour cohesive support leadership. This dimension is defined as the extent to which
team members offer mutual support and work as a cohesive team, thus addressing the compilation form
element.

92.4. Complementary expertise leadership
The emergence of collective achievement leadership and cohesive support leadership is basedon the development of team-level cognitive structures that guide team members in constructing theirtaskwork (e.g., work goals, procedures, and strategies) and teamwork (e.g., team norms andinterpersonal relationships; Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and Converse 1993). Such shared mental models
are essential for members to conduct shared leadership because they enable team members to agree
effectively on how to achieve their goals and continue social interactions with identical mental
representations of their collective task and team norms (Kozlowski and Klein 2000). However,individual characteristics do not always converge and adapt due to individual interactions in a team.
Transactive memories may also emerge (Lewis 2003; Wegner 1987).
SET suggests that collective efforts generate interdependence in a social system when exchangeinteractions generalize the knowledge and role expectations of others while highlighting each person's
different responsibilities (Seers, Keller, and Wilkerson 2003). Interdependence is established andmaintained only when the needs of one party and the efforts exerted by other parties are reciprocallyaligned. As such, interdependence reinforces role differentiation and division of labour. It underscores“mutual and complementary arrangements” (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005, 876) based on theconstruction of a role system.
In shared leadership, members acknowledge what others know and develop an expertise networkwith team members’ heterogeneous competencies (Lewis, 2003). Each member is indispensable
because everyone can provide something cannot to the group that the other members. Whencomplementary expertise leadership is applied, individuals succeed in developing a complementary rolesystem and learning how to lead their peers, i.e., how to combine the leadership strengths of the groupmembers to reach goals. As Homans (1961) claimed, to influence others, one must allow him/herself
to be influenced by others. Because each member has a different role, but the group agrees to act incoordination, a partnership develops among the members in which members are aware of others’
expertise and obligations as well as their own. The expertise network enhances the success of sharedleadership because team members are complementary and interdependent due to their diversified

10expertise and strengths. As a result, team members’ knowledge and competencies fit together as ameaningful configuration.
Therefore, we contend that shared leadership is also compilational. A networked memory of eachmember’s expertise is essential for shared leadership teams to function (Wegner 1987). Diversified
expertise is mutually recognized by team members, and the individuals who have expertise takeleadership roles according to the team’s needs. In shared leadership teams, a network of diversified
expertise ensures the functionality of a shifting mechanism of leadership roles: For example, because
one’s expertise may be more useful in one situation than others, one individual is thus selected andsolidified in that specific situation to lead the team. In other words, everyone is significant to the teambecause their expertise and strengths are heterogeneous and indispensable. We term this arrangement
complementary expertise leadership, whereby team members recognize one another’s expertise andsuccessfully build a complementary expertise network of leadership role shifting mechanisms. Noticethat this dimension addresses the composition form and no free-riders elements.

3. Study 1: A qualitative study on the proposed model
To empirically study the 3-dimensional 3Cs model proposed in the previous section, a mixedmethods approach was applied. We adopted this approach because it provides a more complete
understanding of our research question and stronger substantiation of shared leadership constructs(Creswell and Creswell 2018; Eisenhardt 1989). Qualitative research is useful to suggest and reflect
theory that can be supported, strengthened, and generalized by quantitative research (Creswell and
Clark 2017; Eisenhardt 1989). In this section, a qualitative method was sought to preliminarily test the
3Cs model. An experiment was designed for 12 graduate students who were enrolled in a leadershipexchange program. Their responses to two open-ended questionnaires underwent a content analysis.
The results were consistent with the theoretical assumption.
3.1. Research design and sample
An experiment was carried out in a leadership exchange program at a public university in Japan.
The experiment organizer explained the study purpose and procedure to all students on their first day

11

in the program. Participation in this study was completely voluntary, and English was used as theprimary language for communication and data collection. Twelve of the 14 students agreed toparticipate in the research and signed an informed consent letter. Their average age was 28. A total of
66.7% were male, and 33.3% were female. They were from various countries, including Australia,
Japan, Korea, the Philippines, several European countries, and the United States. They were all enrolled
in a graduate or postgraduate program during the exchange program period and had rich international
experiences in leading different school projects. They spoke English as a first language or fluently as asecond language.
The experiment comprised three 2-hour workshops. In the first workshop, participants weredivided into four equal teams. Each team member received a letter tag: A, B, or C. Each team was asked
to design an extracurricular activity for primary school students (11-year-old children) relating to one
critical global issue. They were told that they would discuss detailed plans in the second workshop andcarry out their plans with the target students in the third workshop.
In the second workshop, each team was directed to a separate room to conduct team discussions.
After that, they were asked to complete a questionnaire with 10 open-ended questions to detail the
behaviour of their team members in the second workshop. After two days (in the third workshop), eachteam implemented their activity plans. Then, they were asked to fill out another questionnaire with 12
open-ended questions to indicate their team member behaviours in the third workshop. The following
is an example of the questions that the participants were asked: “Who was/were leaders in your team?
Why do you think so? Please use detailed examples to explain.”
3.2. Data coding and analysis
The survey responses were analysed with ATLAS.ti, an efficient and reliable software
application, to organize and code qualitative data. A coding frame was created that used the three
dimensions discussed in Section 3 (i.e., collective achievement leadership, complementary expertiseleadership, and cohesive support leadership) as primary categories following the steps suggested by
Creswell and Clark (2017) and Schreier (2012). Responses were classified as collective achievement
leadership if they related to organizing and planning teamwork, making decisions, and solving problems
collectively. Responses were coded as complementary expertise leadership if they concerned leadership12role shifting and mutual expertise recognition. Statements related to building cohesive teams werecategorized as cohesive support leadership. No responses were found that could not fit into one of thecategories described above. To determine the validity of the results, we asked one of the key participants
whether the findings reflected her experiences in the program (this follows the approach by Creswell
and Clark 2017). The results are presented below.
3.3. Results
Collective achievement leadershipThis dimension refers to the extent to which team members seek perspective to manage group
work and solve team problems collectively. In this study, we found that participants displayed
leadership in a particular way, especially in the planning stage (workshop 2). Additionally, we observedthat team discussions were held to solve team problems and contradictions. To understand the detailsof how team members managed group work and solved team problems collectively, we studied their
feedback. One participant, 3C, answered:“I don’t believe there was any one leader on the team. We all contributed ideas to the teachingassignment and took the lead in different roles…We all had a relatively equal role to play in thepresenting of the material and the running of the activity.” (3C)
“At the beginning, I was a little anxious because neither of my teammates attended the initial
meeting. However, we quickly came to agreement on the topic and division of work over
Facebook, which made me feel much better about the teamwork.” (3C)
Therefore, we found that participants shared in planning and organizing teamwork, reaching anagreement on how to arrange the team activity so that everyone’s responsibilities and workload would
be distributed as evenly as possible, and when one team member was unable to attend one of theworkshops, the others addressed this problem through virtual discussion and decided together how toallocate team tasks. Team members did not seem to depend on one single leader to run team activities
or solve team problems that arose. Instead, they were all involved in contributing ideas and sharing
responsibilities to reach team objectives, as well as actively seeking effective ways to agree on solutions
to team problems (Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999). Collective achievement leadership is thus helpful to13

attain member consensus on decision-making that is relevant to achieving team goals such as task
allocation, responsibilities, and problem-solving mechanisms.
Cohesive support leadershipThis dimension refers to the extent to which team members offer mutual support and work as acohesive team. Because this experiment was conducted within a relatively short period, there were few
moments of conflict. Hence, recognized leadership behaviours that needed improvement for teamcohesiveness were not highly reported. Nevertheless, participants took necessary actions to support andhelp their team members. For example, in team 1, members created a positive and supportive teamatmosphere through verbal encouragement and helping one another:“We encouraged each other, for example, when one of us completed a task, we would say “Greatjob, thanks!” I think this was important for keeping morale high…If I had a question about theproper way to say something in Japanese, I would ask 1A.” (1B)
Consequently, we observed that cohesive support leadership was reflected when teams acted to keep
team spirit positive. When someone needed help and information, others were willing to share andsupport. When someone successfully completed a task, they celebrated to keep team morale high.
Complementary expertise leadershipThis dimension refers to team members recognizing expertise from one another and successfullybuilding a complementary expertise network of leadership role shifting mechanisms. This construction
occurs based on the creation of transactive memories of each member’s expertise through interpersonal
interactions (Wegner 1987). The capabilities of the team members in this study were heterogeneous andcomplementary, enabling each team to produce an expertise network based on everyone’s strengths.
Moreover, they were open-minded, allowing mutual influence (Homans 1961). Therefore, we areinterested in knowing how participants constructed such networks. For example, one participant, 4C,
stated the following:“I was an initial leader on the team because I have a background in climate change. I was able toguide us towards what we should be talking about (e.g., sources of greenhouse gases, climatechange impacts, what countries are doing). This provided an initial direction for the team to work

14

towards. 4A took over a leadership role when he realized that he would need to do most of the
speaking as the Japanese member of our team. He formed the discussion in his own vision basedon what he would be comfortable with. After this transition, 4B and I provided support for 4A,
providing information that he needed to put on a good presentation…
I felt that I needed to take an initial leadership role, and I suggested our topic and I work in thefield of climate change…As I realized 4A wanted to take a stronger leadership role as theJapanese speaker, I allowed him to do so. Some of the choices he made I did not agree with, but
I did not voice these concerns because he was the one who needed to present the material, and I
wanted him to be as comfortable as possible in that role.” (4C)
From this quote, we observed that participants recognized and appreciated one another’s expertise andstrengths. They implied that every team member was important in different ways in accomplishing teamtasks. Leadership roles then shifted naturally when the team needs/priorities changed. Almost all
participants indicated that the person(s) who took a leadership role in the third workshop was/weredifferent from the person(s) in the second workshop. Leadership roles were decided based on which
team member’s skills and knowledge were most suited to the task at hand, and team members stepped
into the leadership role accordingly. In the above example, 4C was assumed to be the initial leader
because he was an expert on the team theme, so naturally, he led team discussions. In the third workshop,
4A took the leadership role because he was the only one who could communicate with students inJapanese. As a result, everyone felt comfortable and psychologically safe to take over leadership roles
and responsibilities.
3.4. Discussion of Study 1
Study 1 was designed to pretest the 3Cs model of shared leadership, and the results confirmed
the theoretical proposition. This study, however, was limited by its small sample size. Additionally, it
was vulnerable to the possibility that shared leadership behaviours may not be the same in realorganizational settings. Therefore, a quantitative study was performed to generalize the findings withthe additional purpose of developing measurement items for each dimension of shared leadership, theresults of which are reported in the next section.

15

4. Study 2: Quantitative methods for developing the measurement of the 3Cs model
Based on the findings from the pretest Study 1 in the previous section, Study 2 attempted toquantitatively test the 3Cs model of shared leadership and to develop items to measure shared leadership.
This study sample included leaders and team members in Chinese organizations, and as a result, a 12item scale was obtained to measure the three dimensions.
4.1. Scale development overview
To develop a sound and reliable measure of shared leadership, we followed Hinkin’s (1995, 1998)
recommendations. The development of the shared leadership scale included three phases that used asample comprising leaders (some registered as master of business administration [MBA] students) andteam members in China. During the first phase, a review of the existing literature was undertaken to
generate a set of initial items. During the second phase, open-ended question surveys and in-person
interviews were conducted to develop and refine the initial items. During the third phase, exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and confirmative factor analysis (CFA) were performed to assess the factor
structure and reliability of the shared leadership scale with independent sample sets. The study thenassessed the convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the newly developed scale.
4.2. Item generation
The work conducted in this phase aimed to develop a set of initial items that comprehensively
reflect team-based leadership behaviours aligned with our definition of shared leadership. An extensive
review of the existing leadership literature was first carried out. As a result, the initial item pool
incorporated 52 items from Hiller (2002), Hoch (2014), Pearce and Sims (2002), Lewis’ (2003)
measurement of shared cognition, and Edmonson’s (1999) learning behaviour measurement. All items
were modified based on our definition of shared leadership. Because these initial items were all in
English, four students (one doctoral student majoring in economics and management, one master’s
student majoring in Chinese-English translation, and two master’s students majoring in economics andmanagement) separately translated the items into Chinese. Then, the translations were compared andrevised based on the suggestions of two midlevel managers with considerable experience working in a
multicultural environment.

16

4.3. Item refinement
This phase included two procedures. First, 15 MBA students (leaders) who were part-timestudents and worked in a full-time position were instructed to complete a questionnaire to indicate theirunderstanding of shared leadership based on their work experiences and knowledge. Of these 15
participants, 8 were male and 7 were female; 3 were top-level leaders; 7 were midlevel managers; 3were first-line managers; and 2 were general employees who had experience in leading team projects.
Participants’ ages ranged from 29 to 43. The definitions of shared leadership and corresponding cases
were presented to the participants before they answered the questionnaire. To ensure that theseparticipants could freely describe their understanding of shared leadership, the interviewer did not
mention any of the proposed dimensional assumptions or existing dimensions of shared leadership.
Additionally, seven face-to-face interviews were conducted with 4 other MBA students (midlevel
managers) and 3 top-level leaders who worked in the credit, insurance, and consultant industries. The
individuals who worked in these industries were considered potential sources of profound insight intoshared leadership for two reasons. First, in general, these industries require individuals to use theirleadership skills to adapt to the rapid development of information and knowledge to achieve team andcompany goals. Second, leaders in information-intensive industries usually have abundant experiencein using shared leadership to stimulate employees’ maximum potential. The interviews (each lasting
approximately 2 hours) were semistructured and used open-ended questions. A sample question was“According to your work experience, what are the meaning and key characteristics of shared leadership?”Based on the questionnaires and interview results, the study developed 33 original items
reflecting shared leadership. The items were compared to the initial items produced during the firstphase. Some initial items were revised or removed, and some items were newly written. After all theseprocedures, 67 items were generated (see Figure 1).

【Insert Figure 1 about here】

17

4.4. Item reduction and validation
4.4.1. Exploratory factor analysis
Sample and procedures. An EFA was used to reduce the items generated in phase 2 and explore
the factor structure of shared leadership. The questionnaire included 67 items, with a cover sheet that
explained the survey purpose and assured response confidentiality. A five-point Likert scale was used
to measure each item, with the following range of possible answers: disagree, slightly disagree, neither
disagree nor agree, agree, and strongly agree. The survey was administered to teams working at 12
Chinese companies operating in the technological, information, insurance, consultant, and service
industries. Five items were negatively phrased to reduce response bias. In total, 305 respondents
completed the questionnaire, and 261 valid responses (29 team leaders and 232 team members) of 29
teams were identified in the final analysis. The average age of the respondents was 31.03 years; 62.5%
were females, and 37.5% were males.
Analyses and results. An EFA using the principal axis factoring method with a varimax rotation
was performed to explore the measured construct of shared leadership. A nine-factor construct emerged.
We re-examined each factor based on the following standards: 1) item loadings should not be lessthan .50, and 2) at least three items should represent the intended factor as the dominant source for thefactor (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). Based on the above criteria, six of the nine factors were considered
problematic and removed. To create an efficient yet reliable scale for use in future academic research,
we selected the four highest-loading items on each remaining factor and created a revised, 12-item scaleof shared leadership as follows: 4 items reflecting collective achievement leadership ( = .86), 4 items
reflecting complementary expertise leadership ( = .84), and 4 items reflecting cohesive support
leadership ( = .85). The factor loadings of the 12 items in the EFA are shown in Table 2.

【Insert Table 2 about here】
4.4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
Sample and procedures. To test the validity of the 12-item scale and the contribution of eachdimension to the overall measure, a series of CFAs were applied with a new organizational sample.

18

Data were collected from 5 companies in China in the service, manufacturing, and real estate industries.
We administered the questionnaire to those identified as high-level self-managed teams by their teamleaders. In total, 37 team leaders and 136 team members from 37 teams completed the questionnaire;average respondent age was 29. This sample was also used to test convergent, discriminant, andincremental validity.
Analyses and results. The CFAs offered strong support for the proposed three-factor model. As
presented in Table 3, the proposed model yielded a good fit with the data (χ251 = 102.118, p < .001, CFI= .934, RMSEA = .076, SRMR = .047). Cronbach’s alphas were used to test the internal consistencyof each of the following factors: collective achievement leadership ( = .71), complementary expertiseleadership ( = .75), and cohesive support leadership ( = .81). The alpha coefficient obtained for thefull shared leadership scale was .90. Additionally, the standardized loadings ranged from .54 to .88 andwere all statistically significant at the .001 level.
In addition, the three-factor model was compared to four alternative models that included either
one or two factors to test the distinctiveness of the shared leadership dimensions. As shown in Table 3,
the first set of alternatives included two-factor models in which each two dimensions of sharedleadership formed one factor, resulting in three models as follows: collective achievement leadershipand complementary expertise leadership formed one dimension (χ253 = 151.133, p < .001, CFI = .873,
RMSEA = .104, SRMR = .062); collective achievement leadership and cohesive support leadershipformed one dimension (χ253 = 170.409, p < .001, CFI = .848, RMSEA = .113, SRMR = .065); andcomplementary expertise leadership and cohesive support leadership formed one dimension (χ253 =
120.746, p < .001, CFI = .912, RMSEA = .086, SRMR = .052). The final alternative was a single-factor
model (χ254 = 182.825, p < .001, CFI = .833, RMSEA = .118, SRMR = .068). The chi-square difference
tests between the proposed three-factor model and the above alternative models were all significant at
the .01 level. The above results indicate that the hypothesized three-factor model is superior to the othermodels. Thus, the construct validity of the new shared leadership measure received strong support.

【Insert Table 3 about here】

19

4.4.3. Convergent and discriminant validity
Following the steps described by El Akremi and colleagues (2018), the convergent anddiscriminant validity of the newly developed scale of shared leadership were tested with the same
sample for CFAs. The existing literature contends that shared leadership has both conceptual overlap
with and differences from servant leadership. Servant leadership, which is characterized by its core
attribute of “going beyond one’s self-interest” (Van Dierendonck 2011, 1230), is intrinsically linked
with shared leadership. Van Dierendonck (2011) suggests that servant leadership and empowering
leadership are similar in their emphasis on delegating authority and facilitating shared goals byenhancing followers’ well-being and personal development. Based on an understanding and acceptanceof subordinates’ characteristics, needs, interests, abilities, and potentials, servant leaders encourage
subordinates to be accountable for setting and achieving goals with the necessary support to build
personal strength (Liden et al. 2008). Notably, servant leaders help subordinates achieve their potential
not for the sake of the organization or leader’s goals but instead for the followers’ own good (Ehrhart,
2004). Therefore, this study predicts that the 3Cs model is positively related to but distinct from servant
leadership.
Measures. Servant leadership was measured with Ehrhart’s (2004) servant leadership scale. A
CFA was applied to test whether the items had good validity in measuring servant leadership with aChinese sample. Following MacCallum and colleagues’ (1999) suggestion, items with a factor loading
lower than .60 were removed. Consequently, 8 items were used to measure servant leadership in thisstudy. An example item was “My department manager spends the time forming quality relationships
with department employees” ( = .88).
Analyses and results. The analysis started with a series of CFAs to assess the correlations between
the shared leadership construct and servant leadership. The results showed that the three dimensionsof shared leadership were moderately to strongly related to servant leadership as follows: .50 between
collective achievement leadership and servant leadership; .61 between complementary expertiseleadership and servant leadership; and .73 between cohesive support leadership and servant leadership.
Next, CFAs were performed to test the distinctiveness of the 3Cs of shared leadership from the servant
leadership measure. A CFA of the three constructs of shared leadership and servant leadership was20

conducted, generating a good fit to the data (χ2162 = 266.541, p < .001, CFI = .904, RMSEA = .069,
SRMR = .064). Then, this model was compared with alternative models in which servant leadership
was loaded onto each dimension of shared leadership. The alternative models fit the data poorly as
follows: servant leadership and collective achievement leadership formed one factor (χ2167 = 410.327,
p < .001, CFI = .776, RMSEA = .104, SRMR = .094); servant leadership and complementary expertiseleadership formed one factor (χ2167 = 382.125, p < .001, CFI = .802, RMSEA = .098, SRMR = .09);
and servant leadership and cohesive leadership formed one factor (χ2167 = 358.872, p < .001, CFI = .823,
RMSEA = .092, SRMR = .082). The chi-square difference tests were all statistically significant. Hence,
the results support both the high relation of the 3Cs model to servant leadership and its distinctness.
These findings provide strong evidence supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the 3Csmodel.
4.4.4. Incremental validity
In the final step, the incremental validity of the new shared leadership scale was investigated byexamining whether shared leadership uniquely contributed to teamwork satisfaction beyond servant
leadership or the four-type shared leadership scale (i.e., transformational, transactional, directive, andempowering leadership). The previous literature suggests that shared leadership results in teamwork
satisfaction (e.g., Kocolowski 2010) because team empowerment meets the intrinsic needs of autonomy
and growth (Kirkman and Rosen 1999). Additionally, teams conducting shared leadership have beenfound to exhibit less member conflict, greater consensus and cohesion, and higher mutual trust thanthose not involved in shared leadership (Bergman et al. 2012). Moreover, individuals in teams withhigher task interdependence are more satisfied with their jobs and teams than those in teams with lower
task interdependence because a high level of task interdependence results in greater cooperation andbetter performance (Van der Vegt, Emans, and Van De Vliert 2001). Therefore, the study expects the
3Cs model to explain the incremental variance in teamwork satisfaction beyond that explained byservant leadership or the four-type shared leadership measure.
Measures. The items from Mitchell and colleagues (2001) and Haas (2010) were adapted tomeasure teamwork satisfaction. We removed the items with poor factor loadings in the CFA using a
cut-off of .4, which Stevens (1992) suggested should be the cut-off regardless of sample size. As a result,21

a three-item scale was generated with the following items: “I am very satisfied with working together
with the energized and uplifted members of this team”, “Members of this team are getting better andbetter at working together”, and “In general, I like working here” ( = .75). The author used the items
generated in step 3 to measure servant leadership ( = .88). We adapted Pearce, Yoo, and Alavi’s (2004)
shared leadership scale, which includes four types of leadership behaviours. The five-type leadershipscale was not used because developing an efficient and short survey was essential for questionnaireadministration. A sample item is “My team members urge me to assume responsibilities on my own”
( = .89).
Analyses and results. Hierarchical linear regressions were applied to test the incremental
predictive ability of the shared leadership scale. Servant leadership or the four types of leadershipbehaviours were entered as control variables; then, the 12-item shared leadership measure was enteredinto the equations to test any increase in the explained variance of teamwork satisfaction. The
descriptive statistics and correlations are displayed in Table 4. The model results shown in Table 5
demonstrate that the newly developed shared leadership scale yielded a significant increase in R2 in
predicting teamwork satisfaction after controlling for the effects of servant leadership (R2 = .10, p< .001) and the four types of leadership behaviours (R2 = .27, p < .001). The above results support the
hypothesis and thus confirm the incremental validity of the three-dimensional construct of sharedleadership.

【Insert Tables 4 and 5 about here】
4.5. Discussion of Study 2
The results of Study 2 suggest that the 3Cs model of shared leadership best fits the collected data.
The EFA suggested a three-factor model, with four items per factor. The CFAs validated this finding,as testing alternative models resulted in a poorer fit. Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity
tests provided further evidence for the reliability of the newly developed scale. Therefore, we haveconfirmed that the 3Cs model well captures the nature of leadership behaviours involved in sharedleadership.

22

5. General Discussion
This study, drawing on emergence theory and SET, proposed a 3Cs model that includes collective
achievement leadership, complementary expertise leadership, and cohesive support leadership byreviewing the literature on shared leadership. This model explains how the macro shared leadershipphenomenon emerges through micro individual interactions. A mixed-methods approach was applied
to verify the theoretical assumption. A qualitative study using content analyses of data obtained fromtwo open-ended questionnaire surveys provided preliminary support for the three dimensions. A
quantitative study was conducted to test this model further empirically and to develop a valid
measurement for shared leadership. The results suggested the scale of the 12 items with four items foreach dimension.
The results suggest that the previous understanding of shared leadership was limited. The existingstudies either consider shared leadership a composition form of emergence or a compilation form,
whereas the proposed 3Cs model integrates both. Note that considering its dynamic nature, sharedleadership can be compositional in some situations and can be compilational in others. Team members
operate shared leadership by performing common leadership behaviours (i.e., collective achievement
leadership and cohesive support leadership); they also distribute different leadership roles andresponsibilities based on their unique expertise (i.e., complementary expertise leadership).
Our 3Cs model also emphasizes the significance of establishing common goals among teammembers by conducting collective achievement leadership and avoiding free-riding behaviours byconducting complementary expertise leadership to ensure the effectiveness of shared leadership. Team
members in shared leadership need to agree on mutual goals through team discussions to directeveryone to work on the same page and solve team problems. Meanwhile, complementary expertiseleadership ensures that those who stay in shared leadership can make unique contributions to the teamso that no one will take free benefits. Moreover, cohesive support leadership brings everyone together
with a core team spirit of mutual support and respect. This dimension ensures the smooth23

implementation of the other two dimensions in which team maintenance work is equally shared among
team members.
5.1. Theoretical Implications
Inspired by emergence theory and SET, our research discovered a novel emergent model ofshared leadership connecting macro team leadership behaviours with micro individual behaviours,
which we termed 3Cs. We found that team leadership behaviours (i.e., collective achievement
leadership, complementary expertise leadership, and cohesive support leadership) emerge and develop
through individual interactions over time. When team members interact and exchange orally andbehaviourally, they learn how to combine common leadership behaviourss and distribute different
leadership responsibilities so that the team can maximize team potential and increase teamwork
efficiency. Consequently, both homogeneous (e.g., deciding workflow and conflict-solving
mechanisms) and heterogeneous (e.g., leading one another with unique expertise) leadership behaviours
emerge and develop.
Furthermore, our study responds to the question regarding the dynamics of how team members
adopt leadership roles relating to role performance in shared leadership (Clarke 2013). The 3Cs
emergent model of shared leadership implies that the leadership behaviours of team members in thisschema differ from those generally associated with traditional leadership. Specifically, sharedleadership involves both sharing identical leadership behaviours and building an expertise network witha role shifting scheme. Based on social-psychological interactions, team members learn about and takeadvantage of one another’s personal characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses to develop an organizedmechanism detailing each member’s leadership responsibilities and roles over time.
5.2. Managerial implications for HRD
As suggested by Ardichvili, Natt och Dag, and Manderscheid (2016), there has been a growinginterest in shared leadership amongst leadership development professionals, considering that sharedleadership is a promising model for addressing complex problems and accomplishing intricate tasks
that require diverse expertise and considerable creativity. Our research provides significant managerial
insights for HRD professionals who seek practical guidance for developing shared leadership in work
teams.

24

First, HRD practitioners should build for team members shared mental models of conducting
collective achievement leadership and cohesive support leadership. Such modeling involves thedevelopment of team-level cognitive structures that guide team members to construct their taskwork(e.g., work goals, procedures, and strategies) and teamwork (e.g., team norms, interpersonal
relationships, and positive team spirit). It should be noted that building positive and supportive teamnorms is not less important than constructing teamwork strategies. As discussed, cohesive support
leadership ensures the success of the other two dimensions.
HRD professionals also ought to elaborate a role system based on each team member’s strengths
and expertise to foster complementary expertise leadership. They should identify contributions thateach member can and is willing to make to the team. Then, individual contributions should be integrated
to reach team goals, such as assigning a balanced task load to each team member and developing teamnorms for sharing leadership roles and responsibilities. While not all members are assigned a specifictask or responsibility all the time, those who share leadership know when they need to adopt leadershiproles and how they should act as leaders. Shared leadership only succeeds when the team avoids “freerider” behaviours by constructing a coordinated leadership role system.
Third, our study indicates that the mutual influence of team members in shared leadership
depends less on formal position than on expertise and skills, which may be interpreted as thedevelopment of informal leadership structures (Pearce and Sims 2000). This finding supports thefunctional leadership theory that team-based leadership encompasses a broader array of leadershipbehaviours and processes that were previously thought to be restricted to formal leaders (Morgeson,
DeRue, and Karam 2010). Team members likely influence one another due to diverse behaviour
strategies that differ from official power (Seibert, Sparrowe, and Liden 2003). Hence, HRD
professionals should facilitate shared leadership by decreasing positional authority and encouraging aflat organizational structure. Furthermore, formal leaders should be open-minded to various sharedleadership behaviours and nurture an environment in which all members actively participate inleadership processes.

25

5.3. Limitations and future directions
This research has several limitations. First, it did not empirically explore how the 3Cs model ofshared leadership develops over time in the long term. Computational simulation (see Kozlowski and
Chao 2012) and longitudinal studies might be adopted to examine how contextual forces influence theemergence of the three dimensions of shared leadership and how they vary according to different
situations. Additionally, this study highlights the significance of both formal and informal influence inshared leadership. A potential direction for future studies is to determine what types of leadership roles
formal and informal leaders may assume and how they exercise interpersonal influence differently.
Moreover, perceptions of leadership can vary in different cultural contexts. The quantitative studies inthis article collected data only from China and did not extend the empirical research into other contexts.
Nonetheless, Western cultures are generally characterized as “valuing individual achievement, selfworth, and personal freedoms” (Kim, et al. 2017, 3083), whereas traditional Chinese culture is strongly
collective but “only group oriented towards social units with which close interactions have been
established” (Yau 1988, 53). Thus, the cultural dimensions particular to China may have influenced thesample's perceptions of shared leadership, which could limit generalizability. Future studies should test
and implement the proposed model of shared leadership in different cultures and countries to theorise
the model across contexts (Whetten 2009).

References:
Allen, B., G. Lippner, YT. Chen, B. Fotouhi, N. Momeni, ST. Yau, and M. A. Nowak. 2017.
“Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure.” Nature 544 (7649): 227–230. doi:
10.1038/nature21723
Ardichvili, A., K. Natt och Dag, and S. Manderscheid. 2016. “Leadership development: Current andemerging models and practices.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 18 (3): 275-285. doi:
10.1177/1523422316645506
Avolio, B. J., B. M. Bass, and D. I. Jung. 1999. “Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.” Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72 (4): 441–462. doi: 10.1348/096317999166789

26

Avolio, B. J., F. O. Walumbwa, and T. J. Weber. 2009. “Leadership: Current theories, research, andfuture directions.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 421–449. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Barnett, R. C., and N. K. Weidenfeller. 2016. “Shared leadership and team performance.” Advances in
Developing Human Resources 18 (3): 334–351. doi: 10.1177/1523422316645885
Bass, B. M. 2008. The Bass Handbook of Leadership. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
Bergman, J. Z., J. R. Rentsch, E. E. Small, S. W. Davenport, and S. M. Bergman. 2012. “The sharedleadership process in decision-making teams.” The Journal of Social Psychology 152 (1): 17–42.
doi: 10.1080/00224545.2010.538763
Brinck, L., and L. Tanggaard. 2016. “Embracing the unpredictable. Leadership, learning, changing
practice.” Human Resource Development International 19 (5): 374–
387. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2016.1141607
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., E. Salas, and S. A. Converse. 1993. “Shared mental models in expert teamdecision making.” In Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, edited by N. J.
Castellan, 221–246. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carson, J. B., P. E. Tesluk, and J. A. Marrone. 2007. “Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of
antecedent conditions and performance.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (5): 1217–1234.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.20159921
Clarke, N. 2013. “Model of complexity leadership development.” Human Resource Development
International 16 (2): 135-150. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2012.756155
Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. P. 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
California: Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., and J. D., Creswell. 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. California: Sage publications.
Cropanzano, R., and M. S. Mitchell. 2005. “Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.”
Journal of Management 31 (6): 874–900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602
Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

27

Denis, J. L., A. Langley, and V. Sergi. 2012. “Leadership in the plural.” Academy of Management
Annals 6 (1): 211–283. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2012.667612
D’Innocenzo, L., J. E. Mathieu, and M. R. Kukenberger. 2016. “A meta-analysis of different forms ofshared leadership–team performance relations.” Journal of Management 42 (7): 1964–1991. doi:
10.1177/0149206314525205
Drescher, M. A., M. A. Korsgaard, I. M. Welpe, A. Picot, and R. T. Wigand. 2014. “The dynamics ofshared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99(5): 771–783. doi: 10.1037/a0036474
Edmondson, A. 1999. “Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 44 (2): 350–383. doi: 10.2307/2666999
Ehrhart, M. G. 2004. “Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level
organizational citizenship behaviour.” Personnel Psychology 57 (1): 61–94. doi: 10.1111/j.17446570.2004.tb02484.x
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research.” Academy of management
review 14 (4): 532-550. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
El Akremi, A., J. P. Gond, V. Swaen, K. De Roeck, and J. Igalens. 2018. “How do employees
perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate
stakeholder responsibility scale.” Journal of Management 44 (2): 619–657. doi:
10.1177/0149206315569311
Ensley, M. D., K. M. Hmieleski, and C. L. Pearce. 2006. “The importance of vertical and sharedleadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance ofstartups.” The Leadership Quarterly 17 (3): 217–231. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002
Erez, A., J. A. Lepine, and H. Elms. 2002. “Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on thefunctioning and effectiveness of self‐managed teams: a quasi‐experiment.” Personnel Psychology
55 (4), 929–948. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x
Fletcher, J. K., and K. Käufer. 2003. “Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility.” In Shared
Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, edited by C. Pearce, & J. Conger, 21–
47. London: Sage.

28

Fulmer, C. A., and C. Ostroff. 2016. “Convergence and emergence in organizations: An integrative
framework and review.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour 37 (Suppl. 1): S122–S145. doi:
10.1002/job.1987
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. “The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.” American Sociological
Review 25 (2): 161–178. doi: 10.2307/2092623
Gupta, V. K., R. Huang, and A. A. Yayla. 2011. “Social capital, collective transformational
leadership, and performance: A resource-based view of self-managed teams.” Journal ofManagerial Issues 23 (1): 31–45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25822536
Haas, M. R. 2010. “The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing teameffectiveness in a multinational organization.” Academy of Management Journal 53 (5): 989–1008.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.54533180
Hartman, C., and B. Benes. 2006. “Autonomous boids.” Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 17(3–4): 199–206. doi:10.1002/cav.123
Hiller. N. J. 2002. Understanding and Measuring Shared Leadership in Work Teams. Doctoral
dissertation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Hinkin, T. R. 1995. “A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.” Journalof Management 21 (5): 967–988. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100509
Hinkin, T. R. 1998. “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires.” Organizational Research Methods 1 (1): 104–121. doi:
10.1177/109442819800100106
Hoch, J. E. 2014. “Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams.” Journal ofManagerial Psychology 29 (5): 541–564. doi: 10.1108/JMP-02-2012-0053
Hoch, J. E., and J. H. Dulebohn. 2017. “Team personality composition, emergent leadership andshared leadership in virtual teams: A theoretical framework.” Human Resource Management
Review 27 (4), 678–693. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012
Hoch, J. E., and S. W. Kozlowski. 2014. “Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural
supports, and shared team leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (3): 390–403. doi:
10.1037/a0030264

29

Homans, G. C. 1958. “Social behaviour as exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 63 (6): 597–
606. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/222355
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Kim, M., Choi, L., Knutson, B., and Borchgrevink, C. 2017. “Hotel employees’ organizational
behaviors from cross-national perspectives.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management. 29. 00-00. 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2016-0280.
Kirkman, B. L., and B. Rosen. 1999. “Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences ofteam empowerment.” Academy of Management Journal 42 (1): 58–74. doi: 10.5465/256874
Kocolowski, M. D. 2010. “Shared leadership: Is it time for a change.” Emerging Leadership
Journeys 3 (1): 22–32.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.2678&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Kozlowski, S. W., and G. T. Chao. 2012. “The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion inwork teams.” Managerial and Decision Economics 33 (5–6): 335–354. doi: 10.1002/mde.2552
Kozlowski, S. W., G. T. Chao, J. A. Grand, M. T. Braun, and G. Kuljanin. 2013. “Advancing
multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence.” Organizational Research
Methods 16 (4): 581–615. doi: 10.1177/1094428113493119
Kozlowski, S. W. J., and K. J. Klein. 2000. “A multilevel approach to theory and research inorganizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes.” In Multilevel Theory, Research,and Methods in Organizations, edited by K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski, 3–90. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Lewis, K. (2003). “Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development andvalidation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (4): 587–603. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne, H. Zhao, and D. Henderson. 2008. “Servant leadership: Development of amultidimensional measure and multi-level assessment.” The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2): 161–
177. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
MacCallum, R. C., K. F. Widaman, S. Zhang, and S. Hong. 1999. “Sample size in factor
analysis.” Psychological Methods 4 (1): 84–99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84

30

Marks, M. A., J. E. Mathieu, and S. J. Zaccaro. 2001. “A temporally based framework and taxonomy
of team processes.” Academy of Management Review 26 (3): 356–376. doi:
10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
Mathieu, J. E., M. R. Kukenberger, L. D’Innocenzo, and G. Reilly. 2015. “Modeling reciprocal teamcohesion-performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (3), 713–734. doi: 10.1037/a0038898
Mitchell, T. R., B. C. Holtom, T. W. Lee, C. J. Sablynski, and M. Erez. 2001. “Why people stay:
Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (6):1102–1121. doi: 10.5465/3069391
Morgeson, F. P., D. S. DeRue, and E. P. Karam. 2010. “Leadership in teams: A functional approachto understanding leadership structures and processes.” Journal of Management 36: 5–39. doi:
10.5465/3069391
Nicolaides, V. C., K. A. LaPort, T. R. Chen, A. J. Tomassetti, E. J. Weis, S. J. Zaccaro, and J. M.
Cortina. 2014. “The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, andmoderating relationships.” The Leadership Quarterly 25 (5), 923–942. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006
Pearce, C. L., and J. A. Conger. 2003. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of
Leadership. London: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., and H. P. Sims Jr. 2002. “Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of theeffectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional,transformational, and empowering leader behaviours.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, andPractice 6 (2): 172–197. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172
Pearce, C. L., and H. P. Sims. 2000. “Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership.”
In Advances in the Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 7, edited by M. M. B. D. A.
Johnson, 115–139. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pearce, C. L., Y. Yoo, and M. Alavi. 2004. “Leadership, social work and virtual teams: The relative
influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector.” In Improving Leadership in31

Nonprofit Organizations, edited by R. E. Riggio & S. Smith-Orr, 180–203. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Perry, M. L., C. L. Pearce, and H. P. Sims Jr. 1999. “Empowered selling teams: How sharedleadership can contribute to selling team outcomes.” Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement 19 (3): 35–51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40471732
Reynolds, Craig. 1987. “Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model.” Computer
Graphics 21 (4): 25–34. doi: 10.1145/37402.37406
Schreier, M. 2012. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seers, A., T. Keller, and J. Wilkerson. 2003. Can team members share leadership. In Shared
Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, edited by C. Pearce, & J. Conger, 77–102. London: Sage.
Seibert, S. E., R. T. Sparrowe, and R. C. Liden. 2003. “A group exchange structure approach toleadership in groups.” In Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, edited
by C. Pearce, & J. Conger, 173–192. London: Sage.
Stevens, J. 1992. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Principal Components and Factor Analysis. In Using
Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed. edited by B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, 607–675. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Uhl-Bien, M., R. Marion, and B. McKelvey. 2007. “Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadershipfrom the industrial age to the knowledge era.” The Leadership Quarterly 18 (4), 298–318. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
Van De Mieroop, D., J. Clifton, and A. Verhelst. 2020. “Investigating the interplay between formal
and informal leaders in a shared leadership configuration: A multimodal conversation analytical
study.” Human Relations 73 (4), 490–515. doi: 10.1177/0018726719895077
Van Dierendonck, D. 2011. “Servant leadership: A review and synthesis.” Journal of Management 37(4): 1228–1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462

32

Van der Vegt, G. S., B. J. Emans, and E. Van De Vliert. 2001. “Patterns of interdependence in work
teams: A two‐level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction.” Personnel
Psychology 54 (1): 51–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00085.x
Wang, D., D. A. Waldman, and Z. Zhang. 2014. “A meta-analysis of shared leadership and teameffectiveness.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2): 181–198. doi: 10.1037/a0034531
Wellman, N. 2017. “Authority or community? A relational models theory of group-level leadership
emergence.” Academy of Management Review 42 (4): 596–617. doi: 10.5465/amr.2015.0375
Wegner, D. M. 1987. “Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind.” In Theories
of group behaviour, edited by M. Brian and G. R. George, 185-208. New York: Springer.
Whetten, D. A. 2009. “An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to thestudy of Chinese organisations.” Management and Organisation Review 5 (1): 29–56.
Yau, O.H. (1988), “Chinese cultural values: their dimensions and marketing implications,” European
Journal of Marketing 22 (5): 44–57.
Zaccaro, S. J., A. L. Rittman, and M. A. Marks. 2001. “Team leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly
12 (4): 451–48. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5
Zhu, J., Z. Liao, K. C. Yam, and R. E. Johnson. 2018. “Shared leadership: A state‐of‐the‐art review
and future research agenda.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour 39 (7): 834–852. doi:
10.1002/job.2296

33

Table 1: Summary of Representative Shared Leadership Definitions
1999

Perry, Pearce, and Sims

A collaborative process of sharing leadership within the team as a whole. (p. 38)

2000

Pearce and Sims

Leadership can emerge from a context and be demonstrated by members (other than the designatedleader) of the group or organization. (p. 119)2002

Erez, Lepine, and Elms

Leadership can be shared over time, whereby team members share (albeit not at once) in responsibilities
involved in the leadership role … by clarifying who is to perform specific role behaviours (i.e., leader andmember). (pp. 933–934)

2003

Pearce and Conger

A dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to leadone another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both. (p. 1)

2004

Pearce, Yoo, and Alavi

Simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process within a team that is characterized by “serial
emergence” of official as well as unofficial leaders. (p. 48)

2006

Ensley, Hmieleski, and Pearce

A team process in which leadership is carried out by the team as a whole, rather than solely by a single
designated individual. (p. 220)

2007

Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone

An emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple teammembers. (p. 1218)

2009

Avolio, Walumbwa, and WeberAn emergent state in which team members collectively lead one another. (p. 431)

2011

Gupta, Huang, and Yayla

Team’s capability for collectively engaging in transformational leadership behaviours; leadership as acollective process, such that the team influences, inspires, and motivates team members. (p. 32)

2014

Nicolaides et al.

A set of interactive influence processes in which team leadership functions are voluntarily shared amonginternal team members in the pursuit of team goals. (p. 924)

2015

Mathieu, et al.

Horizontal leadership, wherein members exert influence over one another to realize team goals. (p. 719)

34

2016

D'Innocenzo, Mathieu, andKukenberger

An emergent and dynamic team phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are distributed
among team members. (p. 5)

2017

Hoch and Dulebohn

A collective leadership process whereby multiple team members step up to take the lead or to participate
in team leadership functions. (p. 4)

2018

Zhu et al.

Shared leadership as an emergent team phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are
distributed among team members. (p. 837)

2020

Van De Mieroop, Clifton, andVerhelst

A concept that assumes a degree of organization that is driven by the formal hierarchical leader but inwhich leadership, in the form of lateral influence, is possible by others, who emerge as informal leaders.
(p. 493)35

Table 2: Factor Loadings from an Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Shared Leadership Scale
Factor Loadings
F1

F2

F3

h2

1 Team members share in organizing tasks such that work flows more smoothly.

.671

.171

.227

0.531

2 Team members share in resolving conflicts and contradictions.

.633

.096

.084

0.417

3 Team members share in deciding how to proceed with the team’s work.

.666

.120

.320

0.560

4 Team members share in developing solutions to problems.

.678

.127

.133

0.494

5 Team members are comfortable accepting suggestions from other team members.

.194

.719

.157

0.579

6 Team members’ strengths and capabilities complement one another.

.109

.583

.174

0.382

7 Team members assume leadership roles in a well-coordinated fashion.

.202

.676

.207

0.541

8 Team members recognize and appreciate one another’s expertise.

.218

.661

.149

0.507

9 Team members urge one another to work as a team.

.325

.293

.556

0.501

10 Team members share in providing support to team members who need help.

.234

.196

.647

0.512

11 Team members learn from one another.

.294

.061

.549

0.392

12 Team members share necessary information and knowledge with one another.

.363

.162

.545

0.455

18.92%

16.45%

13.54%

The contribution ratio
N = 261. All factor loadings are significant at p < .001.

36

Table 3: Comparison of Measurement Models of the Shared Leadership Scale
 X2a

X2

df

CFI

RMSEA

SRMR

102.118

51

0.934

0.076

0.047

Collective achievement leadership + Complementary expertiseleadership;
Cohesive support leadership151.133

53

0.873

0.104

0.062

49.015**

Collective achievement leadership + Cohesive support leadership;Complementary expertise leadership

170.409

53

0.848

0.113

0.065

68.291**

Collective achievement leadership;Complementary expertise leadership + Cohesive support
leadership

120.746

53

0.912

0.086

0.052

18.628**

1 Factor
Collective achievement leadership + Complementary expertiseleadership + Cohesive support leadership

182.825

54

0.833

0.118

0.068

80.707**Structure
3-Factor (Proposed model)
2-Factor modelsaAll alternative models are compared to the 3-factor proposed model.
N = 173.
**p < .01.

37

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations in the Test of Incremental Validity for Shared Leadership Scale

M

SD

1

2

1

Four-type leadershipbehaviours

3.88

0.63

2

Servant leadership

4.47

0.50

.27**

3

Shared leadership(12 items)

4.20

0.52

.48**

.60**

4

Team work satisfaction

4.39

0.66

.36**

.56**

3

.62**
N = 173.
**p < .01.

38

Table 5: Regression Analysis Results of the Incremental Validity Test for the Shared Leadership Scale

Team Work Satisfaction

Model 1aModel 1b.56***.32***

Servant leadership
Four-type leadership behaviours-

Shared leadership(12 items)-

Adjusted R2

Model 2a---.36***.40***

.31

 R2

-

df

1

F

61.26***

Model 2b-.60***.41.10***.07.12***.40***-.27***

2

1

2

47.78***

22.25***

51.09***

N = 173.
***p < .001.

39

Figure 1: 67 Items Reflecting Shared Leadership
1. Team members’ strengths and capabilities complement one another.
2. Team members recognize and appreciate one another’s expertise.
3. Each of our team members leads others in the aspect of our project in which they have specialized knowledge.
4. Each of our team members plays a leadership role in certain situations in which they have knowledge about an aspect of the project that no other teammember has.
5. Each of our team members leads other members in regard to his or her specialty.
6. Specialized knowledge from several different team members is needed to accomplish our common goals.
7. Each of our team members knows when other team members will lead in the area that they have expertise.
8. Team members are comfortable accepting suggestions from other team members.
9. Our team members trust that other members’ knowledge about the project is credible.
10. Our team members are confident in relying on the information that other team members bring to the discussion.
11. When other members give information, our team members want to double-check it for themselves. (R)
12. Our team members do not have much faith in other members’ expertise. (R)
13. Team members assume leadership roles in a well-coordinated fashion.
14. Our team members have very few misunderstandings about what to do during the leadership processes.
15. Our team members need to backtrack and start over a lot. (R)
16. Our team members accomplish the task smoothly and efficiently.
17. There was much confusion about how we would accomplish the task. (R)
18. Our team members encourage me to work together with other individuals who are part of the team.
19. Our team members advise me to coordinate my efforts with the others who are part of the team.
20. Team members urge one another to work as a team.
21. Our team members encourage me to find solutions to our team problems together.

40

22. Our team members encourage me to search for solutions without supervision.
23. Our team members encourage me to assume responsibility for the team.
24. Our team members advise me to solve problems when they pop up in my expertise area.
25. Our team members encourage me to view unsuccessful performance as a chance to learn.
26. Team members learn from one another.
27. This leadership team truly inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.
28. Our team members have a strong personal dedication to our common goals.
29. Team members share in building and maintaining team commitment.
30. Team members share in providing support to team members who need help.
31. Team members share patience towards other team members.
32. Team members share in encouraging other team members when they’re upset.
33. Team members share in listening to complaints and problems of other team members.
34. Team members share in fostering a cohesive team atmosphere.
35. Team members share in treating one another with courtesy.
36. Our team members regularly take time to figure out ways to improve our team’s leadership processes.
37. Our team members tend to handle differences of opinion privately or offline rather than addressing them directly as a group. (R)38. Our team members go out and obtain all the information they possibly can from others, such as customers, or other parts of the organization.
39. Each of our team members frequently seeks new information that leads one another to make important changes.
40. Team members share necessary information and knowledge with one another.
41. One of our team members always makes sure that we stop reflecting on the team’s leadership process.
42. Our team members often speak up to test assumptions about issues under discussion.
43. Our team members invite people from outside the team to present information or have discussions with us.
44. Team members share in exchanging career-related advice among our team.
45. Team members share in helping to develop one another’s skills.

4146. Team members share learning skills with all other team members.
47. Team members share in being positive role models to new members of the team.
48. Team members share in instructing poor performers on how to improve.
49. Team members share helping out when another team member is learning a new skill.
50. Team members share in planning how the work gets done.
51. Team members share in allocating team resources according to our team’s priorities.
52. Team members share in setting our team’s goals.
53. Team members share in organizing tasks such that work flows more smoothly.
54. Team members share in deciding how to proceed with the team’s work.
55. Team members share in providing helpful input about our team’s work-related plans.
56. Team members share in deciding on the best course of action when a problem arises.
57. Team members share in diagnosing problems quickly.
58. Team members share in using our team’s combined expertise to solve problems.
59. Team members share in finding solutions to problems that affect team performance.
60. Team members share in identifying problems before they arise.
61. Team members share in developing solutions to problems.
62. Team members share in solving problems as they arise.
63. Each of our team members is considered an “equal” to others on this team despite the job “titles” used within the organization.
64. Team members share in establishing the reward and punishment system.
65. Team members supervise and evaluate one another.
66. Team members share in resolving conflicts and contradictions.
67. Team members share in managing team workload.

42