Skip to main content

When does shared leadership matter in entrepreneurial teams: the role of personality composition

Abstract

Although prior research has investigated a number of conditions under which shared leadership in teams may improve team performance, team composition variables have been left unexplored. Using a sample of 144 teams in a technology incubator in China, this study explored the moderating effects of personality diversity on the relationship between shared leadership and entrepreneurial team performance. Results indicate that shared leadership improves entrepreneurial team performance; the strength of the relationship, however, depends on the level of team personality diversity. More specifically, when relationship-oriented personality diversity is high, the shared leadership—team performance relationship is stronger. These findings advance research in entrepreneurship, groups and teams, and shared leadership, and provide practical implications as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In D. A. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 173–209). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bantel, K. A., & Finkelstein, S. (1991). The determinants of top management teams. Miami: Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 741–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bryant, T. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorensen, & J. M. Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 442–448). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buchko, A. (1992). Employee ownership, attitudes, and turnover: an empirical assessment. Human Relations, 45, 711–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cable, D. M., & Shane, S. (1997). A prisoner’s dilemma approach to entrepreneur-venture capitalist relationships. Academy of Management Review, 22, 142–176.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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, 1217–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chowdhury, S. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: is it important? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 727–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Colomb, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper, A. C., Woo, C. Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1989). Entrepreneurship and the initial size of firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cox, T. J., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 48–76). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leadership in the plural. Acad Manag Ann, 1–73.

  24. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of a five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. Semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 504–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amason, A. C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: cohesion, conflict and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2006). What you are is what you like - similarity biases in venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 802–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Greer, L. L., & van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: the effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: an integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36(1), 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hambrick, D. C., & Abrahamson, E. (1995). Assessing managerial discretion across industries: a multimethod approach. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1427–1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 509–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jacquemin, A. P., & Berry, C. H. (1979). Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth. Journal of Industrial Economics, 27, 359–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams: a review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lechler, T. (2001). Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Business Economics, 16, 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 174–214.

    Google Scholar 

  45. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mehra, A., Smith, B., Dixon, A., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: the network of leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 232–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: which differences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research, 34(6), 651–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 327–378). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group and Organizational Management, 24(2), 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Leary Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1285–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 7, pp. 115–139). Amsterdam: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership on the longitudinal effectiveness of change management teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pearce, C., Manz, C., & Sims, H. (2009). Where do we go from here? Is shared leadership the key to success? Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 234–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Peeters, M. A., Van Tuijl, H. F., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. (2006). Personality and team performance: a meta‐analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 377–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 795–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pitcher, P., & Smith, A. D. (2001). Top management team heterogeneity: personality, power, and proxies. Organization Science, 12(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Prewett, M. S., Walvoord, A. G., Stilson, F. R. B., Rossi, M. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2009). The team personality-team performance relationship revisited: the impact of criterion choice, pattern of workflow, and method of aggregation. Human Performance, 22, 273–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Stewart, D. W. (2006). Continuing the investigation into personality traits and work-family conflict. Dallas: Poster presented at the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-leadership: a multilevel review. Journal of Management, 37, 185–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tamir, M., Robinson, M. D., & Solberg, E. C. (2006). You may worry, but can you recognize threats when you see them? Neuroticism, threat identifications, and negative affect. Journal of Personality, 74, 1481–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the united kingdom. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhou, W., Vredenburgh, D., & Rogoff, E. G. (2013). Informational diversity and entrepreneurial team performance: moderating effect of shared leadership. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–17.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wencang Zhou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, W. When does shared leadership matter in entrepreneurial teams: the role of personality composition. Int Entrep Manag J 12, 153–169 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0334-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Team diversity
  • Entrepreneurial teams
  • Shared leadership