Shared leadership has consistently been shown to predict team effectiveness. However, research also indicates that different teams may require different configurations of shared leadership, and achieving maximum sharedness in leadership does not always guarantee superior team outcomes. This reality underscores the need for a normative theory of shared leadership that can extend our understanding of the construct and facilitate its adoption in organizations. Despite the significance of such a theory, little attention has been given to its development and our understanding of how shared leadership should be distributed across different teams remains quite limited. In this article, we adopt a structural perspective to propose that the task interdependence network can serve as a robust foundation for devising effective shared leadership strategies. Our conceptual framework outlines the nuanced implications of the task interdependence network—from determining the optimal level of shared leadership necessary for performance to identifying potential members for shared leadership responsibilities. In doing so, we emphasize that the specific implications of the task interdependence network may vary, rather than remain uniform, across different dimensions of shared leadership.
AldrichH.HerkerD. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/257905
2.
AnconaD. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategic for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365. https://doi.org/10.5465/256328
3.
AnconaD. G.CaldwellD. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393475
4.
AvgarA. C.NeumanE. J. (2015). Seeing conflict: A study of conflict accuracy in work teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(2), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12048
5.
BachrachD. G.PowellB. C.BendolyE.RicheyR. G. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluations: Exploring the impact of task interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.193
6.
BaldwinT. T.BedellM. D.JohnsonJ. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1369–1397. https://doi.org/10.5465/257037
7.
BalesR. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley.
8.
BalesR. F.SlaterP. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In ParsonsT.BalesR. F. (Eds.), Family, socialization, and interaction process (pp. 259–306). Free Press.
9.
BarsadeS. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its Influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912
BellB. S.KozlowskiS. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001003
12.
BlighM. C.PearceC. L.KohlesJ. C. (2006). The importance of self‐ and shared leadership in team-based knowledge work: A meso‐level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663105
BrassD. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392511
16.
BrassD. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392937
17.
BrassD. J.BurkhardtM. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/256588
18.
BurkeC. S.FioreS. M.SalasE. (2003). The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team adaptability. In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 103). Sage Publications.
19.
BurkhardtM. E.BrassD. J. (1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393552
20.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes. Harvard University Press.
CarsonJ. B.TeslukP. E.MarroneJ. 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
23.
CarterD. R.DeChurchL. A.BraunM. T.ContractorN. S. (2015). Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 597–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038922
24.
CasciaroT. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20(4), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8733(98)00008-2
25.
CherulnikP. D.DonleyK. A.WiewelT. S. R.MillerS. R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders’ charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(10), 2149–2159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00167.x
26.
ChiuC.-Y.OwensB. P.TeslukP. 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
27.
ChungY.JacksonS. E. (2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams: The role of task routineness. Journal of Management, 39(2), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394186
28.
CrawfordE. R.LePineJ. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0206
DeRueD. 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
31.
DeRueD. S.AshfordS. 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
32.
de VriesT. A.WalterF.Van der VegtG. S.EssensP. J. (2014). Antecedents of individuals’ interteam coordination: Broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1334–1359. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0360
33.
D’InnocenzoL.MathieuJ. E.KukenbergerM. 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
34.
DrescherM. A.KorsgaardM. A.WelpeI. M.PicotA.WigandR. 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
35.
EllisA. P.BellB. S.PloyhartR. E.HollenbeckJ. R.IlgenD. R. (2005). An evaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and skill-based outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00617.x
36.
EmeryC.DaniloskiK.HambyA. (2011). The reciprocal effects of self-view as a leader and leadership emergence. Small Group Research, 42(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410389494
FriedrichT. L.PetersonD. R.Van DoornS. (2024). Exploring the sequential relationship of a leader’s collective leadership style and the team’s shared leadership: The moderating role of gender. Group & Organization Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241273129
GouldR. V.FernandezR. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89. https://doi.org/10.2307/270949
42.
GreerF. L.GalanterE. H.NordlieP. G. (1954). Interpersonal knowledge and individual and group effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(3), 411–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056208
43.
GriffinD. J.SomarajuA. V.DishopC.DeShonR. P. (2023). Evaluating interdependence in workgroups: A network-based method. Organizational Research Methods, 26(3), 459–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211068179
44.
GuzzoR. A.SheaG. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In DunnetteM. D.HoughL. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 269–313). Consulting Psychologists Press.
45.
HillerN. J.DayD. V.VanceR. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.004
46.
HochJ. E.KozlowskiS. 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
47.
HollanderE. P. (1961). Leadership and interpersonal behavior. In PetrulloL.BassB. M. (Eds.), Emergent leadership and social influence. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
48.
HollenbeckJ. R.BeersmaB.SchoutenM. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82–106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0181
HumphreyS. E.MorgesonF. P.MannorM. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012997
51.
IliesR.WagnerD. T.MorgesonF. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism.
52.
KatzD.KahnR. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. In Organizational behavior 2 (pp. 152–168). Routledge.
53.
KellettJ. B.HumphreyR. H.SleethR. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00142-x
54.
KellettJ. B.HumphreyR. H.SleethR. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.003
55.
KerrS.JermierJ. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22(3), 375–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
56.
KiggunduM. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 31(2), 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90118-6
57.
KilduffM.KrackhardtD. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/256771
58.
KozlowskiS. W.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). John Wiley and Sons.
59.
KozlowskiS. W.GullyS. M.NasonE. R.SmithE. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In PulakosE. D. (Ed.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (Vol. 240, p. 292). Wiley.
KrackhardtD. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. In BacharachS. B.AndrewsS. B.KnokeD. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Vol. 16. Networks in and around organizations (pp. 183–210). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
62.
LemoineG. J.KoseogluG.GhahremaniH.BlumT. C. (2020). Importance-weighted density: A shared leadership illustration of the case for moving beyond density and decentralization in particularistic resource networks. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 432–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118792077
63.
MarineauJ. E.LabiancaG. J.KaneG. C. (2016). Direct and indirect negative ties and individual performance. Social Networks, 44(1), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.09.003
64.
MarksM. A.DeChurchL. A.MathieuJ. E.PanzerF. J.AlonsoA. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.964
65.
MarroneJ. A.TeslukP. E.CarsonJ. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423–1439. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28225967
66.
MathieuJ. E.GallagherP. T.DomingoM. A.KlockE. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
McGrathJ. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice Hall.
69.
McGrathJ. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222001
70.
MehraA.SmithB. R.DixonA. L.RobertsonB. (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
71.
MorgesonF. P.DeRueD. S.KaramE. 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
72.
NicolaidesC.LaPortK. A.ChenT. R.TomassettiA. J.WeisE. J.ZaccaroS. J.CortinaJ. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006
73.
ParkS.MathieuJ. E.GrosserT. J. (2020). A network conceptualization of team conflict. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 352–375. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0472
74.
ParkerM.WelchE. W. (2013). Professional networks, science ability, and gender determinants of three types of leadership in academic science and engineering. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.001
75.
PearceC. 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
76.
PearceC. L.CongerJ. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage Publications, Inc.
77.
PearceC. L.SimsH. P. (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
78.
PengA. C.SchaubroeckJ. M.KimD.ZengW. (2023). How is leadership maintained? A longitudinal mediation model linking informal leadership to upward voice through peer advice seeking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 794–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001058
79.
Perry-SmithJ. E.ShalleyC. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. The Social Side of Creativity: A Static and Dynamic Social Network Perspective Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925236
80.
PorathC. L.GerbasiA.SchorchS. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000016
81.
RaveendranM.SilvestriL.GulatiR. (2020). The role of interdependence in the micro-foundations of organization design: Task, goal, and knowledge interdependence. The Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 828–868. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0015
82.
SchinoffB. S.AshforthB. E.CorleyK. G. (2020). Virtually (in)separable: The centrality of relational cadence in the formation of virtual multiplex relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 63(5), 1395–1424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0466
83.
SchummerS. E.WoelkJ.TruppL.OttoK. (2024). How vertical leadership affects shared leadership through team identification. Small Group Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241281342
84.
StogdillR. M.DayD. R. (1965). Managers, employees, organizations.
85.
SyT.ChoiJ. N.JohnsonS. K. (2013). Reciprocal interactions between group perceptions of leader charisma and group mood through mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.02.002
86.
SyT.CôtéS.SaavedraR. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295
87.
TasselliS.KilduffM. (2018). When brokerage between friendship cliques endangers trust: A personality–network fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 802–825. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0856
88.
TotterdellP.KellettS.TeuchmannK.BrinerR. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1504–1515. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1504
89.
Van de VegtG. S.EmansB. J. M.VliertE. (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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00085.x
90.
van KnippenbergD.PearceC. L.van GinkelW. P. (2024). Shared leadership – vertical leadership dynamics in teams. Organizational PsychologyReview. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241292341
91.
WagemanR. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393703
92.
WagemanR. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.5.559.10094
WagemanR.GardnerH.MortensenM. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1775
95.
WangD.WaldmanD. A.ZhangZ. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531
96.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
97.
XuN.GhahremaniH.LemoineG. J.TeslukP. E. (2022). Emergence of shared leadership networks in teams: An adaptive process perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(6), Article 101588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101588
98.
YuklG. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall.
ZhuJ.LiaoZ.YamK. C.JohnsonR. 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
