Abstract
There is ongoing debate in extant empirical work on whether vertical leadership acts as a facilitator or an inhibitor of shared leadership teams and whether shared leadership acts as a substitute for vertical leadership. This study adopts role theory to clarify formal leaders’ role in shared leadership teams by simultaneously considering both transformational leadership and laissez-faire leadership. Using a sample of 68 work teams varied in functions in high-tech firms in Taiwan, the results support most of our predictions. Specifically, this study provides empirical evidence that transformational leadership can significantly facilitate activities of shared leadership teams that are highly goal-committed. Our findings also suggest that shared leadership does not substitute for transformational and laissez-faire leadership to influence team adaptive performance. Instead, a high level of transformational leadership would strengthen the effect of shared leadership teams on adaptive performance whereas a high level of laissez-faire leadership would result in shared leadership teams decreasing team adaptive performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request in “Open Science Framework” at https://osf.io/6dwyg/.
Notes
laissez-faire leadership does not imply low-level transformational leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003).
Density indexes and decentralization indexes (Chiu et al., 2016; Mehra et al., 2006) are the two most recognized indicators of structure distribution. Density in a team represents the amount of leadership that team members exhibit. Decentralization in a team indicates the distribution of leadership within a team, which is the opposite of centralization. The higher decentralization is, the higher is the level of dispersion of leadership within a team (Zhu et al., 2018). Past research has pointed out that the same level of leadership density may have different network patterns of influences, and higher decentralization may represent no clear leadership from team members; thus, past research has suggested using both indexes to completely capture the form of shared leadership (DeRue et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2018).
We conducted several interviews. One of the teams we invited to participate in our survey reported a high level of transformational leadership and shared leadership. The team tenure was 4 years, and the team leader, who had 7 years of organization tenure, had been leading this team for those 4 years. We had three face-to-face interviews with the team leader and two team members individually. Our interviews revealed that team members could self-manage to promote the completion of a project through group discussion and mutual assistance. The leader did not need to pay attention to the team members during the process; all team members had to do was report the outcome to the leader. In addition, when team members were unable to come up with a solution through discussion, they would seek the assistance of the team leader. The supervisor did not make decisions directly, but provided them with ample information, experience, recourse, and communication to coordinate across departments, so that the team could find a solution to solve the problem. See Appendix for a demonstration of the interaction between formal leaders and shared leadership teams.
References
Agresti, A. (2012). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Sage.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599010135122
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectancies, identities, and behaviors. Academic Press.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Briker, R., Hohmann, S., Walter, F., Lam, C. K., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Formal supervisors’ role in stimulating team members’ informal leader emergence: Supervisor and member status as critical moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(7), 913–932.
Burke, C. S., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2003). The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team adaptability. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 103–122). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539.n5
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380). Jossey-Bass.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022991115523
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159921
Chiu, C. Y. C., Owens, B. P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1705–1720. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000159
Chiu, C. Y., Nahrgang, J. D., Bartram, A., Wang, J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2021). Leading the team, but feeling dissatisfied: Investigating informal leaders’ energetic activation and work satisfaction and the supporting role of formal leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(4), 527–550.
Choi, J. N. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behaviour: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1396–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00851.x
Contractor, N. S., DeChurch, L. A., Carson, J., Carter, D. R., & Keegan, B. (2012). The topology of collective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 994–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.010
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.001
DeRue, D. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., & Ashford, S. J. (2015). Interpersonal perceptions and the emergence of leadership structures in groups: A network perspective. Organization Science, 26(4), 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0963
De Stefano, F., Bonet, R., & Camuffo, A. (2019). Does losing temporary workers matter? The effects of planned turnover on replacements and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 979–1002. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0291
Dierdorff, E. C., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Consensus in work role requirements: The influence of discrete occupational context on role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1228–1241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1228
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205
Dong, Y., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Campbell, E. M. (2015). Fostering employee service creativity: Joint effects of customer empowering behaviors and supervisory empowering leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1364–1380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038969
Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036474
Earley, P. C., & Shalley, C. E. (1991). New perspectives on goals and performance: Merging motivation and cognition. In G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 121–157). JAI Press.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002
Farh, C. I., & Chen, G. (2018). Leadership and member voice in action teams: Test of a dynamic phase model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000256
Farh, C. I. C., Lanaj, K., & Ilies, R. (2017). Resource-based contingencies of when team–member exchange helps member performance in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1117–1137. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0261
Farmer, S. M., Van Dyne, L., & Kamdar, D. (2015). The contextualized self: How team–member exchange leads to coworker identification and helping OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037660
Fausing, M. S., Joensson, T. S., Lewandowski, J., & Bligh, M. (2015). Antecedents of shared leadership: Empowering leadership and interdependence. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0075
Fitzsimons, D., James, K. T., & Denyer, D. (2011). Alternative approaches for studying shared and distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00312.x
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
Freeman, L. C., Borgatti, S. P., & White, D. R. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(91)90017-N
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392936
Hamlin, R. G., Ellinger, A. D., & Beattie, R. S. (2006). Coaching at the heart of managerial effectiveness: A cross-cultural study of managerial behaviours. Human Resource Development International, 9(3), 305–331.
Han, T. Y., & Williams, K. J. (2008). Multilevel investigation of adaptive performance: Individual- and team-level relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(6), 657–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108326799
Hayes, J., Rose-Quirie, A., & Allinson, C. W. (2000). Senior managers’ perceptions of the competencies they require for effective performance: Implications for training and development. Personnel Review, 29(1), 92–105.
Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 387–397.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.001
Hobfoll, S., & Schumm, J. (2009). Conservation of resources theory: Application to public health promotion. In Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 131–156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hoch, J. E. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9273-6
Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2013). Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.007
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030264
Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Welzel, L. (2010). Is the most effective team leadership shared? The impact of shared leadership, age diversity, and coordination on team performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(3), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000020
Hsu, J. S. C., Li, Y., & Sun, H. (2017). Exploring the interaction between vertical and shared leadership in information systems development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1557–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.009
Ishikawa, J. (2012). Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles of norm for maintaining consensus and shared leadership in team performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9282-z
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Junker, N. M., & Van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/256874
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2931
Koo, H., & Park, C. (2018). Foundation of leadership in Asia: Leader characteristics and leadership styles review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35, 697–718.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (pp. 240–292). Jossey-Bass.
Lagowska, U., Sobral, F., & Tavares, G. (2022). Joint effects of shared and transformational leadership on performance in street-level bureaucracies: Evidence from the educational sector. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 1042–1057.
Liang, X., Sendjaya, S., & Abeysekera, L. (2021). Does acculturation affect one’s implicit leadership theories? Evidence from Chinese professionals in Australia and China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38, 979–1001.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.409
Lin, H. C., Dang, T. T. H., & Liu, Y. S. (2016). CEO transformational leadership and firm performance: A moderated mediation model of TMT trust climate and environmental dynamism. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4), 981–1008.
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2004). International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159604
Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.971
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Pastor, J. C. (2003). Shared leadership in work teams: A social network approach. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 193–214). Sage.
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.12690298
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the how’s and whys of leadership. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2020). Disentangling the relationship between empowering leader behaviors and adaptive performance in work teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(5), 761–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219854801
Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Rico, R., Antino, M., & Uitdewilligen, S. (2020). The joint effects of leadership style and magnitude of the disruption on team adaptation: A longitudinal experiment. Group & Organization Management, 45(6), 836–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120958838
Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5
Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601195201003
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 66–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001005
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Stagl, K. C., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., & Pierce, L. (2006). Team adaptation: Realizing team synergy. In C. S. Burke, L. G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.), Understanding adaptability: A prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments (Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research (Vol. 6, pp. 117–141). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Tillmann, S., Huettermann, H., Sparr, J. L., & Boerner, S. (2022). When do team members share the lead? A social network analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866500
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34, 43–71.
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223–270.
Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(4), 307–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb01003.x
Wellman, N., Mayer, D. M., Ong, M., & DeRue, D. S. (2016). When are do-gooders treated badly? Legitimate power, role expectations, and reactions to moral objection in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000094
Wellman, N., Newton, D. W., Wang, D., Wei, W., Waldman, D. A., & LePine, J. A. (2019). Meeting the need or falling in line? The effect of laissez-faire formal leaders on informal leadership. Personnel Psychology, 72(3), 337–359.
Wu, Q., Cormican, K., & Chen, G. (2020). A meta-analysis of shared leadership: Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818820862
Yang, I. (2015). Positive effects of laissez-faire leadership: Conceptual exploration. Journal of Management Development, 34(10), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2015-0016
Yeatts, D. E., & Hyten, C. (1998). High-performing self-managed work teams: A comparison of theory to practice. Sage.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Wang, N., & Li, W. D. (2017). A social identity perspective on shared leadership and team OCB. In The 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Georgia, US: Atlanta.
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2296
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology Research Fund (MOST 107-2410-H-992-043-SSS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethic statements
This study gains ethics approvals by ethic committee (National Cheng Kung University Governance Framework for Human Research Ethics). All the subjects have provided appropriate informed consent and details on how this was obtained are detailed in the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Interview report
Interview Date: October 8, 12, and 14, 2022
Interview Place: Company’s meeting room
NOTE: in the following questions, the “team leader” means the vertical supervisor, not the member leaders in the teams.
-
1.
How will the team leader define his leadership role and how to lead the team? In what way?
-
2.
When your team starts a new project, how do you hold meetings and who decides on the follow-up tasks?
-
3.
Can you give an example of how the team members lead the team to complete a task?
-
4.
When faced with a decision, is it usually the team leader who makes the decision?
-
5.
Can you give an example that impressed you in the past to show how team members make their own decisions?
-
6.
Has there ever been a situation in which some team members will choose to listen to leaders rather than other team members because the leader gives opinions or ideas?
-
7.
During the project progress, do team members expect the leader to help them solve their problems? How does the leader do?
-
8.
Can you give an example where team members acted on their own ideas instead of yours?
-
9.
Has there ever been a situation in the past where team members were asked to be independent but found out that there was a problem, and the leader had to intervene?
-
10.
Have you observed how the team operates when there is a problem?
-
11.
Can you give an example, when the team encountered a problem, of how team members solved it. Did team members seek help from the leader?
-
12.
What is the role of the team leader when team members encounter setbacks?
-
13.
Can you indicate anything the team members have done recently that needed the leader to solve it?
-
14.
Would you use different leadership approaches for different team members?
Here are the key points we extracted from the interview regarding the interaction between the vertical leader and team members.
-
A.
Leader’s effort in enhancing activities of shared leadership teams
We see a very clear demonstration of how a transformational leader helps team members
-
(1)
The leader allows the team to have the opportunity to complete the task together through the formulation of the project (assigning tasks). The formal leader encourages and tells the team members what they can do. For example, “you would be very good at doing this.” This would also help in team formation, where the leader informs the team to elect a team leader (transmitting role expectations).
-
(2)
The supervisor allows the group to operate, lets the team members do it boldly but has the courage to bear the consequences (social acceptance, help the team develop capabilities), and the leader gives information and suggestions to the team members when they need it (give the team support, timely support). For example, during the process, when members feel that it is not easy to do something and cannot do it, the formal leader provides some examples, templates, and materials so that members can follow these directions, and even finds suppliers to communicate and discuss together, through to the implementation of the project.
-
(3)
The supervisor can support members (to assist the growth of team members, e.g., provide cost information to team members, let team members calculate, understand the logic of the entire cost design; team members need to communicate research results with other units and import them into the execution unit, providing information that allows the members to turn it into their own knowledge after studying the information).
-
(4)
The team leader guides the team members forward, and encourages everyone to put forward proposals for discussion.
-
(5)
The team leader makes cakes and snacks for everyone for social events.
-
(1)
-
B.
Leader’s efforts with shared leadership teams for team performance
-
(1)
What the transformational leader does when the team works well
Team members can self-manage to promote the completion of the project through group discussion and mutual assistance. In this process, the leader does not need to pay attention, and all that team members need do is report the outcome to the leader.
-
(2)
What the transformational leader does when teams have trouble
When team members cannot come up with a solution through discussion, they seek the assistance of the team leader. The supervisor does not make decisions directly, but provides team members with information and offers experience, as well as communicates to coordinate across departments, so that the team can find a solution to solve the problem. As the project proceeds, the supervisor adds further goals to continuously develop the project.
-
(1)
-
A.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Tung, YC., Shih, CT. To lead or not? The role theory perspective on the moderating roles of transformational and laissez-faire leadership in shared leadership teams. Asia Pac J Manag (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09937-x
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09937-x