Author:
Bligh Michelle C.,Pearce Craig L.,Kohles Jeffrey C.
Abstract
PurposeTo 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.Design/methodology/approachA 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.FindingsNine 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.Research limitations/implicationsAn 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.Practical implicationsConceptualizing 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.Originality/valueImportant 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.
Subject
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Management Science and Operations Research,Applied Psychology,Social Psychology
Reference94 articles.
1. Ashley, S. (1992), “US quality improves but Japan still leads (study by Ernst & Young and American Quality Foundation)”, Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 24, pp. 114‐26.
2. Bandura, A. (1997), Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
3. Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), “Self‐evaluative and self‐efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 1017‐28.
4. Becker, T.E. (1992), “Foci and bases of commitment: are they distinctions worth making?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 232‐44.
5. Becker, T.E., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. and Gilbert, N.L. (1996), “Foci and bases of employee commitment: implications for job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 464‐82.
Cited by
188 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献