S OCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

AND SHARED LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIORS IN DISPERSED TEAMS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
MIRIAM MUETHEL, SARAH GEHRLEIN,
AND MARTIN HOEGL

Companies increasingly make use of geographically dispersed teams to

capture knowledge residing at different locations. In this context, shared
leadership is considered a key enabler of team performance. Taking a func-
tional perspective on shared leadership, we thus investigate the relationship
between shared leadership behaviors and team performance in dispersed
teams. Furthermore, we analyze how socio-demographic factors that are
characteristic for dispersed teams (i.e., high female-to-male ratio, high mean
age, and high levels of national diversity) affect shared leadership behaviors.
Based on data from 96 dispersed teams, we show that shared leadership
behavior fosters team performance. Further, we nd the socio-demographic
characteristics typical for dispersed teams to foster shared leadership. The-
oretical and managerial implications for human resource management are
discussed. 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: shared leadership, dispersed teams, team composition, socio-

demographic factors, age, national diversity, female-to-male ratio

Introduction Novicevic, & Garrison, 2004). Globally dis-

he strategic flexibility organizations tributed projects potentially offer such a de-

T need in order to gain competitive ad-

vantage in an increasingly dynamic
and complex environment brings
along challenges for the work organi-
zation as well as the HR function (Harvey,
gree of strategic flexibility (Monalisa et al.,
2008; Siebdrat, Hoegl, & Ernst, 2009). How-
ever, dispersed teams demonstrate difficulties
in capturing this advantage, as 50 percent of
all dispersed teams have been shown to fail

Correspondence to: Miriam Muethel, WHUOtto Beisheim School of Management, Chair of Organizational
Behavior, Burgplatz 2, 56179 Vallendar, Germany, Phone:
49 (0) 261 6509 310, Fax:
49 (0) 261 6509 319,
E-mail: miriam.muethel@whu.edu

Human Resource Management, JulyAugust 2012, Vol. 51, No. 4. Pp. 525548
2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21488
526 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
meeting their objectives due to their inability to
coordinate their activities (Kanawattanachai &
Yoo, 2002).
However, coordination problems in geo-
graphically dispersed teams can be overcome
if team members share leadership responsi-
bilities (Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2003). Shared
leadership is defined as a dynamic, interac-
tive influence process among individuals of a
group for which the objective is to lead one
another to the achievement of group or orga-
nizational goals or both (Pearce & Conger,
2003a, p. 1). It comprises team members
identification of action needs and the subse-
quent initiation of action flows to revise and
adapt work strategies for team goal achieve-
ment (Hoegl & Muethel, 2007).
Extant research indicates that
Extant research shared leadership is particularly
effective in task contexts that are
indicates that
knowledge-intensive, highly in-
shared leadership is terdependent, complex, and dy-
namic (Avolio, Jung, Murry, &
particularly effective Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Ensley,
Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006;
in task contexts Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004;
that are knowledge- Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, &
Jung, 2002)precisely the types
intensive, highly of tasks most often accomplished
by dispersed teams (Bell &
interdependent, Kozlowski, 2002). Empirical evi-
dence for this positive relationship
complex, and
in the context of geographic dis-
dynamic. persion, however, has not yet been
found, and behaviors that are
likely to form shared leadership in
dispersed teams have not yet been identified.
Even further, geographically dispersed
teams differ from co-located teams with regard
to spacio-temporal and socio-demographic
aspects (OLeary & Mortensen, 2010), which
are likely to influence leadership processes in
these teams. While concepts of e-leadership
have largely contributed to the spacio-
temporal side of leadership in dispersed teams
(see Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2001; Cascio &
Shurygailo, 2003; Zaccaro & Bader, 2003),
socio-demographic aspects have been ne-
glected. However, dispersed teams also obtain
specific socio-demographic characteristics
that affect leadership processes in these
teams. As such, computer-mediated commu-
nication, which is a central element of dis-
persed collaboration, allows tele-working,
which, in turn, offers women the chance to
flexibly coordinate their job activities and thus
to participate in the labor market (Bailey &
Kurland, 2002). In this vein, companies such
as BMW make strategic use of tele-working to
integrate women into their workforce (BMW
Group, 2002). Furthermore, due to the tech-
nical sophistication needed for computer-
mediated collaboration, it is particularly young
people who are attracted by the opportunity
to collaborate in dispersed teams (Kearney &
Gebert, 2009). Finally, computer-mediated
communication allows for crossing physical
boundaries, so that they are often used for
cross-cultural collaboration (OLeary &
Mortensen, 2010). In sum, specific socio-
demographic characteristics of dispersed teams
capture high levels of female-to-male ratio,
low mean age, and high levels of national di-
versity. These characteristics, in turn, influ-
ence leadership processes. Research on these
topics, however, is quite contradictory. While
some researchers point to the specific leader-
ship skills of women (Fenwick & Neal, 2001),
others remain reliant on gender stereotypes
(i.e., women are passive and less confident in
leading others), despite empirical analyses
that contradict such stereotypes (Northouse,
2001). Furthermore, there is a lack of studies
on the effects of age cohorts in leadership
(Verworn, Schwarz, & Herstatt, 2009), while
research on national diversity and leadership
is highly inconsistent ( Joshi & Roh, 2009).
We address these research gaps by specify-
ing shared leadership behaviors and their
positive relationship with team performance
in dispersed teams. Even further, we elaborate
how socio-demographic characteristics spe-
cific for dispersed teams (i.e., high female-to-
male ratio, low mean age, and high national
diversity) are likely to influence shared lead-
ership behaviors in dispersed teams. As such,
we offer several contributions.
First, this article contributes to research
on shared leadership. Elaborating on shared
leadership behaviors, we point to certain
team behaviors as the foundation of shared
leadership in dispersed teams. Highlighting
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

the proactive nature of shared leadership
(i.e., team members do not wait for the verti-
cal leader to act but take over responsibility
for team actions), we elaborate on two proac-
tive behaviors that we consider the micro-
foundation of shared leadership: team-
directed and self-directed proactive behaviors.
We thus enhance shared leadership theory,
which to date has mainly relied on general
descriptions of the distribution of influence
in teams (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007).
Prior research has addressed the distribution
of influence, and this study contributes by
specifying behaviors that are indicative of
such general shared leadership. Furthermore,
investigating the relationship between shared
leadership behaviors and dispersed team per-
formance, we find evidence for a positive re-
lationship between these variables. We thus
offer empirical support for shared leadership
as a crucial team process in dispersed teams.
Second, we contribute to the identifica-
tion of shared leaderships driving forces in
dispersed teams from an HR perspective. To
date, research has hardly considered socio-
demographic aspects as determinants of
shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007; Perry,
Pearce, & Sims, 1999). Although the impor-
tance of team composition for shared leader-
ship has been noted (Pearce, 2004; Seers,
Keller, & Wilkerson, 2003), prior work has
neither conceptually nor empirically investi-
gated such relationships.
Third, this study sheds light on the con-
tradictory findings of prior team composition
research in the light of dispersed teams. We
thus respond to calls for more context-
specific research on team composition (Jehn &
Bezrukova, 2004; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Kame-
nou, 2007; Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009;
Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). Given
dispersed teams importance to companies
strategic flexibility, insights on dispersed
teams socio-demographics are likely to ad-
vance our understanding of how the HR
function can support companies capability
development toward strategic flexibility.
In the following, we take a functional
view of shared leadership, introducing the
concept of shared leadership behaviors and
relating these behaviors to dispersed team
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 527
performance. We also discuss team socio-
demographic characteristics as determinants
of shared leadership behaviors in dispersed
project teams. We then test these relation-
ships on a sample of 96 dispersed software
development teams and provide detailed
theoretical and managerial implications.
Shared Leadership Behaviors and
Team Performance in Dispersed
Teams
Prior research
Shared Leadership
Behaviors in Dispersed has addressed
Teams
the distribution of
Shared leadership is defined as a
dynamic, interactive influence influence, and this
process among individuals in
study contributes by
work groups in which the objec-
tive is to lead one another to the specifying behaviors
achievement of group goals
(Pearce & Conger, 2003b, p. 286). that are indicative
Thus, shared leadership is clearly
of such general
different from processes like par-
ticipative decision making, which shared leadership.
addresses the question of how
team members get involved in a Furthermore,
vertical leaders decision making
(Yukl, 2010), and cooperation investigating
processes in teams, which are sim- the relationship
ilar to teamwork processes and do
not involve mutual influence pro- between shared
cesses (like shared leadership) but
effort and support between team leadership behaviors
members (Hoegl & Gemuenden,
and dispersed team
2001). Team members sharing
leadership responsibilities not performance, we
only participate in their team
leaders decision-making processes find evidence for a
and cooperate with other team
positive relationship
members, but also make construc-
tive suggestions in order to achieve between these
shared team goals (Pearce & Conger,
2003b). Shared leadership thus variables.
takes a functional leadership per-
spective (Burke et al., 2006), as-
suming that leaderships primary duty is to
solve the problems threatening the team dur-
ing task accomplishment (Fleishman et al.,
528 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
1991). From a functional leadership perspec-
tive (Morgeson et al., 2010), team members
sharing leadership duties are responsible for
(a) identifying problems that could potentially
impede task accomplishment, (b) generating
appropriate solutions, and (c) implementing
them (Burke et al., 2006). Taking the func-
tional leadership approach as the basis for
developing shared leadership behaviors, we
thus consider shared leadership to capture a
simultaneous, ongoing influence process in
the team aimed at maximizing the teams
potential as a whole (Houghton, Neck, &
Manz, 2003).
This approach differs from previous con-
ceptualizations of shared leadership that have
focused either on the influences
source or its strength (Carson et al.,
Team members 2007). The sources and strengths
of shared leadership have both
sharing leadership
been analyzed from a social net-
responsibilities not work perspective (with a focus on
who is exerting influence) as well
only participate as a leadership styles perspective
(with a focus on how influence is
in their team exerted) (Carson et al., 2007;
leaders decision- Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robert-
son, 2006; Pearce, 2004; Pearce &
making processes Conger, 2003b; Pearce & Manz,
2005). In this article, we offer an
and cooperate additional perspective on shared
leadership that focuses on what
with other team
team members do to enact shared
members, but also leadership and thus foster team
performance (Hackman, 1987;
make constructive Hoegl & Muethel, 2007; Morge-
son et al., 2010). In the following,
suggestions in order
we will thus introduce the func-
to achieve shared tional perspective on shared lead-
ership that is reflected in the con-
team goals. cept of shared leadership
behaviors.
Assuming that shared leader-
ship is by nature proactive, we argue that
team members sharing leadership engage in
two types of proactive behaviors, constitut-
ing two distinct dimensions of shared leader-
ship behaviors. Specifically, shared leadership
activities conducted by individual team
members can either be directed toward the
team (i.e., team-directed proactive behaviors,
or PB-T) or toward their own area of respon-
sibility (i.e., self-directed proactive behaviors,
or PB-S). Proactive behaviors directed at the
team (PB-T) refer to the exertion of social in-
fluence by one team member on other team
members with the aim to maximize the po-
tential of the team as a whole (rather than
merely ensuring the appropriateness of ones
own contribution) (Watson, Michaelsen, &
Sharp, 1991). PB-T refers to team members
consideration of how other team members
work may be impacted by their own work
strategies and processes, as well as to environ-
mental changes (Burke et al., 2006). As such,
PB-T includes team members anticipation of
other team members information needs,
consideration of task interdependencies, and
the initiation and facilitation of information
flows as well as decision-making and imple-
mentation processes (Hoegl & Muethel,
2007).
Self-directed proactive behaviors (PB-S),
by contrast, comprise individual team mem-
bers behaviors aimed at adapting their own
work process and project contribution to en-
vironmental circumstances. Here, the indi-
vidual team members actively seek feedback
and engage in social influence processes from
other team members. PB-S entails team mem-
bers (1) actively seeking feedback from within
and outside the team regarding the appropri-
ateness of their own task strategies and
(2) initiating corrective action as needed
(Ashford & Cummings, 1985). Team mem-
bers engaging in PB-S ensure that their
contribution to the team fits with other, inter-
dependent work contributions (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). Hence, team members adjust
their work strategies based on input from
other team members (Hoegl & Muethel,
2007). This is different from PB-T, where
team members strive to enhance others con-
tribution to the team task.
In short, shared leadership behaviors con-
sist of team-directed (PB-T) and self-directed
(PB-S) behaviors. Together, these behaviors
encompass the various directions of team-
member influence in order to improve team
performance. Shared leadership as a team-
level property of dispersed teams thus in-
creases with the number of team members
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

demonstrating both proactive behaviors, and
the intensity with which they do so.
The concept of shared leadership behav-
iors is particularly relevant to the context of
dispersed teams, as it considers the team
members to serve as an additional source of
leadership behavior as compared to the for-
mal project leader as a single source of leader-
ship. This is important, as the a single leaders
(i.e., the formal project leaders) social influ-
ence on the team members is limited due to
reduced direct interaction in dispersed set-
tings (Avolio & Kahai, 2002). As Zaccaro and
Bader (2003) constitute, it is particularly the
lack of direct interaction threatening leader-
ship effectiveness in dispersed teams. Distrib-
uting leadership responsibility among the
team members instead of focusing solely on
one source of leadership behavior may ad-
dress this leadership challenge (Hoegl &
Muethel, 2007). The concept of shared lead-
ership behaviors might thus provide new in-
sights into how dispersed team performance
can be fostered. Hence, we first elaborate on
how shared leadership behaviors affect
team performance before turning to socio-
demographic team variables as antecedents
of shared leadership behaviors in dispersed
teams.
Shared Leadership Behaviors and
Dispersed Team Performance
We argue that shared leadership behaviors
increase team performance by addressing two
criteria of team effectiveness (Hackman,
1987) that are particularly crucial for dis-
persed teams (i.e., the appropriateness of
communication strategies and the level
of coordination and adaptability to environ-
mental circumstances; Gibson & Gibbs,
2006).
Appropriateness of Communication
Strategies
Team-shared leadership behaviors are initi-
ated by the individual team members with
the aim to increase not only their own per-
formance, but also the performance of the
team as a whole. When approaching other
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 529
team members with this aim, the individual
decides on whether to interact face-to-face or
via computer-mediated communication. Re-
search has shown that there is a communica-
tion media fit between the level of decision
processes and the richness of media (Hertel,
Geister, & Konradt, 2005). Accordingly,
Maznevski and Chudoba (2000) found that
communication technology with low media
richness (such as e-mail) are better used for
gathering information, while communica-
tion technology with medium
levels of media richness is better
used for solving problems, and
face-to-face contact for generating The concept of
ideas and making comprehensive shared leadership
decisions. However, communica-
tion patterns in teams are less a behaviors is
function of the media fit rather
than of the norms, practices, and particularly relevant
social conditions surrounding the
to the context of
media use (Desanctis & Monge,
1999). Considering that in our dispersed teams,
context team members come from
different departments (intraorga- as it considers the
nizational collaboration) or even
team members
different companies (interorgani-
zational collaboration), they are to serve as an
likely to demonstrate differing
communication patterns. Yet, when additional source of
engaging in shared leadership, the
leadership behavior
individual starts a learning pro-
cess of how (in the sense of by as compared to the
which communication media) to
approach other team members formal project leader
(Martins, Gilson, & Maynard,
2004). As team members engag- as a single source of
ing in shared leadership are moti- leadership.
vated to identify action needs
and influence other team mem-
bers in the interest of project per-
formance, they cognitively evaluate alterna-
tive modes of communication and employ
them in order to maximize leadership effec-
tiveness (Rogers & Lea, 2005). That is, team
members engaging in shared leadership de-
liberately select, implement, and refine their
communication strategy. Shared leadership
therefore fosters active management of geo-
graphical distance (when to have face-to-face
meetings) and continuous reflection not only
530 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
on the task, but also on the communication
strategy.
Level of Coordination and Adaptability
to Environmental Circumstances
Continuous monitoring and analyzing task
strategies and interdependencies (e.g., how
do current changes in my area affect others?)
enhances efficiency, as it largely preempts
the need for later rework (Massey, Montoya-
Weiss, & Yu-Ting, 2003). As such, a study by
Kellogg, Orlikowski, and Yates (2006) docu-
ments that under conditions of high speed,
uncertainty, and rapid change, team mem-
bers can achieve a high degree of coordina-
tion by making their work visible to others
while simultaneously observing others work
progress. In such a task context,
and with team members physically
Decisions regarding dispersed, team task reflection in-
work strategies
herent in team-shared leadership
(West, 1996) will help uncover
(or necessary any emerging gaps or overlaps
between individual work pack-
adaptations to it) ages, with team members seeking
out and negotiating technical in-
can be made more
terfaces between their contributions
quickly and more (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden,
2004). Such increased task coordi-
accurately given a nation will likely also improve the
quality of the product developed,
more current and
through a better fit between indi-
broader information vidual contributions and subse-
quently a more integrated work
basis provided product. Monitoring and influ-
encing originates from various
by team-shared (ideally all) team members resid-
leadership. ing at different locations and hav-
ing different information bases.
As team members expand effort to
keep track of the overall project and team
members individual contributions, they are
in a position to quickly react to any changes
perceived to alter the appropriateness of the
overall project strategy or individual contri-
butions (Iansiti, 1995). This is particularly
important given the complex and dynamic
tasks and the dispersed nature of the teams
(e.g., setting obstacles for everyone to be
aware of current developments). As such,
team-shared leadership leads to increased
flexibility and adaptability of dispersed teams,
which in turn affects team performance. De-
cisions regarding work strategies (or neces-
sary adaptations to it) can be made more
quickly and more accurately given a more
current and broader information basis pro-
vided by team-shared leadership (Seers, Petty, &
Cashman, 1995).
In sum, we propose:
Hypothesis 1: Shared leadership behaviors are pos-
itively related to dispersed team performance.
Team Demographics and Shared
Leadership
Female-to-Male Ratio
Although team-shared leadership has been
shown to enhance team performance (e.g.,
Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Yan, 2006; Pearce &
Sims, 2002), a major challenge lies in team
members accepting leadership responsibility
(Pearce & Manz, 2005). Team members can-
not be forced to enact shared leadership
behavior. This is particularly true for geo-
graphically dispersed teams (Avolio et al.,
2001). Thus, for shared leadership in dis-
persed team settings to take place, team mem-
bers must be able and motivated to share
leadership responsibilities (Carson et al.,
2007). Both aspects could be influenced by a
teams female-to-male ratio.
From a gender stereotyping perspective,
motivation for shared leadership behaviors
could be negatively influenced by female-to-
male ratio. In contexts where women are
underrepresented, for example, in dispersed
(technical) project teams, gender stereotypes
seem to be particularly strong ( Joshi & Roh,
2009; Northouse, 2001). Such stereotypes
consider women as less skilled, less confi-
dent, and passive (Brown, 1979; Joshi & Roh,
2009; Parboteeah, Hoegl, & Cullen, 2008).
Even if women are equally skilled as men,
expectations theory suggests that they antici-
pate negative expectations and thus do not
demonstrate their full potential (Ridgeway,
1988; Seers et al., 2003). Women are expected
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

to be timid, docile sheep (Collinson, 2006,
p. 179), rather than empowered members of
the team, and sharing in leadership. Further-
more, according to status characteristics the-
ory, team members are less likely to offer
women the chance to demonstrate their po-
tential (i.e., they do not accept women as
capable leaders; Bunderson, 2003; Seers et al.,
2003). In short, the stereotyping perspective
suggests that a high female-to-male ratio im-
pedes shared leadership behaviors. However,
stereotyped views probably diminish as
women increasingly enter the business world
(Ely, 1995; Frink et al., 2003). Empirical ana-
lyses on this topic also refute the stereotype-
oriented opinion on womens unsuitability
for leadership (Brown, 1979; Karau & Eagly,
1999; Northouse, 2001). In this vein, empiri-
cal studies could not provide support of a
gender bias regarding leader emergence or
leader effectiveness in various contexts
(Brown, 1979; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002;
Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Karau &
Eagly, 1999; Northouse, 2001).
From a behavioral perspective, women
might be particularly likely to demonstrate
shared leadership behaviors, as they prefer
team-oriented leadership styles over authori-
tarian styles (Fenwick & Neal, 2001). Research
found that women demonstrate different
leadership behaviors from men (Fenwick &
Neal, 2001; Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999). In
particular, women have been shown to more
frequently demonstrate participative leadership
behaviors than men (Gardiner & Tiggemann,
1999; Northouse, 2001; Sun, Wiedenbeck,
Chintakovid, & Zhang, 2007). As shared lead-
ership relies on equal peer relationships, we
argue that a high female-to-male ratio posi-
tively influences shared leadership behaviors.
Furthermore, women have been shown to
prefer integrative leadership styles (Fenwick &
Neal, 2001), thus enabling important deci-
sions and implementations to be made
through interactive processes of social influ-
ence. Decision making under female leader-
ship is therefore likely to involve many dif-
ferent people who influence one another,
which is the crux of shared leadership (Yukl,
2010). Women have also been shown to
achieve higher levels of information sharing
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 531
in teams through their increased ability to
build a more trusting team climate, in com-
parison to men (Sun et al., 2007). As dispersed
teams are often confronted with misunder-
standings and distrust (Cramton, 2002), the
ability to build a trusting environment is par-
ticularly important for team members to expe-
rience psychological safety (Gibson & Gibbs,
2006) when asking for feedback and adapting
their strategies according to other team mem-
bers suggestions. Empirical results underpin
these proposed positive effects of an in-
creased female-to-male ratio in knowledge
teams. In this vein, a high female-to-male
ratio has been shown to increase problem
solving (Hirschfeld, Jordan, Feild, Giles, &
Armenakis, 2005), knowledge-sharing atti-
tudes (Hasan, Ahmed, & Ali, 2009), and knowl-
edge-sharing activities (Sawng, Kim, & Han,
2006). Furthermore, Fenwick and Neal (2001)
underline womens favorable role in shared
leadership behaviors, showing a high female-
to-male ratio to increase decision making
through integrative and trust-based behaviors.
With geographical dispersion reducing
the negative effects of surface-level stereotyp-
ing (Carte & Chidambaram, 2004; Staples &
Zhao, 2006), we argue that the positive ef-
fects of the behavioral view outweigh the
downsides of the stereotyping view. Hence,
we propose:
Hypothesis 2a: A teams high female-to-male ra-
tio positively relates to shared leadership behav-
iors in dispersed teams.
Mean Age
We argue that a teams average age influences
the motivation and ability to engage in
shared leadership behaviors. From an exper-
tise perspective, older team members tend to
be more knowledgeable (Kearney & Gebert,
2009) and gain more respect due to prior
achievements (Mayo, Meindl, & Pastor, 2003;
Seers, 1996; Seers et al., 2003). Thus, in teams
with older or more experienced team members,
team members might feel more confident in
accepting leadership responsibility because
they count on the collective team experience
532 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
(Mayo et al., 2003). In contrast, teams with
more inexperienced members might suffer
from the team members insecurity, with
team members feeling less capable to success-
fully accomplish any given task without
guidance from a formal project leader. Thus,
team members might be less likely to propose
new suggestions and/or seek goal-directed
influence (Mayo et al., 2003). Furthermore,
in cases where an inexperienced team mem-
ber seeks to take over the leadership role, oth-
ers might question his or her ability to do so
and might therefore be less likely to adhere to
such influence (Mayo et al., 2003; Seers,
1996; Seers et al., 2003).
From a socialization perspective, how-
ever, teams with many older
members might be used to tradi-
Younger teams
tional, formerly dominant hierar-
might find it easier chical leadership styles. They
might thus associate leadership
to overcome behaviors only with the formal
project leader, and perceive shared
the negative leadership behaviors as a weak-
implications of ness rather than an advantage
(Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006;
dispersion and thus Pearce & Manz, 2005). Having
been exposed to dominant formal
share leadership leaders for years, team members
might have been socialized in
responsibilities
such ways that leave leadership
across the dispersed responsibilities to the formal
leader and might not challenge
team. the formal leaders authority
through proactive leadership sug-
gestions (Pearce & Manz, 2005).
Taking individuals tendency to develop ha-
bitual routines and to be increasingly resis-
tant to changing these when getting older, it
is less likely that older team members would
display high-level shared leadership behav-
iors (Pearce & Manz, 2005). Conversely,
younger teams (in terms of their average
member age) are less familiar with hierarchi-
cal leadership structures. They also obtain
up-to-date knowledge, not only about tech-
nical features, but also about leadership styles
and management processes, resulting in
younger teams that openly share new ideas
and engage in mutual influence processes
(Joshi & Roh, 2009; Kearney & Gebert, 2009;
Rosen & Jerdee, 1976). Young teams flexibil-
ity to adjust to changing demands is empiri-
cally supported by van der Heijden, de Lange,
Demerouti, and van der Heijde (2009), as
well as Cleveland and Landy (1983). While
van der Heijden et al. (2009) show that orga-
nizational tenure relates negatively to dealing
with fast-changing job requirements, Cleve-
land and Landy (1983) demonstrate a slight
performance decrease on the part of older
employees regarding quickly paced tasks.
With dispersed teams being most com-
monly used to accomplish complex and dy-
namic tasks (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006), young
teams flexibility becomes crucial in the con-
text of dispersed collaboration (Faix & Laier,
1996). As regards the technical aspects of dis-
persed collaboration, young teams are also
more acquainted with the use of electronic
devices (and sometimes even more comfort-
able with using English as a foreign language)
and feel more comfortable with electronic
interaction with others across long physical
distances, which enables them to engage
with other, remote team members (Kearney &
Gebert, 2009). Hence, younger teams might
find it easier to overcome the negative impli-
cations of dispersion and thus share leader-
ship responsibilities across the dispersed team
(Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Kearney & Gebert,
2009).
We propose that, in dispersed team set-
tings, the effects of younger teams ability to
collaborate more easily in virtual and com-
plex settings outweigh the possible disadvan-
tages of inexperience. Hence, we propose:
Hypothesis 2b: A teams high mean age negatively
relates to shared leadership behaviors in dispersed
teams.
National Diversity
Finally, shared leadership behaviors in dis-
persed teams are likely to be influenced by
national diversity, as such teams are usually
dispersed across multiple countries (Gibson &
Gibbs, 2006). From an information-processing
perspective, high levels of national diversity
might have positive effects on shared leadership
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

behaviors, as national diversity provides a
broader range of abilities, perspectives, and
skills, which increases the groups creativity
and problem-solving capabilities (Ely, 2004;
Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009). This is
especially true for dispersed teams, as such
teams are often set up with highly skilled
team members from different countries, par-
ticularly in order to address diverse global
markets (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006;
Majchrzak, Malhotra, & John, 2005). As
such, dispersed teams are often staffed with
experts from different countries in order to
analyze these countries specific market
needs or legal issues (Hertel et al., 2005).
Team members with the country-specific
knowledge or expertise are thus likely to con-
tribute to team performance by engaging in
shared leadership behavior, making con-
structive suggestions on how to improve
processes and solutions.
From a social categorization theory per-
spective (Turner, 1987, 1996), however, na-
tional diversity is likely to impede shared
leadership behaviors. This theory is based on
the assumption that diversity instigates in-
group/out-group distinctions that negatively
affect interpersonal processes (Joshi & Roh,
2009). As a result, social categorization theory
suggests that individuals prefer to interact
only with others in the same social category
who are similar to themselves (Ely, 2004;
Jackson & Joshi, 2004; Kearney et al., 2009).
Consequently, from this perspective, high
diversity levels lead to negative effects on
social processes (e.g., friendliness, cohesion,
and cooperation), resulting in more conflict
as well as communication difficulties among
team members, which, in turn, negatively af-
fect team performance (Chatman & Flynn,
2001; Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002; Ely,
2004; Jackson & Joshi, 2004; Kearney et al.,
2009). These arguments are particularly re-
lated to so-called surface-level diversity (i.e.,
differences in gender and age), which are cog-
nitively easily accessible, pervasive, and im-
mutable, as well as strongly associated with
social categorization processes (Baugh &
Graen, 1997; Bunderson, 2003; Choi, 2007;
Huelsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Joshi &
Roh, 2009; Kearney et al., 2009).
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 533
However, prior research suggests that
surface-level diversity is less relevant for dis-
persed teams than for face-to-face teams
(Carte & Chidambaram, 2004; Staples &
Zhao, 2006). We argue that the positive con-
sequences of national diversity on shared
team leadership behaviors, based on informa-
tion and decision-making theories, outweigh
the possible negative effects of surface-level
diversity in dispersed teams. Hence, we pro-
pose:
Hypothesis 2c: National diversity positively relates
to shared leadership behaviors in dispersed teams.
Method
Sample and Data Collection
Our analyses draw on data from 96 geograph-
ically dispersed software project teams from
36 companies. Projects ranged from new soft-
ware development to software rollouts. All
companies derive from either the Software
500 list or the Fortune 500 list (company in-
ternal IT departments). We directly contacted
IT managers or HR managers, who then
named their firms IT managers. Participating
IT managers provided us with the contact
details of 96 team leaders. We then contacted
the team leaders to explain our study and to
ask them to complete a predefined spread-
sheet with descriptive team data (e.g., project
name, team task, team size, project length,
number of women in the team, nationalities
in the team, and age classes of team mem-
bers). In the next step, team leaders and team
members were asked via e-mail to complete
an online questionnaire. We received answers
from all 96 team leaders and from 63 percent
of all team members. Overall, our analyses are
based on a total of 96 team leader responses
and 337 team-member responses. Table I pro-
vides an overview of the samples descriptive
details.
The average team size, including the team
leader, was 8.27 (median  7, SD  4.0; min.  3;
max.  23). Projects had an average size of
56.48 person-months (median  37, SD 
57.36). All teams were geographically dispersed,
534 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
TABLE I Descriptive Sample Details
Number of teams
Number of respondents
Team size (in employees, including team
leader)
Project size (in person-months, including the
team leaders workload)
Number of sites per team
Degree of dispersion
including a minimum of two sites, with an av-
erage of 2.9 and a maximum of seven sites.
Forty-five teams were dispersed across several
cities within one country, 32 teams were dis-
tributed across different countries within the
same continent, and 19 teams were dispersed
across different continents.
Measures
All constructs considered in this investiga-
tion refer to the team as the unit of analysis.
Objective information on demographic team
characteristics includes the team leader and
was provided by the latter via the aforemen-
tioned predefined spreadsheet. Shared leader-
ship was assessed by team members via
multi-item measures anchored by 1 (strongly
disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Finally, team
performance assessment was provided by the
team leaders. With the team demographic
data being objective (i.e., number of women,
age cohorts, and number of different nation-
alities), we hold that common methods
variance does not distort our analysis.
Shared Leadership Behaviors
Extant research considers shared leadership
to represent either a group phenomenon
96
96 team leaders
337 team members
Mean  8.27
Median  7
SD  4.09
Min.  3
Max.  23
Mean  56.48
Median  37
SD  57.36
Mean  2.86
Min.  2
Max.  7
Across cities within one country: 45 teams
Across countries within one continent: 32 teams
Across continents: 19 teams
(Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, &
Garger, 2003) or a network phenomenon
(Carson et al., 2007). As a group phenome-
non, shared leadership captures the total
level of shared leadership within the team,
while the network approach measures the de-
gree to which leadership influence is distrib-
uted among a relatively high or relatively low
proportion of team members (Carson et al.,
2007, p. 1220). The group and the network
approach become equal, when members of
the team attribute similar amounts of influ-
ence to one another (they are equally central
in the attribution of influence network) (Mayo
et al., 2003, p. 205). As we are interested in
specific shared leadership behaviors, rather
than the dispersion of leadership influence
within the team, we build on Avolio et al.s
(2003) suggestion that group level phenom-
ena can be assessed by having each individ-
ual rate the group on attributes defined at
that level (Avolio et al., 2003, p. 146).
We consider shared leadership as inher-
ently proactive, and therefore argue for pro-
active behaviors to reflect shared leadership.
Specifically, we argue that proactive team-
directed behaviors (PB-T) and self-directed
proactive behaviors (PB-S), taken together,
capture shared leadership behaviors. As a re-
sult, shared leadership behaviors include
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
 SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 535

TABLE II Shared Leadership Items

Conrmatory Factor Analysis
Shared Leadership Items PB-T* PB-S*
All team members initiated actions to bring out improved procedures for the 0.81
team.
All team members proactively instituted new work methods to improve team 0.84
performance.
All team members proactively made constructive suggestions for improving 0.83
how things operate within the team.
All team members initiated actions to make the team more effective 0.79
All team members asked other team members for advice. 0.59
All team members sought information from other team members about exter- 0.71
nal inuences that could affect their own work.
All team members sought information from other team members about as- 0.85
pects of their work accomplishment that could affect their own work.
Model t: GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91.
*Standardized regression weights.

team-directed behaviors, measured with a To ensure that the aggregation of multi-

four-item measure based on work by Morrison
and Phelps (1999) and Griffin, Neal, and
Parker (2007) on collective initiatives taken
in uncertain and complex environments. A
sample item is All team members initiated
actions to bring out improved procedures
for the team. Furthermore, shared leader-
ship behaviors also include self-directed be-
haviors (i.e., the degree to which team
members asked others for advice and posi-
tively reacted to suggestions from other
team members; Hoegl & Muethel, 2007).
Items were taken from Frese, Garst, and
Fays (2007) work on personal initiative tak-
ing and from Griffin et al.s (2007) measure
of positive work-role performance. Explor-
atory factor analysis on the item level re-
veals a two-factor solution. Also, confirma-
tory factor analysis shows discriminant
validity of the two factors with a satisfactory
overall model fit (GFI  0.91, CFI  0.91).
However, at the construct level, both con-
structs load on one factor with at least 0.78.
The Cronbachs alpha of this second-order
construct is 0.79. Consequently, we calcu-
lated the team scores for shared leadership
behaviors by taking the average score of
items pertaining to PB-T and PB-S (see items
used in Table II).
ple team-member responses from the same
team was appropriate, intermember agree-
ment and reliability measures for team-shared
leadership were assessed. While r(wg)(j) was 0.96
( James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984, 1993), ICC
(1) was 0.40, and ICC (2) was 0.82 (McGraw &
Wong, 1996). Thus, the aggregation of
individual-level data was justified (LeBreton &
Senter, 2008). Team-member data on shared
team leadership were aggregated by calculat-
ing the arithmetic mean.
Female-to-Male Ratio
Female-to-male ratio was measured as the per-
centage of women in each team. On average,
17 percent of each team (min.  0; max.  100)
comprised female employees.
Mean Age
The mean age for each team was measured by
calculating the mean age across all partici-
pants of a team. On average, the mean team
age was 38 years. It should be noted that de-
tails on age were provided through indica-
tion of an age class (e.g., 2130) for every
employee. Within these age classes, an equal
distribution was assumed.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

536 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
National Diversity
National diversity was measured in terms of
variety with Blaus (1977) index (1 p2k)
(Harrison & Klein, 2007). Each nationality
represented one category. Nationality was
defined in terms of citizenship. Values could
range from 0 to 1, where a value of 0 indi-
cated that all team members had the same
nationality and a value of close to 1 indicated
that each team member had a different na-
tionality. The sample comprised 28 different
nationalities.
Team Effectiveness
Effectiveness reflects the extent to which out-
comes meet expectations (Hackman, 1987).
To measure effectiveness, we used three items
from Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) captur-
ing the degree to which the teams results
were of high quality, the client (whether
internal or external) was satisfied with the
quality of the team output, and the team
members were satisfied with their output
(Cronbachs alpha  .87).
Control Variables
Project type, project length, number of sites,
frequency of face-to-face meetings, number
of isolated team members, and task interde-
pendence were used as control variables.
While project type, project length, and task
interdependence potentially influence shared
team leadership (e.g., Conger & Pearce, 2003;
Cox et al., 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2000), the
other variables are used to specify dispersion,
which is also often included as a control vari-
able for shared leadership processes (Cox et al.,
2003; Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999). Informa-
tion on project type, project length, task in-
terdependence, number of sites, and number
of isolated team members were provided by the
team leader. The frequency of face-to-face
meetings was provided by the team members.
Project type was considered by including
dummy variables (1  pertaining to this proj-
ect type; 0  not pertaining to this project
type). Six different project types were distin-
guished: new software development, software
upgrade, software rollout, software custom-
ization, software maintenance, and other
software project. Because we hold that shared
leadership develops over time and is posi-
tively associated with a teams maturity and
familiarity, we also controlled for project
length (Cox et al., 2003; Mayo et al., 2003;
Pearce & Sims, 2000; Perry et al., 1999). It has
been argued that task interdependence facili-
tates shared leadership due to increasing op-
portunities for mutual influence (Conger &
Pearce, 2003; Cox et al., 2003; Pearce, 2004;
Pearce & Sims, 2000). Based on Kirkman,
Rosen, Tesluk, and Gibson (2004) and Wage-
man, Hackman, and Lehman (2005), we
measured task interdependence with three
items. Sample items are Members of this
team depended on each other for informa-
tion or materials and This task required a
great deal of communication and coordina-
tion. Internal consistency was .82. Mean
task interdependence was 4.15 (SD = .86).
Furthermore, high dispersion levels might
affect collaboration and, thus, shared leader-
ship (Mayo et al., 2003; Perry et al., 1999). As
dispersion has been shown to be a multifac-
eted construct (Carte, Chidambaram, &
Becker, 2006; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Zigurs,
2003), we chose three control variables that
encapsulate these facets. First, we included
the number of sites, as research shows that
perceived distance relates to being at the same
sites (or not), rather than to the actual geo-
graphical distance (OLeary & Mortensen,
2010). As noted, the minimum number of sites
per team was two. The maximum number of
sites in this sample was seven. Second, we in-
cluded the percentage of isolated team mem-
bers. Technology use allows for the integration
of isolated team members. However, the de-
gree of isolated team members is likely to
influence team processes (i.e., shared leader-
ship). On average, 20 percent of all team
members were isolated (i.e., did not have
other team members working with them at
the same site). Finally, we included the fre-
quency of face-to-face meetings. While disper-
sion has been shown to influence team pro-
cesses (Carte et al., 2006; Hoegl & Proserpio,
2004; Zigurs, 2003), a high frequency of face-
to-face interaction is likely to reduce perceived
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

distance. Frequency of face-to-face-meetings
ranged from 1  never to 5  very often point to a high female-to-male ratio and na-
(mean  3.19, SD  0.83).
Table III provides the descriptive statistics
and correlations of the variables.
Analytical Procedures
To test the proposed hypotheses, we used hi-
erarchical multiple regression analysis and
assessed the significance of main effects after
all control variables had been entered into the
model. The correlation matrix depicted in
Table II shows several significant correlations;
thus we calculated the variance inflation fac-
tor (VIF) to check for potential multicol-
linearity. VIF values of the independent
variables were below 1.3, indicating no dis-
tortion of results due to multicollinearity
(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).
Results
Table IV reports the results of the regression
analysis in two models. As Model 2 shows,
shared leadership behaviors are significantly
( p  0.01) related to team performance, thus
supporting Hypothesis 1. Model 4 shows that
a high female-to-male ratio was positively
related to team-shared leadership, thus indi-
cating support for Hypothesis 2a. Hypothesis
2b (on mean age) was also supported, as a
teams high mean age showed a significant
negative relationship with team-shared lead-
ership. Hypothesis 2c (on national diversity)
was also confirmed, showing team-member
national diversity as positively related to
shared leadership behaviors in dispersed proj-
ect teams.
Concerning controls, it is particularly sur-
prising that isolation had a strong positive
effect on shared leadership. Thus, isolated
team members especially might engage in
shared leadership behaviors to overcome the
downsides of their isolation.
Discussion
Our results support the crucial role of shared
leadership for team performance and of
team demographics for shared leadership in
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 537
dispersed teams. In particular, our results
tional diversity as drivers of shared leader-
ship in virtual team contexts. A high mean
age, in contrast, was an impediment to
shared leadership. Taken together, these find-
ings offer both theoretical and managerial
implications.
Theoretical Implications
This study points to shared leadership behav-
iors as a crucial team process for dispersed
team performance. The behavioral
view on shared leadership we take in
While dispersion
this study thus enriches existing con-
ceptualizations of shared leadership, has been shown
which have focused on network analy-
ses (Carson et al., 2007; Klein et al., to influence team
2006; Mehra et al., 2006). While the
network perspectives of shared leader- processes, a high
ship has contributed to our under-
frequency of face-
standing of shared leadership density,
based on the perceptions of other team to-face interaction
members as leaders (e.g., asking team
members about the extent to which is likely to reduce
they perceive other team members as
perceived distance.
leaders) (Carson et al., 2007; Mehra
et al., 2006), our approach follows the
tradition of a functional view on leadership
(Burke et al., 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, &
Karam, 2009), specifying which behaviors
allow shared leadership to unfold in dis-
persed teams. We thus contribute to shared
leadership theory by conceptualizing shared
leadership as both team-directed and self-
directed proactive behaviors.
Furthermore, this study points to the im-
portance of team composition aspects in terms
of socio-demographic team characteristics for
shared team leadership in dispersed teams
(e.g., Avolio et al., 1996; Ensley et al., 2006;
Pearce et al., 2004; Pfeffer, 1983). Thus, this
study extends research on shared leaderships
antecedents, which has to date neglected as-
pects directly related to HR management
and has, instead, focused on team internal
processes such as social support (Carson
et al., 2007). Furthermore, focusing on the con-
text of dispersed teams, this study also follows
recent calls for more context-specific research
TABLE III Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N 96 Teams)
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1) Task type 1
2) Task type 2 0.39**
3) Task type 3 0.05 0.17
4) Task type 4 0.15 0.49** 0.06
5) Task type 5 0.11 0.37** 0.05 0.14
6) Project length 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.26** 0.25*
7) Task interdependence 0.15 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.05 0.04
8) Sites 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.15 0.05 0.11 0.10
9) Isolation 0.12 0.30** 0.07 0.42** 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.45**
10) Face-to-face meetings 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.18
11) Female ratio 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.06
12) Mean age 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.24*
13) National diversity 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.12 0.25* 0.14 0.04 0.16 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.22*
14) Shared leadership 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.29** 0.21* 0.15 0.19 0.16
behaviors
15) Team performance 0.21* 0.02 0.07 0.21* 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.24* 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.18
*p  0.05, **p  0.01.
 SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 539

TABLE IV Regression Analysis Predicting Shared Team Leadership (N 96 Teams)

Team Performance Shared Leadership
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Control Variables
Task type 1 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.13
Task type 2 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.20
Task type 3 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.14
Task type 4 0.29 0.35 0.22 0.37*
Task type 5 0.12 0.15* 0.13 0.15
Project length 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.04
Task interdependence 0.02 0.06 0.13 0.15
Sites 0.17 0.23* 0.21 0.29**
Isolation 0.22+ 0.38** 0.56*** 0.66***
+
Face-to-face meetings 0.19 0.11 0.29** 0.33***
Independent Variables
Shared leadership behaviors 0.28*
Female ratio 0.28**
Mean age 0.24*
National diversity 0.30**
+
F-value 1.74 2.26* 2.84** 4.61***
R-squared 0.17 0.23 0.25 0.42

p  0.10, *p  0.05, **p  0.01, ***p  0.001.
Standardized regression coefcients.

on demographic team characteristics (Jehn &
Bezrukova, 2004; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Kamenou,
2007; Kearney et al., 2009).
With regard to gender, we found the
high team female-to-male ratio to increase
shared leadership, thus supporting behavioral
leadership theoretical notions that women pre-
fer participative leadership styles (Gardiner &
Tiggemann, 1999; Northouse, 2001). Our
sample shows an average female-to-male
ratio of 17 percent, thus supporting the as-
sumption that dispersed teams (at least in
technical sectors such as the software indus-
try) are still male-dominated. Nevertheless, a
high female-to-male ratio was positively re-
lated to team-shared leadership, indicating
changes in the perceptions of women as lead-
ers. While traditional expectations theory
and status characteristics theory (Northouse,
2001; Ridgeway, 1988; Seers et al., 2003) sug-
gest that women face negative prejudices,
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
our results point to behavioral leadership
theorys importance in explaining womens
leadership success. It should also be noted
that while the average female-to-male ratio
shows that women are in the minority, our
sample ranges from all-male to all-female
teams, and our findings indicate a positive
relationship between female-to-male ratio
and shared leadership across the full range.
Our results on mean age indicate differ-
ences in the perception of age in leadership,
depending on the source of leadership behav-
ior. While vertical leadership provided by the
formal project leader has been shown to
profit from rising age (Seers, 1996), our re-
sults indicate that rising age does not support
shared leadership by team members. Vertical
leader effects are traditionally explained
through characteristics theory, which suggests
that formal project leaders profit from rising
status and thus influence with increasing age.
540 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
Concerning shared leadership in dispersed
teams, however, this effect is not supported
in our study (Mayo et al., 2003; Seers, 1996;
Seers et al., 2003). Instead, results indicate
that younger teams are drivers of shared lead-
ership in dispersed teams. In the context of
dispersed collaboration, younger teams might
thus be better prepared to address the down-
sides of technology-based communication
(Joshi & Roh, 2009; Kearney & Gebert, 2009;
Rosen & Jerdee, 1976). Furthermore, younger
teams might be more open to participative
leadership styles and might thus engage
more fully in shared leadership than older
teams.
Finally, our results support a positive view
of national diversity. The critical view of di-
versity, as propagated by social categorization
theory (Joshi & Roh, 2009; Kearney et al.,
2009), thus seems not to affect shared leader-
ship in dispersed teams. We thus find support
for the information-processing view of shared
leadership, which focuses on the benefits of
deep-level diversity (i.e., knowledge experi-
ences) rather than surface-level diversity. As
extant research has shown, deep-level diver-
sity is likely to foster performance, as ex-
changing diverse knowledge enhances the
quality of decision making (Harrison, Price,
Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Our positive findings
on national diversity also tie in with faultline
theory (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), which sug-
gests that very high levels of national diver-
sity actually prevent teams from negative
stereotyping, as team members have less in
common and are thus unlikely to form
highly cohesive subgroups (Polzer, Crisp,
Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006).
Practical Implications for HR
Management
Underlining team compositions influential
role for shared leadership in dispersed teams,
our article offers several contributions in the
area of HR recruitment, staffing, and em-
ployee development (Pearce, 2004; Pearce &
Manz, 2005).
First, this study contributes to HR recruit-
ment. In our study, teams high in female
team members outperformed other teams
with regard to shared leadership. Despite wom-
ens contribution to company performance,
company recruitment processes are often im-
plicitly designed to attract men (Sparrow,
Schuler, & Jackson, 1994). However, women
are attracted to different aspects than men
(Wright & Boswell, 2002). Scandura and
Lankau (1997) as well as Barnett and Hall
(2001), for example, find women to be more
committed than men when they are offered
flexible work hours. Based on our findings,
we suggest that companies address womens
needs, alongside those of men, in order to at-
tract talented women leaders to staff their
dispersed teams.
Second, we contribute to HR staffing. Recent
developments in human resource management
point to the increasing importance of global
staffing systems, including global staffing strate-
gies, policies, and tools (Harvey, Novicevic, &
Speier, 2000; Ryan, Wiechmann, & Hemingway,
2003; Wiechmann, Ryan, & Hemingway,
2003). With geographically dispersed teams
being used to secure distributed knowledge in
various countries (Cummings, 2004), dis-
persed teams staffing requirements are likely
to become an important part of such global
staffing systems. We contribute to the devel-
opment of global staffing systems by point-
ing to the importance of demographic team
characteristics for shared leadership enact-
ment in dispersed teams. While global staff-
ing systems are often fairly proficient in se-
curing technical expertise (Wiechmann et al.,
2003), socio-demographic aspects have been
neglected. Based on our findings, we suggest
that leaders responsible for the future devel-
opment of global staffing systems also con-
sider socio-demographic aspects.
Third, we point to firms need to attract
young talent. Research on protean and
boundaryless careers shows that young peo-
ple are more likely to have a boundaryless
mind set and to demonstrate strong organiza-
tional mobility (Briscoe, Hall, & Frautschy
DeMuth, 2006). The collaboration in globally
dispersed teams seeks this mind set. HR de-
partments may thus actively advertise their
firms use of globally dispersed teams to at-
tract young people. Even further, young peo-
ple have been shown to be values driven and
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

self-directed in their career management
(Lazarova & Taylor, 2009). It is thus impor-
tant for firms to create jobs that foster young
peoples careers, but also their personal
development.
Finally, we point to the importance for
HR to foster shared leadership. Shared leader-
ship comes along with the need to take over
leadership responsibility. However, not all
employees feel comfortable doing so, prefer-
ring to focus on their specific task, rather
than to deal with the overall development
of the project. From an HR perspective, it is
therefore crucial to select people who are
technically competent and have the skills
and the willingness to accept leadership re-
sponsibility; employee development should
focus on these qualities. As higher expecta-
tions of employees might result in higher
labor costs, we suggest that firms carefully
screen candidates for their willingness and
ability to collaborate in dispersed teams.
Limitations and Future Research
The concept of team composition in geo-
graphically dispersed project teams provides a
basis for further conceptual and empirical
work. Besides our contributions to shared
leadership behaviors role for dispersed team
performance and team compositions effect
on shared leadership, we note a few limita-
tions. First, while we elaborate on the role of
shared leadership behaviors for dispersed
team performance, we do not detail how the
different characteristics of dispersed collabo-
ration, such as technology use, affect the
relationship between these two variables.
However, this might be an insightful area for
future research. Second, we focus on soft-
ware development teams, because this indus-
trys digital output allows for collaboration
across geographical boundaries (Espinosa,
Slaughter, Kraut, & Herbsleb, 2007; Jun,
Butler, & King, 2007). While we do not as-
sume that our results are specific to the task
contexts of software development, we encour-
age further research to test the transferability of
our results to other industries. Third, the data used
in this research are cross-sectional rather than
longitudinal. While our study demonstrates
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 541
associations between variables, it cannot es-
tablish causality (Scandura & Williams, 2000).
A longitudinal research design could further
our knowledge about how the variables and
relationships develop over time. Fourth, we
argue that younger people are likely to be
more open to shared leadership behaviors
than older people, as their behavioral expec-
tations concerning leadership are less hierar-
chical. Younger generations are therefore
likely to be less authoritarian and more will-
ing to respect peer influence than older gen-
erations that might be used to, and expect,
formal leaders taking leadership responsibil-
ity. Our logic is based on generation cohorts,
rather than on the exact employee
ages. This approach was also cho-
sen by other authors (Egri & Based on our
Ralston, 2004; Glass, Bengtson, &
findings, we
Dunham, 1986). While we ac-
knowledge the slight inaccuracies suggest that leaders
in calculating means this way, we
also surmise that such inaccura- responsible for the
cies should be random (rather
future development
than systematic) and are highly
unlikely to significantly change of global staffing
our results. Fifth, with regard to
national diversity, the Blau (1977) systems also
index used in this study does not
consider socio-
account for effects of cultural dis-
tances. Thus, national diversity in demographic
American-Canadian teams is the
same as in American-Chinese aspects.
teams, assuming the same team-
member distribution. As we did
not collect data on cultural values, we unfor-
tunately cannot further elaborate on this
issue here. However, Muethel and Hoegl
(2010) point to the potential impacts of cul-
tural values (i.e., performance orientation,
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, col-
lectivism, and humane orientation) on shared
leadership. Cultural diversity measures, which
also capture cultural effects such as individual-
ism or power distance (House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), might therefore re-
veal a more fine-grained picture of national/
cultural diversitys effect on team processes in
dispersed teams. Finally, this study only pro-
vides insights into certain team characteristics
with a focus on socio-demographic issues.
542 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012

Future research should address more variables
the aspects of team climate (e.g., trust or cohe-
siveness) as well as corporate culture could be
promising avenues for further research. Fur-
thermore, the designated formal team leader
could be an important driver of shared team-
leadership behaviors (Pearce, 2004). Therefore,
formal leader behaviors and their relationship
to shared leadership should be examined. In
this vein, it might be interesting to investigate
shared leadership development over time
within teams with a designated leader (as per
this study) and in self-led teams (or self-
managed teams) without a designated leader.
Conclusion
Despite companies increasing use of
(globally) dispersed teams to address the
demands of global competition, almost half
of them fail to meet their objectives due to
the inability to coordinate their activities
(Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002). Thus, dis-
persed teams often do not live up to com-
pany expectations. However, as Siebdrat,
Hoegl, and Ernst (2008) show, dispersed
team performance can even exceed that of
traditional teams, if these teams are able to
efficiently manage their processes, for ex-
ample, through shared leadership. Here, we
demonstrate how shared leadership behav-
iors can foster team performance, and how
team composition can foster shared leader-
ship processes. Considering HRMs crucial
role in shaping companies workforce, our
implications for HR recruitment, staffing, and
development are likely to offer valuable in-
sights for HR functions.

MIRIAM MUETHEL holds the Chair of Organizational Behavior at WHUOtto Beisheim

School of Management in Germany. Her work has been published in the Journal
of International Business Studies, the Journal of International Management, the
Journal of World Business, Management International Reviews, Entrepreneurship The-
ory and Practice, and the MIT Sloan Management Review. In 2009, she was named a
nalist for the Academy of Management Best Paper Award (TIM Division). Before joining
WHU, Dr. Muethel worked for over two years as a business consultant at Volkswagen in
the area of international project management.

SARAH GEHRLEIN has studied business administration, majoring in human resource

management, in Germany, Sweden, and the Czech Republic. After her studies, she
worked as an HR professional for several years before she conducted her PhD research
at WHUOtto Beisheim School of Management in Germany. She is currently working as
a consultant for the Boston Consulting Group.

MARTIN HOEGL is head of the Institute for Leadership and Organization at

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen (Munich, Germany). Before joining LMU Munich,
he served on the faculties of Washington State University (United States), Bocconi Univer-
sity (Milan, Italy), and WHU (Vallendar, Germany). His main research interests include lead-
ership, collaboration, and innovation in organizations. His work has been published in the
Academy of Management Journal, Decision Sciences, Human Relations, Human Resource
Management, the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of International Business Stud-
ies, the Journal of Management, the Journal of Management Studies, the Journal of
Product Innovation Management, MIT Sloan Management Review, Organization Sci-
ence, Research Policy, and other journals.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


References
Ashford, B. E., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive
feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the
information environment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 58, 6779.
Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W. D., &
Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly
developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership
process, efcacy, trust, and performance. In M. M.
Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.),
Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams
(pp. 173209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2002). Adding e to
e-leadership: How it may impact your leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 31, 325338.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001).
E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and
practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 615668.
Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D.,
Jung, D., & Garger, J. W. (2003). Assessing shared
leadership: Development and preliminary valida-
tion of a team multifactor leadership questionnaire.
In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leader-
ship: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership
(pp. 143172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of
telework research: ndings, new directions, and
lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 383400.
Barnett, R. C., & Hall, D. T. (2001). How to use reduced
hours to win the war for talent. Organizational
Dynamics, 29, 192210.
Baugh, S. G., & Graen, G. B. (1997). Effects of team
gender and racial composition on perceptions
of team performance in cross-functional teams.
Group & Organization Management, 22, 366383.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of
virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership.
Group & Organization Management, 27, 1449.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Bligh, M. C., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. C. (2006). The
importance of self- and shared leadership in team
based knowledge work. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21, 296318.
BMW Group. (2002). TWISTTeleworking within the
BMW Group. Retrieved from http://www.bmwgroup
.com/e/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/unternehmen/
publikationen/aktuelles_lexikon/_pdf/Twist_D.pdf
Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & Frautschy DeMuth, R. L. (2006).
Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 543
exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1),
3047.
Brown, S. M. (1979). Male versus female leaders:
A comparison of empirical studies. Sex Roles, 5,
595611.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing
expertise in work groups: A status characteristics
perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,
557591.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F.,
Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of lead-
ership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-
analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288307.
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, 12171234.
Carte, T., & Chidambaram, L. (2004). A capabilities-
based theory of technology deployment in diverse
teams: Leapfrogging the pitfalls of diversity and
leveraging its potential with collaborative technol-
ogy. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 5, 448471.
Carte, T., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emer-
gent leadership in self-managed virtual teams.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323343.
Cascio, W. F., & Shurygailo, S. (2003). E-leadership
and virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 31,
362376.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The inuence of
demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and
consequences of cooperative norms in work teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956974.
Choi, J. N. (2007). Group composition and employee
creative behaviour in a Korean electronics company:
Distinct effects of relational demography and group
diversity. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 80, 213234.
Cleveland, J. N., & Landy, F. J. (1983). The effects of
person and job stereotypes on two personnel deci-
sions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 609619.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-
structuralist analysis of follower identities. Leader-
ship Quarterly, 17, 179189.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002).
Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of
procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology,
55, 83109.
544 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
Conger, J. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). A landscape of
opportunities: Future research on shared leader-
ship. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared
leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of lead-
ership (pp. 285303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a
model of shared leadership and distributed inu-
ence in the innovation process: How shared leader-
ship 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. 4876). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cramton, C. D. (2002). Finding common ground in
dispersed collaboration. Organizational Dynamics,
30, 356367.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social ex-
change theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of Management, 31, 874900.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diver-
sity, and knowledge sharing in a global organiza-
tion. Management Science, 50, 352364.
Desanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the
special issue: Communication processes for virtual
organizations. Organization Science, 10, 693703.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2002). Team hetero-
geneity and its relationship with team support and
team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Admin-
istration, 40(1), 4466.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995).
Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125145.
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts
and personal values: A comparison of China and the
United States. Organization Science, 15, 210220.
Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Womens
social constructions of gender identity at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589634.
Ely, R. J. (2004). A eld study of group diversity,
participation in diversity education programs, and
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 755780.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006).
The importance of vertical and shared leadership
within new venture top management teams: Impli-
cations for the performance of startups. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 217231.
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb,
J. D. (2007). Team knowledge and coordination in
geographically distributed software development.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 24,
135169.
Faix, W. G., & Laier, A. (1996). Soziale Kompetenz.
Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Fenwick, G. D., & Neal, D. (2001). Effect of gender
composition on group performance. Gender, Work
and Organization, 8, 205225.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J.,
Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991).
Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader
behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation.
The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245287.
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things
happen: Reciprocal relationships between work
characteristics and personal initiative in a four-
wave longitudinal structural equation model. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 92, 10841102.
Frink, D. D., Robinson, R. K., Reithel, B., Arthur, M. M.,
Ammeter, A. P., . . . Morrisette, H. S. (2003). Gender
demography and organization performance. Group &
Organization Management, 28, 127147.
Gardiner, M., & Tiggemann, M. (1999). Gender differ-
ences in leadership style, job stress and mental
health in maleand femaledominated industries.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-
chology, 72, 301315.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the
concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dis-
persion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure,
and national diversity on team innovation. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451495.
Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L., & Dunham, C. C. (1986). Atti-
tude similarity in three-generation families: Social-
ization, status inheritance, or reciprocal inuence?,
American Sociological Review, 51, 685698.
Grifn, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new
model of work role performance: Positive behavior
in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 327347.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In
J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior (pp. 315342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). Whats the differ-
ence? Diversity constructs as separation, variety,
or disparity in organizations. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 32, 11991228.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T.
(2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Chang-
ing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity
on group functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 10291045.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Harvey, M., Novicevic, M. M., & Garrison, G. (2004).
Challenges to stafng global virtual teams. Human
Resource Management Review, 14, 275294.
Harvey, M. G., Novicevic, M. M., & Speier, C. (2000).
An innovative global management stafng system:
A competency-based perspective. Human Resource
Management, 39, 381394.
Hasan, B., Ahmed, M., & Ali, J. (2009). A model of
gender differences in knowledge sharing attitude in
group projects. Proceedings for the Northeast Region
Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI), pp. 185190.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing
virtual teams: A review of current empirical research.
Human Resource Management Review, 15, 6995.
Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., &
Armenakis, A. A. (2005). Teams female represen-
tation and perceived potency as inputs to team
outcomes in a predominantly male eld setting.
Personnel Psychology, 58, 893924.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork
quality and the success of innovative projects:
A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Or-
ganization Science, 12, 435449.
Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. (2007). Shared leadership in
dispersed innovation teams: Mutual inuence and
proactive followership. Academy of Management
Proceedings, pp. 16.
Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2004). Team member
proximity and teamwork in innovative projects.
Research Policy, 33, 11531165.
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004).
Interteam coordination, project commitment, and
teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudi-
nal study. Organization Science, 15, 3855.
Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2003).
Self-leadership and super leadership: The heart and
art of creating shared leadership in teams. In C. L.
Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership
(pp. 123140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., &
Gupta, A. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organiza-
tions: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huelsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F.
(2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work:
A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three
decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 94, 11281145.
Iansiti, M. (1995). Shooting the rapids: Managing
product development in turbulent environments.
California Management Review, 38(1), 3758.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 545
Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social
context: A multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of
team diversity and sales performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 675702.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Esti-
mating within-group interrater reliability with and
without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 69, 8598.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg:
An assessment of within-group interrater agree-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306309.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A eld study of
group diversity, workgroup context, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
703729.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work
team diversity research: A meta-analytic review.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599627.
Jun, H. E., Butler, B. S., & King, W. R. (2007). Team
cognition: Development and evolution in software
project teams. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 24, 261292.
Kamenou, N. (2007). Methodological considerations in
conducting research across gender, race, ethnic-
ity and culture: A challenge to context specicity in
diversity research methods. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 18, 19952010.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature
of trust in virtual teams. Journal of Strategic Infor-
mation Systems, 11, 187213.
Karau, S. J., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Invited reaction:
Gender, social roles, and the emergence of lead-
ers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10,
321327.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity
and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 7789.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When
and how diversity benets teams: The importance
of team members need for cognition. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 581598.
Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life
in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across
boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations.
Organization Science, 17, 2244.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B.
(2004). The impact of team empowerment on
virtual team performance: The moderating role of
face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 175192.
546 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Yan, X.
(2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical,
and deindividualized leadership in extreme ac-
tion teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51,
590621.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic di-
versity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics
of organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 325340.
Lazarova, M., & Taylor, S. (2009). Boundaryless ca-
reers, social capital, and knowledge management:
Implications for organizational performance. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 119139.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20
questions about interrater reliability and interrater
agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11,
815852.
Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., & John, R. (2005). Per-
ceived individual collaboration know-how devel-
opment through information technology-enabled
contextualization: evidence from distributed teams.
Information Systems Research, 16(1), 927.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Vir-
tual teams: What do we know and where do we go
from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805835.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Yu-Ting, H.
(2003). Because time matters: Temporal coordina-
tion in global virtual project teams. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 19(4), 129155.
Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Pastor, J.-C. (2003). Shared
leadership in work teams: A social network ap-
proach. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared
leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of lead-
ership (pp. 193214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging
space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and
effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473492.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming infer-
ences about some intraclass correlation coef-
cients. Psychological Methods, 1, 3046.
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson,
B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The
network of leadership perceptions and team perfor-
mance. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 232245.
Monalisa, M., Daim, T., Mirani, F., Dash, P., Khamis,
R., & Bhusari, V. (2008). Managing global design
teams. Research Technology Management, 51(4),
4859.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010).
Leadership in teams: A functional approach to un-
derstanding leadership structures and processes.
Journal of Management, 36, 539.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at
work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403419.
Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2010). Cultural and soci-
etal inuences on shared leadership in globally
dispersed teams. Journal of International Manage-
ment, 42, 183201.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and prac-
tice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OLeary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)
gure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geo-
graphically dispersed teams. Organization Science,
21, 115131.
Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008).
Managers gender role attitudes: A country insti-
tutional prole approach. Journal of International
Business Studies, 39, 795813.
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combin-
ing vertical and shared leadership to transform
knowledge work. Academy of Management Execu-
tive, 18(1), 4757.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003a). All those years
ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leader-
ship. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared
leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of lead-
ership (pp. 118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003b). Shared leader-
ship: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver
bullets of leadership: The importance of self- and
shared leadership in knowledge work. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 34, 130140.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership:
Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. Advances
in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 7, 115139.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. 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 Dynam-
ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172197.
Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, so-
cial work, and virtual teams: The relative inuence
of vertical versus shared leadership in the nonprot
sector. In R. E. Riggio & S. Smith Orr (Eds.), Improv-
ing leadership in nonprot organizations
(pp. 180203). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (1999). Em-
powered selling teams: How shared leadership can
contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 3551.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. Re-
search in Organizational Behavior, 5, 299357.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W.
(2006). Extending the faultline model to geographi-
cally dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups
can impair group functioning. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 49, 679692.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1988). Gender differences in task
groups: A status and legitimacy account. In
M. Webster & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generaliza-
tion: New theory and research (pp. 188206). Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distrib-
uted group environments: The role of social identity.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 24, 151158.
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1976). The nature of job-
related age stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 61, 180183.
Ryan, A. M., Wiechmann, D., & Hemingway, M. (2003).
Designing and implementing global stafng
systems: Part IIBest practices. Human Resource
Management, 42, 8594.
Sawng, Y. W., Kim, S. H., & Han, H.-S. (2006). R&D
group characteristics and knowledge management
activities: A comparison between ventures and
large rms. International Journal of Technology
Management, 35, 241261.
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of
gender, family responsibility and exible work hours
to organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 377391.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research
methodology in management: Current practices,
trends, and implications for future research. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 43, 12481264.
Seers, A. (1996). Better leadership through chemistry:
Toward a model of emergent shared team leader-
ship. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, &
S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary
studies of work teams (pp. 145172). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. M. (2003). Can team
members shared leadership? Foundations in research
and theory. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),
Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership (pp. 77102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-
member exchange under team and traditional
management. Group & Organization Management,
20(1), 1838.
Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2008). The bright
side of virtual collaboration: How teams can prot
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SHARED LEADERSHIP IN DISPERSED TEAMS 547
from dispersion. Academy of Management Pro-
ceedings, pp. 16.
Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to man-
age virtual teams. MIT Sloan Management Review,
50(4), 6368.
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 Man-
agement, 27, 6696.
Sparrow, P., Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1994).
Convergence or divergence: Human resource prac-
tices and policies for competitive advantage world-
wide. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 5, 267299.
Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural
diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams.
Group Decision & Negotiation, 15, 389406.
Sun, X., Wiedenbeck, S., Chintakovid, T., & Zhang, Q.
(2007). The effect of gender on trust perception and
performance in computer-mediated virtual environ-
ments. Proceedings of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 114.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A
self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Turner, J. C. (1996). Social comparison and social
identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour.
New York, NY: Wiley.
van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., de Lange, A. H.,
Demerouti, E., & van der Heijde, C. M. (2009).
Age effects on the employability-career success
relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74,
156164.
Verworn, B., Schwarz, D., & Herstatt, C. (2009). Chang-
ing workforce demographics: Strategies derived
from the resource-based view of HRM. International
Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 9, 149161.
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005).
Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instru-
ment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41,
373398.
Watson, W., Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991).
Member competence, group interaction, and group
decision making: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 76, 803809.
West, M. A. (1996). Reexity and work group effective-
ness: A conceptual integration. In M. A. West (Ed.),
Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555579).
London, England: Wiley.
548 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2012
Wiechmann, D., Ryan, A. M., & Hemingway, M. (2003).
Designing and implementing global stafng
systems: Part Ileaders in global stafng. Human
Resource Management, 42, 7183.
Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating
HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro
human resource management research. Journal of
Management, 28, 247276.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the
challenges of leading e-teams: Minimizing the bad
and maximizing the good. Organizational Dynam-
ics, 31, 377387.
Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron
or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31, 339351.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Copyright of Human Resource Management is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.