The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Full Length Article

Shared leadership performance relationship trajectories as a function

of team interventions and members' collective personalities
Lauren D'Innocenzo a, Michael Kukenberger b,⁎, Andrea C. Farro c, Jennifer A. Griffith d
a
Drexel University, LeBow College of Business, 3220 Market St, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
b
University of New Hampshire, Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, 10 Garrison Ave, Durham, NH, United States of America
c
Rowan University, Rohrer College of Business, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028, United States of America
d
University of New Hampshire, Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, 10 Garrison Ave., Durham, NH, United States of America

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We used longitudinal data from 205 members of 53 student teams who competed in a complex business simu-
Received 1 December 2018 lation over 10 weeks to test: (1) whether shared leadership and performance were related reciprocally over time;
Received in revised form 21 January 2021 (2) the relative magnitude of those relationships; and (3) whether a shared leadership intervention changes
Accepted 22 January 2021
those relationships. We also considered the influence of team members' mean level personality to account for
Available online 3 March 2021
compositional effects. As anticipated, shared leadership and performance were related positively and reciprocally
Keywords:
over time. Moreover, the shared leadership to performance relationship grew stronger and positive whereas the
Shared leadership performance to shared leadership relationship remained fairly consistent over time. As expected, the interven-
Leadership development tion positively related to the trajectory of shared leadership. Finally, we did not find evidence for the hypothe-
Team composition sized relationships of personality on shared leadership nor the strength of the intervention.
Team performance © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

In a steadily growing body of scholarly literature, researchers have
given renewed interest to the effectiveness of peer-to-peer or shared
leadership influences in modern, team- based organizational structures.
Shared leadership is defined as an informal emergent and dynamic
team phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are distrib-
uted among team members (D'Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger,
2016). Recent meta-analyses have provided correlational evidence
that the more team members share leadership, the better they perform
(see D'Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Wang, Waldman, &
Zhang, 2014). Research has also begun to undercover drivers of shared
leadership including contextual conditions such as shared purpose, so-
cial support, voice, external coaching (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone,
2007), team trust (Drescher, Korsgaard, Welpe, Picot, & Wigand,
2014), task ambiguity (Serban & Roberts, 2016), and leader humility
(Chiu, Owens, & Tesluk, 2016). In addition, some compositional ante-
cedents have been explored, such as warmth and competence (DeRue,
Nahrgang, & Ashford, 2015) and functional diversity (Kukenberger &
D'Innocenzo, 2020).
However, limited empirical evidence exists regarding how training
and development can encourage shared leadership, thus hindering an
organizations' ability to facilitate these beneficial leadership
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: led73@drexel.edu (L. D'Innocenzo), michael.kukenberger@unh.edu
(M. Kukenberger), farro@rowan.edu (A.C. Farro), jennifer.griffith@unh.edu (J.A. Griffith).
arrangements. Certainly, training and development interventions are
not new to the area of leadership with an abundance of practical and
theoretical wisdom available (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee,
2014). However, these leader-centric methods target growth of individ-
ual leadership skills and leadership traits (Day, 2000), adhering to tradi-
tional ideas of leadership such as hierarchical (Jaques, 1990), top-down
(Locke, 2003), or vertical (Pearce & Sims Jr, 2002) approaches to leading
others. This leaves a lot of unanswered questions surrounding the appli-
cability of knowledge gained from traditional leadership studies to ex-
plain the shared leadership phenomena (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999).
Related to this concern, prior empirical examinations of shared lead-
ership tend to largely ignore the temporal nature of the construct. At its
core, shared leadership is defined as “an emergent and dynamic team
phenomenon” (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016, p. 1968, emphasis added),
based on the perceptions of team members. However, the science of
shared leadership, and largely teams, is built on cross-sectional studies
or overly simplistic frameworks, such as Input ➔ Shared Leadership ➔
Output models (analogous with team input-process-output [IPO]
models), with perhaps, some minimal temporal lags between measures.
However, these models fall short in capturing the iterative and ever-
changing nature of shared leadership. Understanding the temporal na-
ture of shared leadership and corresponding performance relationship
is particularly important when considering that the leadership develop-
ment phenomenon “is concerned with understanding growth and
change in leadership capabilities of individuals and collectives” and
that “leadership is developed over time” (Day & Dragoni, 2015, p. 135).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101499
1048-9843/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
Accordingly, we develop a model to investigate 1) the development
of shared leadership (based on member's perceptions of each other's
leadership influence utilizing round-robin ratings) through a team-
based intervention and 2) the temporal nature of shared leadership.
We draw upon a functional perspective of leadership focused on specific
team need satisfaction (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Morgeson,
DeRue, & Karam, 2010) to design and outline our shared leadership in-
tervention. We suggest that an intervention focused on sharing leader-
ship based on team needs will encourage the emergence of shared
leadership in teams. In order to explore the intervention's impact over
time, we integrate a team episodic approach (Marks et al., 2001) to
the relationship between shared leadership and performance and sug-
gest it is reciprocal and reinforcing (cf. Palmatier, Houston, Dant, &
Grewal, 2013). Specifically, we argue that the magnitude of the
(a) shared leadership ➔ performance and (b) performance ➔ shared
leadership relationships will be positive and grow stronger over time.
In addition, we believe that the intervention presented will be positively
associated with shared leadership ➔ performance relationship trajecto-
ries. Finally, we account for the impact of team member attributes in
explaining these relationships. Given the evidence that individual dif-
ferences are critical predictors of emergent leadership (DeRue,
Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011), team performance (Bell,
2007; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011), and the sharing of
leadership (DeRue et al., 2015; Kukenberger & D'Innocenzo, 2020), we
include two salient personality characteristics in our model. Specifically,
we suggest that mean levels of openness to experience and agreeable-
ness will positively relate to shared leadership.
We explore our hypotheses and the overall effect on team perfor-
mance utilizing a sample of 205 students in 53 teams competing in a
complex 10-week business simulation. Fig. 1 presents our model,
depicting key theoretical relationships.
Theory and hypotheses
Shared leadership and performance trajectories
The idea of shared leadership has its historic roots traced to nearly a
century ago with Follett (1924) suggesting that one should look not
only to the designated leader but also to others in the team for leader-
ship. Since then, much of the empirical focus has been on validating
the effects of shared leadership on performance (Avolio, Jung, Murray,
& Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Pearce
& Sims Jr, 2002; Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, & Jung, 2002). In
Fig. 1. Hypothesized relationships.
2
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
recent years, three meta-analyses have emerged which provide correla-
tional evidence for a positive relationship between shared leadership
and team performance (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides et al.,
2014; Wang et al., 2014). Although informative, studies examined in
these analyses have employed cross-sectional data to investigate an in-
herently dynamic phenomenon. This static focus is particularly prob-
lematic given that scholars have highlighted that shared leadership is
a time-varying construct (e.g., Pearce & Conger, 2003) and that “future
work should examine multiple time points of shared leadership ante-
cedents (context and member attributes), shared leadership, and per-
formance in reciprocal patterns” (Kukenberger & D'Innocenzo, 2020,
p. 19). In addition, scholars have argued that “we need more appropri-
ate methodological linkages to the conceptualization of leadership as a
phenomenon rooted in people, roles, and time” (Contractor,
DeChurch, Carson, Carter, & Keegan, 2012, p. 999). In short, the inclusion
of time is necessary to fully understand the dynamic nature of shared
leadership and a prerequisite for understanding how to positively
intervene.
According to adaptive leadership theory, reoccurring patterns of
leading and following interactions between and among team members
produce emergent team leadership structures dynamically over time
(DeRue, 2011). Specifically, the theory contends that “across time, indi-
viduals in a shared leadership structure are consistently and collectively
engaging in acts of leading and those acts are mutually reciprocated by
collective acts of following, which are then reinforced and reciprocated
by subsequent acts of leading among group members” (DeRue, 2011,
p. 135). Fundamentally, this theory suggests that shared leadership is
not static, but rather a process that develops and changes over time.
Despite the push for research that incorporates the time-based ele-
ment of shared leadership, there have been remarkably few longitudi-
nal investigations. In one recent example, Kukenberger and
D'Innocenzo (2020) provide evidence that the positive effects of func-
tional diversity strengthen over time and the negative effects of gender
differences weaken over time. However, the authors measured the var-
iables of interest at only two time points rather than conducting a longi-
tudinal investigation, which requires at least three waves of
measurement so that one can model trajectories (Pitariu & Ployhart,
2010; Ployhart & Ward, 2011). In the only true shared leadership longi-
tudinal exanimation to our knowledge, Drescher et al. (2014) found that
shared leadership within groups is related to growth in group trust and
in turn, related to performance improvements.
Building on this work, we employ the logic of double-interacts
(Weick, 1979) to explain the reciprocal nature of shared leadership
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
and performance. Specifically, we suggest that as team members engage
in shared leadership behaviors, this engagement will spark further in-
teractions in return. We propose that shared leadership will take time
to develop, and as teams develop more effective strategies related to
shared leadership, these teams will see greater benefits in terms of
team performance. This is akin to what Mitchell and James (2001)
coined as the moderation by causal cycle curve (MCC curve), or the
idea that variables may change as a function of time. Mathieu,
Kukenberger, D'Innocenzo, and Reilly (2015) made a similar argument
regarding team cohesion and performance trajectories by arguing and
providing evidence that as “cohesion takes time to crystallize, the ac-
tions expected to result from feelings of team cohesion are likely to
lag even further in the development of teams” (p. 718). Here, we
make a parallel argument in that we believe it will take time for shared
leadership to 1) develop and 2) translate into higher levels of perfor-
mance as members learn to effectively claim and grant leadership. We
suggest that the willingness and interest to collectively grant leadership
must be translated into the willingness to collectively claim leadership,
which will then translate to the facilitation of task completion and goal
achievement.
Detailing this leadership-followership loop, DeRue and Ashford
(2010) describe the process as cyclical unfolding spirals “in which a de-
viation in one variable (e.g., more granting behavior) leads to a similar
deviation in another variable (e.g., more claiming behavior), which, in
turn, further amplifies deviation in the first variable” (p. 633). In other
words, shared leadership is an emergent process that takes time to de-
velop. We suggest that when these “deviation-amplifying” loops
(Masuch, 1985; Weick, 1979) result in more leadership, more resources
will be progressively brought to bear on performance. Therefore, we
propose that shared leadership ➔ performance relationships will be
weaker during early stages of the team cycle but will grow stronger
over time (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Kukenberger, Donsbach, & Alliger,
2015; McGrath & Tschan, 2007; Mitchell & James, 2001).
Hypothesis 1. The positive relationship between shared leadership ➔
performance will interact with time such that the magnitude of the rela-
tionship will grow stronger over time.
Even though traditional IPO team models view performance as a
final state, researchers have long recognized the limitations of view-
ing performance as merely a static outcome. For example, Ilgen,
Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005) suggest that outcomes are an
important input to subsequent team behaviors. Similarly, Marks
et al. (2001) suggest an episodic view of team behaviors which also
conceptualizes teams as a complex, iterative system. Because shared
leadership itself is also an iterative process, the expected impact of
performance on subsequent shared leadership is unclear. On the one
hand, team members may perceive an interpersonal risk in assuming
a leadership role as groups' successes and failures are often attributed
to the leader (Meindl, 1995; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). For
this reason, DeRue and Ashford (2010) suggest that “…to the extent
there is uncertainty regarding a group's proper course of action, and
the greater the complexity, uncertainty, and dynamism of forces af-
fecting the group's performance, the more we expect individuals to
perceive greater instrumental risk in taking on leadership responsibil-
ities” (p. 639). In addition to the personal risk members may incur,
they may simply not know how to enact leadership as the lack of an
established track record makes the proper leadership approach and
function ambiguous at best.
On the other hand, setbacks may act as a beneficial threat and spur
ambition to increase leadership engagement. Accordingly, we also ex-
pect that poor performance will result in increased shared leadership,
as there may be a high collective motivation to get the team back on
track. Indeed, poor performance may drive motivation to lead as mem-
bers feel they can have a positive influence out of a sense of duty or ob-
ligation (cf., Chan & Drasgow, 2001) and change the direction of
the team.
3
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
Mathieu et al. (2015) also argued a dual set of theories when consid-
ering the reciprocal impact of performance on cohesion suggesting and
finding support for the positive impact of performance on cohesion, but
given the offsetting effects, the effect did not grow over time. Given that
shared leadership is also suggested (see Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004) to be
an emergent state, we leverage the logic of this approach. Specifically,
on balance, we anticipate that shared leadership and performance will
likely be positively correlated with one another over time. However, be-
cause of countervailing forces associated with members' reactions to
poor performance, we predict that the magnitude of the shared leader-
ship ➔ future performance relationships may exceed the performance
➔ shared leadership relationships. Accordingly:
Hypothesis 2. The positive relationship between team performance ➔
shared leadership will not interact with time and thus will remain rela-
tively stable over time.
Increasing shared leadership through intervention
Although empirical research has yet to consider the ways in which
managers can intervene and directly develop shared leadership, there
have been a number of conceptual frameworks laying the groundwork
in shared leadership development. First, decades of research suggests
that leadership capabilities, in general, can be enhanced as a result of
well-designed leadership training (see Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow,
Joseph, & Salas, 2017 for a recent meta-analysis) with a wealth of
existing wisdom (see Day et al., 2014). Generally, the intent of leader-
ship training is to ensure participants are able to act effectively in for-
mally appointed leadership roles and engage in successful leadership
behaviors (Day, 2000). In addition to impacting leader effectiveness,
leadership training can have a positive impact on follower job satisfac-
tion, turnover, and team performance (see Lacerenza et al., 2017 for re-
cent correlational meta-analytic evidence) and has important
implications across multiple levels throughout an organization (Day &
Dragoni, 2015). Indeed, Lacerenza et al.'s (2017) meta-analysis suggests
that leadership training can improve learning, transfer, and other orga-
nizational outcomes by as much as 29%.
In addition to the wealth of research on leadership training, team-
specific training or team development interventions (TDIs; Shuffler,
DiazGranados, Maynard, & Salas, 2018) have been shown to be an effec-
tive training mechanism. In their recent comprehensive review, Shuffler
et al. (2018) define TDIs as “…actions taken to alter the performance
trajectories of organizational teams…” (p. 2). However, there is quite
a bit of variance in effectiveness as “the often lucrative nature of team
development consulting has also resulted in many popular culture re-
sources that are not actually effective” (Shuffler et al., 2018, p. 2) as
they are not scientifically derived, evidence-based TDIs. In their aptly
named article (i.e., There's a Science for That: Team Development Interven-
tions in Organizations), Shuffler, DiazGranados, and Salas (2011) outline
the type of interventions that transfer training to performance. Specifi-
cally, successful TDIs represent a structured activity designed to prompt
members to (a) distinguish the necessary knowledge, skills, and atti-
tudes required for effective team processes and performance;
(b) develop effective performance-measurement systems that track
how well teams are doing; and (c) establish team-level feedback ap-
proaches that provide teams with a diagnosis of their progress and
areas of improvement.
In order to successfully meet training goals and objectives, a needs
analysis should be conducted during the planning phases of an inter-
vention (Lacerenza, Marlow, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2018). A needs anal-
ysis can increase training effectiveness by identifying elements that
would effectively result in performance improvements (Brown, 2002).
Though there has been scant focus on shared leadership interventions,
Day et al. (2004) proposed that appropriate leadership development
initiatives can enhance the leadership competence of team members,
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
resulting in greater equity regarding the sharing of leadership among
team members. Leveraging both the leadership development and TDI
heritages, we propose a specific team-based, shared leadership inter-
vention. While organization-specific needs analysis can result in higher
levels of transfer (see House, 2001), our goal in this work is to develop
generalizable theory that can be applied across a range of organizations.
Therefore, we work to identify team-centric leadership needs from a
universal perspective.
Building on the concept of functional leadership as a process of team
needs satisfaction and drawing on past conceptions of leadership, team
leadership, and team tasks, we believe that shared leadership interven-
tions must outline specific areas in need of leadership (Marks et al.,
2001; Morgeson et al., 2010) and how teams can distribute such leader-
ship. Specifically, we adhere to Marks et al.'s (2001) argument that
three different types of processes are salient at different times during
a team's performance cycle. These include transition (i.e., strategy, mis-
sion analysis, goal agreement, and planning including development of
effective performance- measurement systems), action (i.e., member co-
ordination, member back-up behavior, goal progress, establishment of
team-level feedback approaches, and tracking resources), and interper-
sonal (i.e., emotion monitoring and regulation, conflict management,
and motivation and confidence building) processes. Barring any causal
interpretation, meta-analytic evidence (see LePine, Piccolo, Jackson,
Mathieu, & Saul, 2008) suggests that when teams, in a variety of con-
texts, engage in high levels of transition, action, and interpersonal pro-
cesses (Marks et al., 2001), they have higher levels of performance. In
addition, these processes are aligned with the type of team intervention
topics, noted above, that result in intervention transfer.
Building on Marks et al.'s processes, Morgeson et al. (2010) note that
because these needs are crucial for team performance, team leadership
can be viewed as oriented around team need satisfaction. Consistent
with functional leadership theory, this approach does not specify the
need for a particular leader to fill these needs, rather it suggests that
any individual (leader or member) can assume responsibility for satisfy-
ing a team's needs. To drive shared leadership, we suggest that an inter-
vention needs to articulate the benefits of shared leadership across
these critical need areas and provide evidence that the more a team
shares leadership, the better they perform.
According to adaptive leadership theory, in order to “fully under-
stand shared leadership and its implications for group functioning, re-
searchers must examine shared leadership as a collective process of
leading, that is initiated by, accompanied by, and followed by a collec-
tive process of following” (DeRue, 2011, p. 136). Thus, we believe that
a shared leadership intervention targeted at leading Marks et al.'s
(2001) processes, grounded in team needs related to leadership type,
will encourage and facilitate shared and reciprocated leadership and fol-
lowership, and will result in higher levels of shared leadership over
time.
Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between shared leadership and
performance trajectories will interact with a team-centric shared lead-
ership intervention such that the magnitude of the positive influence
will grow stronger over time for teams that receive the intervention.
Finally, we account for team compositional individual differences as
both an area that may accelerate the effectiveness of our proposed
shared leadership intervention, and to account for possible confounds
within our model. Individual differences, such as experience (Fiedler,
1970), gender (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003; Eagly
& Johnson, 1990; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995), intelligence (Judge,
Colbert, & Ilies, 2004), and core self- evaluation (Hu, Wang, Liden, &
Sun, 2012; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998; Resick, Whitman,
Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009) have played a major role in understanding
the link between leadership emergence and effectiveness. In addition,
meta-analytic work (see DeRue et al., 2011; Judge, Bono, Ilies, &
Gerhardt, 2002) has provided correlational evidence that personality
traits, such as extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, are
4
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
particularly salient predictors of leadership emergence, rendering this
line of inquiry relevant for shared leadership, which is itself, emergent
in nature.
Individual differences have also played a significant role in the teams
literature, as noted in Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, and Gilson's (2008)
team review, “team composition research focuses on the attributes of
team members and the impact of the combination of such attributes
on processes, emergent states, and ultimately outcomes” and “has
been incorporated into studies of team effectiveness for nearly 50
years” (p. 433). Moreover, numerous meta-analytic studies (see Bell,
2007; Bell et al., 2011) have pointed to team compositional attributes
as important drivers of team outcomes. With respect to personality at-
tributes specifically, Bell (2007) provided meta-analytic evidence for
mean levels of conscientiousness, openness to experience, collectivism
(and minimum levels of agreeableness) impacting team performance.
In addition, team composition has been suggested to be an intervention
in and of itself, as purposeful changes in team membership can impact
both team processes and performance (see Shuffler et al., 2018 for a
review).
Leveraging both the leadership emergence and team composition
literatures, shared leadership scholars have provided evidence that
compositional considerations can drive the sharing of leadership. For
example, Kukenberger and D'Innocenzo (2020) found that functional
diversity among team members resulted in higher levels of shared lead-
ership. Additionally, DeRue et al. (2015) provided evidence that team
levels of competence and warmth perceptions determined both the
amount of leadership exhibited and the degree to which the leadership
was shared. Lastly, in their extension of Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks'
(2001) model of leader performance functions, Hoch and Dulebohn
(2017) provided a theoretical basis for the role of team personality com-
position in driving shared leadership.
Building on these studies, we suggest that personality composition is
an important consideration when understanding the impact of shared
leadership team interventions. Although we suggest that the interven-
tion can be an incredibly powerful source of influence on shared leader-
ship development and performance, team members must be engaged
and open to the process in order for the intended effects to surface.
Here, we propose that two specific personality traits, in abundance,
will act to increase the strength of a shared leadership intervention by
improving the likelihood of engagement and adoption. Specifically, we
suggest that teams with higher overall levels of openness to experience
and agreeableness will be more likely to engage with the intervention
content and thus will evidence stronger shared leadership trajectories
over time.
Openness to experience describes an attribute that is characterized
as being broad-minded, curious, imaginative, and original (Barrick &
Mount, 1991). Individuals who seek out new experiences, are high on
intellectual curiosity, and open to new ideas typically rate high on
openness to experience. Based on these attributes, it's not surprising
that Barrick and Mount's (1991) meta-analysis found that openness
is positively related to training proficiency. We suggest that being
open-minded is critical to adapting and integrating a new and differ-
ent leadership schema. In contrast to more traditional leadership,
shared leadership is likely to be viewed as a new construct and indi-
viduals that are high on openness to experience have been shown to
be more willing to try new things (Costa Jr & McCrae, 1992; King,
Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McCrae, 1987).
In terms of agreeableness, we suggest that given the relational na-
ture of shared leadership, higher collective levels of agreeableness will
make it more likely the team will benefit from the intervention. Agree-
able individuals are described as cooperative, good-natured, and
friendly towards others (Barrick & Mount, 1991), but previous research
on the effects of agreeableness on emergent leadership is equivocal.
Even though there is evidence that agreeableness results in higher levels
of emergent leadership (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009;
Cogliser, Gardner, Gavin, & Broberg, 2012; Judge & Bono, 2000), others
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
found no effects (Kickul & Neuman, 2000). Although the evidence re-
lated to leadership emergence is ambiguous, we believe that in order
to share leadership through granting and claiming, agreeableness is
critical.
Specifically, we suggest that in order to transfer a shared leadership
intervention into actually sharing leadership, members need to have the
ability to work together in a cooperative manner, share knowledge, and
develop relational links during the intervention. Indeed, these behaviors
have been demonstrated in examinations of interventions outside of
shared leadership (e.g., Rowold, 2007). In a similar vein, having a coop-
erative climate has also been shown to be a predictor of shared leader-
ship (Kukenberger & D'Innocenzo, 2020), and thus, we believe high
agreeableness will allow members to work together in order to gain
the benefits of the intervention and transfer to collectively granting
and claiming leadership in practice. Formally:
Hypothesis 4. Mean team-levels of openness to experience will posi-
tively interact with our shared leadership intervention such that the ef-
fect of the intervention on shared leadership will be stronger for teams
with higher mean levels of openness to experience.
Hypothesis 5. Mean team-levels of agreeableness will positively inter-
act with our shared leadership intervention such that the effect of the
intervention on shared leadership will be stronger for teams with
higher mean levels of agreeableness.
Methods
Sample
Our sample is comprised of 205 students in 53 teams, enrolled in
multiple sections of undergraduate- and graduate-level strategy courses
at a large Northeastern university. Teams competed in a complex busi-
ness simulation over ten weeks. A variety of majors were represented
(i.e., 27.9% Accounting, 35% Finance, 5.1% Health Care, 13.7% Manage-
ment, 7.1% Management Information Systems, 8.6% Marketing, 1% Real
Estate, 1.5% other), team size was a range between two and five mem-
bers (M = 3.87) and 31% of the sample were female.
Course instructors were asked to randomly assign teams who partic-
ipated in a comprehensive strategy simulation game using StratSim
Management Simulation (James & Deighan, 2008). Due to the consis-
tent administration of the task through the software, research on
teams has utilized this particular simulation in the past (for other exam-
ples see Mathieu at al., 2015; Zhu, Wolfson, Dalal, & Mathieu, 2020).
Teams represent virtual firms in the automobile industry that are com-
peting against each other for the duration of the 10-week simulation. All
teams compete within the same local industry and begin the simulation
at the same starting point so that no team begins with an advantage
over any other team. Each week represents a firm year and teams are
tasked with making nine strategic decisions in core business functions
(e.g., operations, marketing, R&D, finance) each year (i.e., week). Be-
cause the teams each represent a firm in this local competitive industry,
the software incorporates and processes all the teams' decisions in a dy-
namic and competitive environment and provides weekly reports to
each team including detailed feedback, non-proprietary competitor in-
formation, and information on the industry and macro-economic envi-
ronment. From the software, teams are able to obtain strategic
environment information on general market conditions, the operations
of their firm, customer segments and preferences, and the competitive
landscape. Teams use this information each week in combination with
their own prior decision feedback reports to make strategic decisions
for the current firm year. Decisions are made for things such as market-
ing and sales, yearly financials, operations, and product decisions. Some
descriptive examples include whether the firm should discontinue an
existing model, launch a new model, or bid for fleet contracts (complete
details can be found at https://schools.interpretive.com/).
5
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
Measures
Data was collected via online surveys throughout the 10-week sim-
ulation. Before the simulation began, we collected demographic infor-
mation, Big Five personality scores, and grade point averages (GPA) in
survey 1. Friendship ratings were collected in survey 2 which occurred
following Round 3 (see Fig. 2). Capturing friendship ratings early in
the simulation was critical for parsing out the effects of friendship ver-
sus shared leadership and aligns with recent research practices (see
Kukenberger & D'Innocenzo, 2020). Following a similar process as
Mathieu et al. (2015), we collected shared leadership survey measures
(along with team process as a covariate) between Rounds 3 and 4, be-
tween Rounds 6 and 7, and between Rounds 9 and 10 (see Fig. 2).
Shared leadership was measured following Carson et al.'s (2007) net-
work question (i.e., To what degree does your team rely on this individ-
ual for leadership?) across all three surveys on a Likert scale (1 = not at
all to 5 = to a very great extent). While this single item measure has
been recently utilized (see Mathieu, Tannenbaum, et al., 2015), re-
searchers have also measured shared leadership utilizing multi-item
network questions related to the type of processes or functions that re-
sult in team performance (see Chiu et al., 2016; DeRue et al., 2015). We
purposely measured shared leadership utilizing Carson et al.'s (2007)
omnibus measure in order to get a sense of overall leadership contribu-
tion from each individual. Questions linked to more specific leadership
functions, and thus related to the material within the intervention,
would be tautological. Aligned with Carson et al. (2007), we utilized
network density to index shared leadership, which represents a total
amount of leadership as perceived by other team members. Density
captures the magnitude of reciprocal leadership activities (DeRue,
2011) with higher levels capturing high levels of leadership interaction.
Density was found by summing all values (team members' ratings of
each other's leadership) and then dividing that sum by the total number
of possible ties, or relationships, among team members.
Team performance is based on the simulation (i.e., StratSim) gener-
ated team stock values, which occurred at the end of each week. Using
stock price as the performance measure provides an assessment of
each team's decision making relative to other teams in their industry.
The simulation reflects an actual market in that stock price represents
how teams implement strategies. More successful teams are able to de-
liver products more efficiently, price products higher, and dominate
niche markets, resulting in higher stock prices. Notably, students were
cognizant that stock price was a key component of their course grade,
and students were given performance feedback during a class prior to
each collection day for survey items. Again, following a similar design
by Mathieu et al. (2015), we used stock values at Rounds 3, 6, and 9,
which represents pre-performance, and Rounds 4, 7, and 10, which cor-
respond to the rounds following shared leadership collection (see
Fig. 2). Mathieu, Tannenbaum, et al. (2015) took this approach as well
because “…these pairings maintain an equal temporal balance between
the measures of cohesion and previous and subsequent performances
so as to render the relative influences comparable over time” (p. 721).
The Big Five personality dimensions were evaluated utilizing the
short IPIP 20 questionnaire (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006).
This questionnaire assesses each personality dimension utilizing four
items. Team members rated each item on a six-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Although our theoretical arguments and
hypotheses specifically pertain to only agreeableness and openness to
experience, all big five personality traits were included to control for
the variance explained by other traits and eliminate alternative expla-
nations for our results. Coefficient alphas were 0.64 (agreeableness),
0.60 (conscientiousness), 0.68 (openness to experience), 0.84 (extra-
version), and 0.63 (neuroticism), and each dimension was aggregated
to the team level.
Covariates. We included members' academic competence, measured
as the mean GPA of each team, as it has been positively related to
team outcomes (Devine & Philips, 2001; Eddy, Tannenbaum, &
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
Fig. 2. Study design.
Mathieu, 2013). As noted earlier, GPA was self-reported prior to the
start of the simulation. Noftle and Robins (2007) demonstrated that
college GPA can be considered a valuable index of academic compe-
tence and recent shared leadership research (i.e., Kukenberger &
D'Innocenzo, 2020; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, et al., 2015) has utilized
average overall GPA as a team level additive index of members' aca-
demic competence. Although Mathieu, Tannenbaum, et al. (2015) pro-
vide evidence of both non-significant and positive significant
correlations of academic competence with shared leadership across
multiple samples, we believe that accounting for member's task
knowledge is important. We also included proportion of women as a
covariate. Kukenberger and D'Innocenzo (2020) found that, under cer-
tain conditions, gender diversity can have a negative impact on shared
leadership which notably, decreased over time. Given that Joshi
(2014) found that the proportion of women on the team can impact
the extent to which women are recognized as experts, we chose to in-
clude this variable as a covariate.
Collective friendship. Due to the highly relational nature of shared
leadership, we include collective friendship as a covariate. Research
has stressed the importance of accounting for how social relationships
potentially affect leadership networks (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Likewise, a re-
lational view argues that leadership is an outcome of relational interac-
tions (Lichtenstein et al., 2006). Therefore, we suggest that an important
factor to consider is the nature of the social relationship (i.e., strength of
friendship ties). Although friendships are likely to be important in most
contexts, we believe these relationships may be especially salient in stu-
dent samples due to the bonding that can occur in undergraduate pro-
grams. Every team member rated each of his/her peers (1 = not at all
to 5 = to a very great extent) on the following: “To what extent
would you say you are friends with this teammate?” Density of the
friendship network was calculated by summing all values and then di-
viding that sum by the total number of possible ties.
Functional diversity. We also account for functional diversity as it has
been shown to be a driver of shared leadership (see Kukenberger &
D'Innocenzo, 2020). Given that functional diversity is viewed as a
form of variety diversity (Harrison & Klein, 2007), and in accordance
with previous research (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Gibson & Gibbs,
2006; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006), we calculated this variable
based on the participants' majors listed above in each team using Blau's
(1977) index. In a value range from zero to close to one, zero denotes a
complete lack of diversity, and close to one denotes a very high diversity
level. The minimum value in our study was 0.00 which indicates that
not all of the teams in our sample had functional background diversity.
Additionally, for our sample, the maximum value was 0.75, with a mean
diversity score of 0.48 and a standard deviation of 0.25.
6
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
Team process. We also included team process at all three time pe-
riods within our model given that our intervention is directly related
to team process. We used multi-item sub-scales that correspond to
Marks et al.'s (2001) including: transition processes (3 items,
e.g., “Members of my team develop an overall strategy to guide the
team's activities;”; action processes (4 items, e.g., “Members of my
team use clearly defined metrics to assess progress); and interpersonal
processes (3 items, e.g., “Members of my team deal with personal con-
flicts in fair and equitable ways;”). The team process score showed suf-
ficient agreement, and significant ICCs for each time period: time 1
(median rwg = 0.86; ICC1 = 0.21; ICC2 = 0.49 α = 0.89), time 2 (me-
dian rwg = 0.90; ICC1 = 0.11; ICC2 = 0.30 α = 0.87), and time 3 (me-
dian rwg = 0.92; ICC1 = 0.15; ICC2 = 0.38 α = 0.93).
Research design and shared leadership intervention
Our study represents a cluster-randomized, quasi-experimental
(treatment) design. As for the quasi-experimental design aspect, the
shared leadership intervention was randomly assigned to classes to
simulate industry sections (Raudenbush, 1997). In other words, all
teams were assigned to a single industry and either (a) the training con-
dition or (b) the quasi-control condition. Therefore, teams were not ran-
domly assigned to conditions and there were no classes in which some
teams received the intervention and others did not. This design enabled
us to introduce the intervention without disadvantaging any teams
within a class because their course grades were based, in part, on their
team's simulation performance relative to the other teams within
their specific class section. The intervention program was delivered to
24 teams in 3 class sections around the mid-point of the simulation (be-
fore the second shared leadership survey), whereas 29 teams in 3 class
sections served as quasi-controls and did not receive any intervention.
The intervention took place between rounds 4 and 5, which is after
the first shared leadership measure and before the second and third
shared leadership measures (see Fig. 2).
On a class-by-class basis, delivery of the 90-min intervention pro-
gram was implemented by the same members of the research team.
The intervention focused on team processes (Marks et al., 2001) and
the functional approach to team leadership (McGrath, 1962). Team pro-
cesses are team activities that members engage in interdependently
that guide and facilitate task execution. Marks et al. (2001) delineate
three overarching categories of team processes: transition, action, and
interpersonal processes. The functional approach to leadership
(McGrath, 1962) emphasizes that leadership is making sure the func-
tions needed to fulfill team needs are performed (Zaccaro et al., 2001).
Our intervention applied the functional approach, explained the team
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al. The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499

processes that need to be led and explained that one or more team Table 1
members can occupy leader roles by satisfying group needs and fulfill- Independent sample t-test between pre-intervention control and intervention group
variables.
ing important group processes (Paunova, 2015). The intervention pro-
gram consisted of multiple stages and consisted of the following Intervention Control
components: (a) transition/planning processes, (b) action processes, (N = 24) (N = 29)

(c) interpersonal/conflict management processes (e.g., motivation and Variables Mean SD Mean SD t-value Sig.
conflict resolution) and (d) role alignment. 1. Collective Competence 3.50 0.12 3.49 0.16 .19 ns
In the first stage of each component, the intervention facilitators in- 2. Percentage of Women 27.71 20.46 34.20 28.50 −.93 ns
troduced the idea of each component to the entire class and communi- 3. Collective Friendship 3.25 0.42 3.24 0.61 .09 ns
cated that engagement of these team processes results in stronger 4. Functional Diversity 0.56 0.21 0.43 0.26 2.00 ns
5. Mean Openness 4.51 0.45 4.39 0.47 .91 ns
downstream outcomes. The facilitator also noted that leadership can 6. Mean Agreeableness 4.48 0.48 4.52 0.46 −.25 ns
be shared among team members related to each topic and that when 7. Mean Extroversion 3.99 0.62 4.11 0.63 −.72 ns
leadership is shared, teams benefit. For example, for transition/planning 8. Mean Neuroticism 3.02 0.47 2.97 0.55 .39 ns
processes, the facilitators detail components related to developing a 9. Mean Conscientiousness 4.38 0.40 4.32 0.46 .51 ns
10. Shared Leadership 3–4 3.15 0.44 3.20 0.79 −.28 ns
strategy, mission analysis, goal agreement, and planning. They empha-
11. Processes 3–4 4.25 0.49 4.14 0.55 .80 ns
sized that successful teams revisit and reassess their plans/strategy 12. Stock 3 50.60 9.72 43.61 17.25 1.76 ns
throughout the team lifecycle and these processes require leadership. 13. Stock 4 48.56 7.79 45.01 11.77 1.26 ns
After detailing the category, each team was provided a worksheet Note. Sample 1 N = 53 teams. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001.
with the subcategory definitions and asked to evaluate their past and
current team process and develop a plan for the process moving for-
ward. This allowed each team to not only examine their past and cur-
code, mean personality, mean GPA, collective friendship, and gender
rent process but also to delineate their specific leadership behaviors
percentage were level 2 between-team influences.
regarding these areas with one-on-one help from intervention
The level 1 (within-teams) model used temporal parameters to
facilitators.
model variable trajectories and to predict changes in each outcome var-
This was repeated for action processes in that the facilitator first
iable using linear and quadratic time functions, associated with simula-
highlighted the subcategories (to the entire class) of action processes
tion rounds. Orthogonal polynomials were used to index temporal
(i.e., member coordination, member back- up behavior, goal progress,
trends which accurately represents the trends while producing uncor-
and tracking resources) and that these processes need to be led and
related variables (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009). Aligned with Mathieu et al.
will benefit from multiple members leading. Once again, teams were
(2015) approach, this allowed us to decompose the total criterion vari-
given a worksheet related to the processes and asked to evaluate their
ance that covaries with each temporal effect and resulted in the inter-
past and current processes and to develop a plan for leading these pro-
cept term representing team performance of the simulation during the
cesses moving forward. This was repeated for interpersonal processes.
midpoint. Given that the time-based nature of the outcomes indicates
Subsequently, teams came up with task-specific action plans related to
that level 1 errors will exhibit some degree of auto-correlation and
future shared leadership.
may not be independent (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002), we first modeled
Finally, the role alignment portion of the intervention program fo-
the impact of linear and quadratic trends on level 1 shared leadership
cused on individual knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics
and performance (see Bliese & Ployhart, 2002; Mathieu, Kukenberger,
(i.e., KSAOs) very broadly defined and emphasized leveraging each indi-
et al., 2015; Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010). We created a common metric
vidual and their leadership fit with different areas in their particular
for comparison by creating z-scores for all variables. Notably, we z-
team. We provided alternative types of shared leadership schemes
scored shared leadership, processes, and performance utilizing their
(i.e., all members take on leadership in each process or distribute lead-
total distributions across time which maintains the relative time-
ership across processes) and noted that teams need to decide how to al-
based, between and within variances of scores. In order to examine
locate leadership. During the intervention (i.e., training), the facilitators
our hypotheses over time, we created product terms between shared
suggested that teams may choose to distribute leadership by having
leadership, performance, and our orthogonal polynomials at level-1
each member take the lead on each process or by having some mix
which is aligned with past approaches (see Mathieu, Kukenberger,
based on time, interest, and KSAO strength. Teams were then encour-
et al., 2015). Employing random coefficients growth modeling tech-
aged to consider their leadership type and develop a leadership process
niques in hierarchical multivariate linear modeling (HMLM,
plan for the remainder of the simulation.
Raudenbush et al., 2004), we first fit a baseline or “null” model to deter-
For analytic purposes, trained teams were coded “1” and the quasi-
mine the percentage of outcome variance that resided within- and
control teams were coded “0.” Given that the program was delivered
between-teams (Pituch, Murphy, & Tate, 2009). We then modeled the
(or not) on a class-by-class basis, control groups were not impacted in
influences of linear and quadratic temporal trends on the level 1 shared
any way by the intervention. Notably, there were no significant differ-
leadership and performance relationship (see Bliese & Ployhart, 2002;
ences between the control and intervention groups' means as deter-
Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010). Next, we introduced predictors from level 1
mined by a series of independent sample t-tests (see Table 1).
and then level 2 to test substantive relationships. Notably, as outlined
by Antonakis, Bastardoz, and Rönkkö (2019) we included the cluster
means (un-centered) of our level 1 substantive variables (i.e., shared
Estimation method
leadership, processes, and performance) to the model, as covariates,
along with the group mean centered variables themselves. The cluster
We used hierarchical multivariate linear modeling (HMLM;
means represent the mean of each variable across all three time points.
Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004) and utilized a multistage
model building approach to test our hypothesized relationships in HLM
version 7.0.1 We utilized a mixed-model or two-level framework (see Results
Mathieu, Kukenberger, et al., 2015; Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010) where
stock price and shared leadership were within-team or temporally vary- Performance
ing variables at level 1 with three repeated measures. The intervention
Table 2 reports descriptive statistics and correlations and Table 3
1
Full model formulae are available in Online Appendices A&B. presents a summary of the two-level HMLM model. The baseline

7
 L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.

Table 2
Longitudinal study variable descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variables Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

1. Collective Competence 3.50 .14 1.00

2. Percentage of Women 31.26 25.17 .29 1.00
3. Collective Friendship 3.24 .53 −.32 −.01 1.00
4. Functional Diversity .48 .25 −.31 .01 .19 1.00
5. Mean Openness 4.44 .46 −.02 −.27 .05 .24 1.00
6. Mean Agreeableness 4.50 .47 .16 .37 .04 .00 .10 1.00
7. Mean Extroversion 4.05 .62 .18 .30 .01 .01 .20 .43 1.00
8. Mean Neuroticism 3.00 .51 .07 .29 −.07 .14 −.13 .06 .05 1.00
9. Mean Conscientiousness 4.35 .43 .19 .41 −.09 −.07 −.03 .19 .20 −.02 1.00
10. SL Intervention .45 .50 .03 −.13 .01 .27 .13 −.03 −.10 .06 .07 1.00
11. Stock 3 46.77 14.64 .03 −.12 .14 .25 .05 −.06 .03 −.05 −.04 .24 1.00
12. Shared Leadership 3–4 3.17 .66 −.50 −.31 .43 .13 −.13 −.16 −.23 −.26 −.24 −.03 .11 1.00

8
13. Processes 3–4 4.19 .52 .09 .02 −.11 −.24 −.13 .04 .07 −.07 .09 .11 .18 .04 1.00
14. Stock 4 46.62 10.23 −.01 −.13 .04 .27 .08 .07 .08 −.13 .10 .17 .87 .07 .14 1.00
15. Stock 6 40.61 24.28 .13 .07 .21 .13 .01 .01 .14 −.11 −.11 .35 .65 .07 .04 .49 1.00
16. Shared Leadership 6–7 3.33 .80 −.29 −.25 .52 .23 −.02 −.08 −.21 −.28 −.13 .32 .31 .60 .14 .18 .33 1.00
17. Processes 6–7 4.61 .41 .12 .17 −.02 .15 .03 .11 .10 −.09 .34 .20 .26 −.07 .27 .25 .17 .41 1.00
18. Stock 7 42.06 20.82 .04 −.09 .19 .16 .02 −.09 .10 −.13 −.14 .32 .78 .12 .04 .62 .94 .37 .15 1.00
19. Stock 9 50.49 33.44 .13 .09 .21 .16 −.01 −.09 .02 −.13 −.18 .35 .41 .06 −.14 .22 .79 .25 .00 .73 1.00
20. Shared Leadership 9–10 3.70 .69 .07 .11 .24 .28 .11 .14 −.15 −.01 .04 .46 .33 .12 .14 .21 .37 .61 .45 .28 .42 1.00
21. Processes 9–10 4.55 .61 .12 .04 .17 .13 .12 .09 .20 −.07 .11 .29 .45 −.02 .33 .37 .28 .51 .70 .33 .09 .44 1.00
22. Stock 10 53.97 39.77 .12 .08 .21 .17 .01 −.14 −.05 −.19 −.13 .29 .23 .03 −.20 .07 .58 .23 .02 .52 .91 .42 .04 1.00
Cluster Means^
23. Processes 4.45 .41 .13 .09 .03 .01 .01 .10 .16 −.10 .21 .26 .39 −.02 .68 .32 .21 .46 .81 .23 −.01 .43 .89 −.06 1.00
24. Shared Leadership 3.40 .57 −.30 −.19 .50 .27 −.01 −.05 −.24 −.23 −.13 .32 .32 .71 .14 .19 .33 .94 .34 .33 .31 .73 .41 .28 .38 1.00
25. Pre-Stock Price 45.96 21.26 .13 .04 .22 .19 .01 −.06 .07 −.12 −.14 .37 .69 .08 −.02 .50 .94 .33 .12 0.92 .92 .44 .26 .75 .16 .36 1.00
26. Post-Performance 47.55 19.16 0.10 −.00 .22 .22 .03 −.12 .01 −.20 −.12 .35 .60 .08 −0.10 .45 .83 .32 .11 .84 .93 .43 .21 .89 0.10 .35 .94

Note. Sample 1 N = 53 teams. Correlations appear in lower right triangle. p > |.27|, p < .05. > |.35|, p < .01. ^ Cluster Mean across three time points.
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al. The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499

analysis revealed that 25% of the variance of team performance was be-
tween teams, with 75% occurring within teams over time. Regressing
dynamic team performance onto the linear [β = 0.12, SE = 0.09, ns]
and quadratic [β = 0.15, SE = 0.04, p = .001] temporal parameters,
the quadratic effect suggests that performance declined during the
first half of the simulation. This is likely the product of the simulation
design. During the initial round, teams are investing in infrastructure
and positioning their firms in the marketplace which requires capital in-
vestment. At about round six, the investments start to pay off and, on
average, the teams start to show an increasing performance trajectory
until the end of the simulation. Different team performance trajectories
are evidenced by the variance surrounding the performance trend.
Next, we added team process [β = −0.08, SE = 0.05, ns] and shared
leadership [β = 0.16, SE = 0.06, p = .01], which were significant, along
with their corresponding cluster means. After including the interven-
tion and covariates, introducing shared leadership with the time prod-
uct terms evidenced a significant interaction with the linear effect
[β = 0.17, SE = 0.08, p = .04] but not with the quadratic effect [β = Fig. 3. Shared leadership performance relations by time interaction.
−0.01, SE = 0.04, ns] (see step 4, Table 3). We calculated the simple
slopes and graphed our significant interactions utilizing Preacher and
Bauer's online tool (http://www.quantpsy.org/interact/hlm2.htm) de- of modeling shared leadership relationships over time and model 4
signed to facilitate the testing and probing of interactions estimated in accounted for a ~ R2 = 0.31 (see Snijders & Bosker, 1999), and Δχ2
hierarchical linear regression models (HLMs) (Bauer & Curran, 2005; 7.02(df = 2) p = .03 of the overall variance in team performance.
Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Fig. 3 illustrates the significant shared
leadership by time interaction, as related to team performance, which is
consistent with hypothesis 1 in that the relationship was negative and Shared leadership
not significant at Time 1 (β = −0.15, SE = 0.11, ns), positive and not
significant at Time 2 (β = 0.06, SE = 0.06, ns) and was positive and sig- Table 4 presents a summary of the results of the two-level HMLM
nificant at Time 3 (β = 0.27, SE = 0.11, p = .02). It is important to note model to test our hypotheses on shared leadership. The baseline analy-
that Fig. 3 depicts our three measurement time periods of shared lead- ses revealed that 37% of the variance related to shared leadership oc-
ership, which do not correspond to rounds 1–3 of the simulation itself curred between teams and 63% occurred within teams over time.
but rather encompasses the shared leadership survey time periods de- Regressing shared leadership onto the linear [β = 0.29, SE = 0.07,
tailed above and in Fig. 2. Our findings show that the magnitude of the p = .001] effect was positive and significant, but the quadratic [β =
shared leadership performance relationship changes over time with a 0.07, SE = 0.04, ns] effect was not significant, thus demonstrating a lin-
negative and nonsignificant coefficient initially and a positive and sig- ear effect. While performance [β = 0.29, SE = 0.10, p = .006] has a pos-
nificant effect at Time 3. This result underscores the critical importance itive relationship with shared leadership (see step 2, Table 4), neither

Table 3
Influences of temporally varying and fixed team characteristics on dynamic team performance.

1 2 3 4 5

Temporal Trends
Linear .12(.09) .09(.09) .08(.09) .05(.09) .05(.09)
Quadratic .15(.04)** .12(.04)** .13(.04)** .09(.05) .09(.05)
Time Varying
Shared Leadership .16(.06)* .18(.06)** .25(.08)** .25(.07)**
Team Process −.08(.05) −.05(.05) −.04(.05) −.05(.05)
Shared Leadership Cluster Mean .04(.05) −.02(.07) .16(.09) .16(.09)
Team Process Cluster Mean .14(.06)* .14(.06)* .12(.06)* .12(.06)*
Between Team .
Intervention .03(.05) .02(.05) .02(.05)
Collective Friendship .01(.05) .01(.05) .03(.05)
Functional Diversity .15(.05)** .15(.05)** .15(.06)*
Percentage of Females −.08(.06) −.08(.06) −.08(.06)
Collective Competence .08(.05) .07(.05) .06(.06)
Mean Extroversion −.04(.05) −.04(.05) −.04(.05)
Mean Agreeableness .06(.05) .06(.05) .05(.05)
Mean Openness to Experience −.02(.05) −.02(.05) −.02(.05)
Mean Neuroticism −.06(.05) −.06(.05) −.06(.05)
Mean Conscientiousness .06(.05) .06(.05) .07(.05)
Within-Level Interactions
Shared Leadership by Linear .17(.08)* .17(.08)*
Shared Leadership by Quadratic −.01(.04) −.01(.04)
Between-Level Interactions
Intervention by Mean Openness to Experience .05(.05)
Intervention by Mean Agreeableness −.02(.05)
~R2 .03 .12 .29 .31 .32
Δχ2 (df)a 11.77(2)** 11.77(4)* 11.52(10) 7.02(2)* 1.36(2)

Notes. N = 53 Teams over three occasions each. Values are parameter estimates with standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 a Nested Chi-square Difference Test from previous step.

9
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al. The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499

Table 4
Influences of temporally varying and fixed team characteristics on dynamic shared leadership.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Temporal Trends
Linear .29(.07)*** .25(.07)*** .25(.07)** .24(.06)*** .25(.07)*** .26(.06)***
Quadratic .07(.04) .04(.05) .05(.05) .06(.06) .05(.05) .06(.05)
Time Varying
Performance .29(0.10)** .28(.11)* .15(.13) .15(.13) .13(.13)
Team Process .08(.09) .10(.09) .13(.09) .10(.09) .10(.08)
Performance Cluster Mean .21(.08)* .14(.08) .13(.08) .15(.08) .15(.08)
Team Process Cluster mean .15(.08) .26(.07)*** .28(.07)** .26(.07)** .25(.07)**
Between Team
Intervention .09(.08) .08(.08) .08(.08) .09(.08)
Collective Friendship .24(.07)** .28(.07)** .23(.07)** .24(.07)**
Functional Diversity .10(.08) .10(.08) .10(.08) .09(.08)
Percentage of Females −.03(.09) −.07(.09) −.04(.10) −.04(.10)
Collective Competence −.09(.08) −.10(.08) −.10(.08) −.10(.08)
Mean Extroversion −.22(.08)** −.21(.08)** −.22(.08)** −.22(.08)**
Mean Agreeableness .11(.08) .10(.08) .11(.08) .11(.08)
Mean Openness to Experience −.04(.07) −.06(.07) −.04(.08) −.04(.08)
Mean Neuroticism −.09(.07) −.11(.07) −.09(.07) −.09(.07)
Mean Conscientiousness −.04(.08) −.05(.08) −.04(.08) −.04(.08)
Within-Level Interactions
Performance by Linear .13(.09) .14(.09) .09(.09)
Performance by Quadratic −.10(.07) −.10(.05) −.06(.06)
Between-Level Interactions
Intervention by Mean Openness to Experience −.00(.07) −.00(.07)
Intervention by Agreeableness .01(.07) .01(.07)
Cross-Level Interactions
Intervention by Linear .14(.06)*
Intervention by Quadratic −.06(.04)
~R2 .06 .25 .52 .53 .53 .55
Δχ2 (df)a 18.40(2)*** 16.47(4)** 25.26(10)** 3.51(2) .01(2) 7.33(2)*

Notes. N = 53 Teams over three occasions each. Values are parameter estimates with standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 a Nested Chi-square Difference Test from previous step.

performance by linear [β = 0.13, SE = 0.09, ns] nor performance by

quadratic [β = −0.10, SE = 0.07, ns] (see step 4) is significant, showing
that the strength of this relationship does not increase over time
(supporting hypothesis 2). Thus, unlike the shared leadership ➔ perfor-
mance relationship, the magnitude of the performance ➔ shared leader-
ship relationship does not appear to change over time.
The intervention dummy code [β = 0.09, SE = 0.08, ns] in step 3 was
not significant. However, introducing the intervention with the time
product terms (step 6) evidenced a significant interaction with the lin-
ear effect [β = 0.14, SE = 0.06, p = .03] but not with the quadratic effect
[β = −0.06, SE = 0.04, ns]. As shown in Fig. 4, the magnitude of the pos-
itive relationship grows stronger over time for the intervention (β =
0.41, SE = 0.10, p = .001) but not the control groups (β = 0.13,
SE = 0.17, ns), consistent with hypothesis 3. Finally, the product term
of the intervention and mean openness to experience [β = −0.00,
SE = 0.07, ns] did not relate to shared leadership nor did the product Fig. 4. Shared leadership time relations by the intervention.
term of mean agreeableness [β = 0.01, SE = 0.07, ns], thus we did not
find support for hypotheses 4 or 5.

did not evidence changes over time as the countervailing influences

Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to develop a model and test
1) the development of shared leadership through a team-based inter-
vention and 2) the temporal nature of shared leadership. In addition,
we also considered the influence of team member characteristics
(agreeableness and openness to experience) to demonstrate the effect
of composition on intervention effectiveness and shared leadership de-
velopment. Drawing on the rationale of adaptive leadership theory
(DeRue, 2011) and the premise of double-interacts (Weick, 1979), we
found that shared leadership positively relates to team performance,
and this relationship gets stronger over time. Furthermore, as antici-
pated, the reciprocal relationship of performance on shared leadership
washed away any potential positive or negative influence. We find
that the shared leadership to performance relationship grew stronger
and positive, whereas the performance to shared leadership relation-
ship remained consistent over time. We also provided evidence that
teams who engaged with our intervention evidenced stronger shared
leadership ➔ team performance trajectories than teams who did not re-
ceive the intervention.
Notably, we constructed a team-centric intervention targeted at in-
creasing the emergence of shared leadership in teams. Leveraging the
rationale of the functional leadership approach, we designed an inter-
vention program based on team process requirements focusing on tran-
sition, action, and interpersonal processes (Marks et al., 2001; Morgeson
et al., 2010) and team leadership structures for satisfying those team

10
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
needs. We find that teams who engaged with our intervention evi-
denced stronger shared leadership trajectories than teams who did
not receive the intervention. Furthermore, we proposed that team com-
positional attributes would facilitate the effectiveness of the interven-
tion but did not find support for that assertion.
Theoretical implications
With the prevalence of team-based organizational structures, two
specific streams of literature are experiencing steady growth: shared
leadership and team development. The leadership structure of teams
is considered shared when informal leadership roles and influence are
distributed among team members (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016) and lead-
ership and followership are reciprocal and mutually reinforcing
(DeRue, 2011). Because research has provided substantial evidence
that shared leadership is typically positively correlated with perfor-
mance (see D'Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Wang
et al., 2014 for recent meta- analyses), scholars have worked to uncover
antecedents of shared leadership such as team trust (Drescher et al.,
2014), task ambiguity (Serban & Roberts, 2016), leader humility (Chiu
et al., 2016), team-level warmth and competence (DeRue et al., 2015),
and functional diversity (Kukenberger & D'Innocenzo, 2020).
Notwithstanding the important contributions of the extant shared lead-
ership research, the overwhelming majority of studies have employed
cross-sectional studies or time-lagged studies. Given that shared leader-
ship has been defined as “an emergent and dynamic team phenomenon
wherein leadership roles and influence are distributed among team
members” (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016, p. 1968, emphasis added), our
study was intentionally designed to account for the temporal nature of
shared leadership and corresponding performance relationship. Unlike
prior studies, we were able to both theoretically and empirically exam-
ine the magnitude of the shared leadership ➔ performance and perfor-
mance ➔ shared leadership relationships longitudinally over time. This
is a significant contribution to both shared leadership literature and the
literature on adaptive leadership theories, which both emphasize the
role of time in the dynamic and fluid claiming and granting of leader
and follower roles in the leadership process.
Additionally, our study provides evidence that, in addition to the
contextual and compositional antecedents that foster shared leadership,
training and development can also encourage shared leadership. Lead-
ership training is typically rooted in formal leadership theories and fo-
cuses on successful leader behaviors for leaders in formally appointed
roles (Lacerenza et al., 2017). Whereas the accumulated research on tra-
ditional leadership and leadership development is highly informative
when it comes to the leadership of one individual, it is unclear whether
these concepts are isomorphic (i.e., applies across levels to the shared
leadership phenomena; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Indeed, the very
question researchers have explored related to leadership development
(i.e., what characteristics distinguish leaders from other people) is
counter to the nature of shared leadership exchange. However, team de-
velopment interventions focus on effective team processes, measure-
ment systems, and feedback approaches (Shuffler et al., 2018) and not
the development of leadership, per se. By integrating theoretical and
practical insights from both leader training and team development re-
search, we developed, implemented, and tested an intervention that is
specific to shared leadership. As a significant contribution to the litera-
ture, we provide evidence that shared leadership can be facilitated
with a specific intervention.
We should also note that we employed a density approach to con-
ceptualization and operationalization of shared leadership. Shared lead-
ership has been studied in many ways, with the most popular
approach being the aggregate measure whereby traditional leadership
behaviors have been recast at the team-level and assessed by team
members as a whole (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016). While this approach
has been informative, there are a number of limitations (see Zhu, Liao,
Yam, & Johnson, 2018 for a recent review). Notably, we used a density
11
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
approach to assess shared leadership as we were theoretically inter-
ested in the overall amount of shared leadership on the team. However,
it should be noted that there are other ways of assessing shared leader-
ship using various forms of network indices including centralization
(e.g., Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, 2006) and even a combination
of both density and centralization (e.g., D'Innocenzo et al., 2016;
Kukenberger, D'Innocenzo, & Shin, 2019). We encourage researchers
to utilize other methods of operationalizing shared leadership with
the caveat that the measure should align with the theoretical approach.
Drawing on team development research, which suggests that in
order to meet training goals and objectives a needs analysis needs to
be conducted in order to identify elements that would result in perfor-
mance improvements (Brown, 2002; Lacerenza et al., 2018), we de-
signed our intervention using team-centric leadership needs identified
as important to team processes that are critical to team effectiveness
(Marks et al., 2001; Morgeson et al., 2010). By taking this approach,
our intervention can be used as a universal shared leadership interven-
tion in work teams. However, although designed as a universal inter-
vention, we have only implemented and tested its benefits in one
study. Thus, future research should further test the implementation of
shared leadership interventions to further our knowledge of their ef-
fects. While we demonstrated the shared leadership intervention was
positively related to increased shared leadership over time, other re-
search could examine other outcomes. For example, in line with re-
search that shows that team development can foster a cooperative
climate, future research could examine whether a shared leadership in-
tervention has effects on other emergent states such as climate or team
viability, which may result in compounding positive effects on down-
stream team performance.
This study also examined the impact of mean levels of personality
related to the success of the intervention. DeRue et al. (2011) provide
meta-analytic evidence that personality traits of extraversion, conscien-
tiousness, and agreeableness are predictors of success in informal lead-
ership emergence. While it may be tempting to rely on the decades of
research on individual leader emergence, a complete picture of shared
leadership requires a shift of cognitive focus from individual to collec-
tive emergent exchange (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Offermann,
Kennedy Jr, & Wirtz, 1994). Indeed, assuming that extraversion, consci-
entiousness, and agreeableness would apply across different levels of
analysis would equate to what Rousseau (1985) and Chen, Bliese, and
Mathieu (2005) suggest is a multi-level fallacy in that relationships at
one level of analysis will not automatically be observed at a different
level of analysis.
In this work, we suggest that team-level agreeableness and team-
level openness to experience are important factors for the success of
the intervention. However, we did not find that either openness to ex-
perience or higher mean levels of agreeableness increase the benefit
from the shared leadership intervention. Bearing in mind that Bell
(2007) found that team minimums related to agreeableness can have
a negative impact, it may be that shared leadership, generally, will
thrive in conditions when some traits with high means combine with
low minimums, maximums, or more complex patterned configurations
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). We suggest that future work examine per-
sonality and other individual differences including gender, education,
race/ethnicity, and tenure (e.g., Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003;
Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2001; Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004; Li &
Hambrick, 2005; Mohammed & Angell, 2003, 2004; Simons, Pelled, &
Smith, 1999; Timmerman, 2000; Townsend & Scott, 2001) in addition
to team roles (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, et al., 2015) utilizing complex
configural patterns.
Limitations of the study
As is the case with any empirical investigation, there are tradeoffs to
consider that may present limitations. First, the study was conducted
using students taking part in course work in a 10-week simulation
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
with no formal leadership system and relatively small team sizes. While
student samples are sometimes viewed as less valuable compared to
field samples, research suggests that laboratory studies in organiza-
tional behavior domains tend to have sufficient external validity
(Mitchell, 2012). In fact, in their meta-analysis examining the relation-
ship between shared leadership and team performance, D'Innocenzo
et al. (2016) found that student samples provided a conservative esti-
mate of results. Another potential limitation of our sample involves
the random assignment of students to teams. Although we worked to
mitigate this limitation by instructing them to use a random number
generator when assigning teams, we relied on the course instructors
to randomly assign team members and therefore, did not have direct
control of this process. To mitigate potential influences, we added func-
tional diversity and collective friendship as covariates in our model. Fi-
nally, teams were assigned to the control and intervention groups
based on their class sections. In other words, entire class sections were
assigned to the control or assigned to the intervention. Given that the
instructor was aware that we would be coming into the classroom,
prior to the simulation, we cannot completely rule out the existence of
an experimenter effect or what is commonly referred to as a Hawthorne
effect. To mitigate these concerns, as noted in Table 1, we ran checks for
any significant differences on all variables, prior to the intervention, in
each condition, and found no significant differences. Furthermore, the
context presented here is a hybrid setting, which has many of the
same beneficial features of laboratory settings with participants also en-
gaged in a ‘real world’ project simulation combined with actual implica-
tions (i.e., grades) in a highly complex environment. Similar to many
project teams in real world settings, the teams in our sample functioned
for over 10 weeks and had joint process and outcome interdepen-
dencies. Indeed, the simulation context has received support from
many researchers as it balances a controlled environment with real-
world fidelity (Marks, 2000; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, &
Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In particular, this specific sample allowed us
to run a cluster-randomized, quasi-experimental design where we
could better isolate the effect of a shared leadership intervention. It
also allowed us an opportunity to design a study where we could main-
tain an equal temporal balance between our measures of shared leader-
ship and performance to render the relative influences comparable over
time. While this design approach brings us closer to causal interpreta-
tion, we cannot guarantee causality. To the extent possible, we encour-
age researchers to investigate the influence of shared leadership
interventions within organizations to assess the usefulness of this prac-
tice in various settings.
Additionally, our intervention used the functional approach to lead-
ership and drew from the Marks et al. (2001) team processes to delin-
eate those team processes that need to be led. As such, the
intervention facilitators needed to provide basic education regarding
the specific team processes in addition to the specific leadership train-
ing which not only emphasized that each of these team processes
need to be led, but also emphasized that teams may benefit from shared
leadership related to these processes. Because the leadership interven-
tion also required basic team process education, we consider the fact
that we did not have a condition that exclusively received the team pro-
cess education (i.e., no leadership training) as a limitation to our study.
Although, it is notable that we found results even when including team
processes as a covariate within our model. We do suggest that future re-
search tests whether there are significant differences in training using
different intervention types. For example, including all team processes
versus specific team processes (e.g., focusing on transition processes ex-
clusively) may enable researchers to uncover differential impacts of var-
ious leadership strategies. Furthermore, it would be interesting to
explore a traditional leadership approach versus an intervention with
an emphasis on shared leadership. Additionally, given that our shared
leadership measure was calculated from survey ratings, we need to ac-
knowledge the possibility of demand effects (Zizzo, 2010). It is possible
that participants increased their ratings of shared leadership after the
12
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
intervention because they realized from the intervention that shared
leadership was what we were interested in. However, in an aim to
avoid demand effects, none of our survey items asked participants to ex-
plicitly rate the level of shared leadership on their team nor did any of
the survey items ask about shared leadership. Instead, they asked mem-
bers to rate each individual member's leadership contribution indepen-
dently. Additionally, our dependent variable is an objective
performance measure and our results showed that shared leadership
impacts team performance (i.e., stock price). Therefore, we believe
that demand effects were minimized by both our choice of measures
and our design. However, future research should be mindful of the pos-
sibility of demand effects following interventions especially when using
survey data.
We employed a measure of density to operationalize shared leader-
ship as it best aligned with our construct's conceptualization and is the
most often utilized network shared leadership measure (see
D'Innocenzo et al., 2016 for a shared leadership index review and
meta-analysis). However, and as noted above, shared leadership can
be conceptualized and subsequently operationalized in different ways.
In addition to density, centralization has also been used to represent
the distribution of dyadic ties in the overall network (Wasserman &
Faust, 1994). In shared leadership research, team centralization would
determine if leadership resides within a single individual or spread
across multiple team members. Related, team centralization may
shine a light on the degree to which leadership is (un)evenly shared
within a team (Kukenberger et al., 2019). Indeed, particularly in social
network research that leverages valued data ratings, it may be of inter-
est for researchers to understand the degree to which leadership scores
align or are dispersed. For example, are leadership scores clustered
around the mean or spread across the range of responses? In a robust-
ness check, we ran our model including a measure of shared leadership
disparity (utilizing the coefficient of variation) and, separately, shared
leadership separation (utilizing standard deviation). The addition of
these measures did not substantively change our model nor did they
have an impact on performance. However, we suggest that future
work might consider other diversity measures (see Harrison & Klein,
2007) or more complex patterned approaches suggested in recent con-
ceptual work (see Contractor et al., 2012). Indeed, a single density score
may obscure significant differences (e.g., a team with a score of 1 and 5
versus a team having a 3 and 3). While the leadership structure, beyond
high and low levels of shared leadership, was not the focus of our study,
we encourage future research to consider new strategies in detailing
team leadership structures.
Although outside the scope of this study, prior research has sug-
gested team interdependence can influence the way teams interact. In
regard to shared leadership, meta- analytic results offer varying results.
For example, Nicolaides et al. (2014) found no significant association
with low interdependence and a significant association with high and
moderate interdependence. In contrast, D'Innocenzo et al. (2016) re-
ported no influence of team task interdependence on shared leadership
in their meta-analysis. Given these findings, we recommend future re-
search should examine how teams might share leadership over time
in different ways depending on their composition and level of
interdependence.
Practical implications
The findings of this study with respect to shared leadership and lead-
ership development interventions offer several potential implications
for organizations using team-based structures. Specifically, our work
suggests that organizations can utilize shared leadership interventions,
which integrate leadership training in tandem with team development
interventions, to facilitate and encourage shared leadership. Our results
specifically suggest that interventions that articulate the benefits of
shared leadership across the three critical team processes
(i.e., transition, action, interpersonal, Marks et al., 2001) improve team
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al. The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499

performance over time. When teams are provided with guidance on ZPOSTPRE = π0 + π1(ZOLINEAR) + π2(ZOQUAD) + π3
these three critical team processes and encouraged to share leadership (ZSHARED) + π4(ZPCSHARED) + π5(ZPROCESS) + π6
across these team needs, our results show that over time, they reap per- (ZPCROCESS) + π7(ZSLXLIN) + π8(ZSLXQUAD) + ꜫ.
formance benefits. Level 2 Model.
Because shared leadership consists of both shared leadership and π0 = β00 + β01(ZINTERV) + β02(ZEXTERVE) + β03
shared followership, shared leadership interventions provide organiza- (ZAGREABLE) + β04(ZCON) + β05(ZNEUR) + β06(ZOPEN) + β07
tions a platform in which to explain the benefits of shared leadership to (ZMGPA) + β08(ZGENPG) + β09(ZFRIEND) + β010(ZOXI) + β011
their work teams, highlight the importance of each of the team pro- (ZAXI) + β012(ZFUNDIV).
cesses and leadership functions necessary to carry out each process, π0 = β10.
and explain the importance of aligning roles (i.e., leadership roles) π3 = β30.
with individual team members' KSAOs. In shared leadership training, π4 = β40.
team members learn how to leverage each member's leadership fit π5 = β50.
along the different needs within the team processes. In this way, team π6 = β60.
members also start to learn when (i.e., for which team process func- π7 = β70.
tions) it is appropriate for them to lead and when it is ideal for them π8 = β80.
to follow. Typical leadership training focuses on leading effectively in π9 = β90.
formal leader roles, and team development interventions focus on help- Combined Model.
ing members to develop effective team processes, measurement sys- ZPOSTPRE = β00 + β01*ZINTERV + β02*ZEXTERVE +
tems, and feedback approaches. However, both leadership and team β03*ZAGREABLE + β04*ZCON + β05*ZNEUR + β06*ZOPEN +
training are silent on effective ways to engage in shared leadership β07*ZMGPA + β08*ZGENPG + β09*ZFRIEND + β010*ZOXI + β011
and followership while carrying out team processes. Our work provides *ZAXI + β012*ZFUNDIV) + β10*ZOLINEAR + β20*ZOQUAD + β30*
evidence that organizations that rely on teams would benefit from spe- ZSHARED + β40*ZPCSHARED + β50 ZPROCESS + β60 *ZPCROCESS +
cific shared leadership interventions during the initial stages of team β70*ZSLXLIN + β80 *ZSLXQUAD + ꜫ.
formation. Importantly, our intervention is a universal intervention Var(ꜫ) = Δ.
that can be used in both research and practice. Furthermore, prior Note: All variables are z-scored.
work has provided evidence that functional diversity on teams will re- ZPOSTPRE is post shared leadership performance.
sult in shared leadership only when there is a cooperative climate ZOLINEAR is the linear orthogonal polynomial.
(Kukenberger & D'Innocenzo, 2020). Additionally, research suggests ZOQUAD is the quadratic orthogonal polynomial.
that team interventions are an effective way to engender cooperative ZSHARED is shared leadership.
teaming climates (Kukenberger, Mathieu, & Ruddy, 2015; Shuffler ZPCSHARED is shared leadership cluster mean.
et al., 2011). Taken in conjunction with our findings, it is possible that ZPROCESS is team processes.
organizations with functionally diverse teams may specifically benefit ZPCPROCESS is team process cluster mean.
from the implementation of shared leadership interventions because ZSLXLIN is shared leadership * linear orthogonal polynomial.
the intervention itself is likely to engender a cooperative climate and ZSLXQUAD is shared leadership * quadratic orthogonal polynomial.
subsequent shared leadership. ZINTERV is the intervention dummy coded.
ZEXTERVE is mean extroversion.
ZAGREABLE is mean agreeableness.
Conclusion
ZCON is mean conscientiousness.
ZNEUR is neuroticism.
The shift in leadership theories from focusing on formal bureaucratic
ZMGPA is mean GPA (i.e., collective competence).
archetypes to more social, emergent, informal, and shared leadership
ZGENPG is gender percentages.
paradigms has led researchers to ask, “[i]f leadership is not simply pre-
ZFRIEND is friendship.
scribed because of one's position in an institutionalized hierarchy, then
ZOXI is mean openness*the intervention.
a fundamental question that remains to be answered is how leadership
ZAXI is mean agreeableness*the intervention.
and leader follower relationships develop in organizations” (DeRue &
ZFUNDIV is functional diversity.
Ashford, 2010, p. 627). We have provided evidence that shared leader-
IND1 is an indicator for time 1.
ship and performance are related positively and reciprocally over time,
IND2 is an indicator for time 2.
and that the shared leadership ➔ performance relationship is signifi-
IND3 is an indicator for time 3.
cantly higher than the reverse, which has significant implications for
leadership intervention tactics and timing. We also provide evidence
Appendix B. Model formula, shared leadership dependent variable
that a team-centric approach to leadership interventions that (1) articu-
lates the benefits of shared leadership and (2) demonstrates how lead-
Level 1 Model.
ership can be shared as related to team processes will influence the
ZSHARED = (IND1)*ZSHARED + (IND2)*ZSHARED + (IND3)
magnitude of shared leadership trajectories.
*ZSHARED.
ZSHARED = π0 + π1(ZOLINEAR) + π2(ZOQUAD) + π3
(ZPREPER) + π4(ZPCPREPER) + π5(ZPROCESS) + π6
Declaration of Competing Interest (ZPCROCESS) + π7(ZPREXQUAD) + π8(ZPREXLIN) + ꜫ.
Level 2 Model.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen- π0 = β00 + β01(ZINTERV) + β02(ZEXTERVE) + β03
cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. (ZAGREABLE) + β04(ZCON) + β05(ZNEUR) + β06(ZOPEN) + β07
(ZMGPA) + β08(ZGENPG) + β09(ZFRIEND) + β010(ZOXI) + β011
Appendix A. Model formula, performance dependent variable (ZAXI) + β012(ZFUNDIV).
π1 = β10 + β11(ZINTERV).
Level 1 model π3 = β30 + β31(ZINTERV).
ZPOSTPRE = (IND1)* ZPOSTPRE + (IND2)* ZPOSTPRE + (IND3)* π4 = β40.
ZPOSTPRE. π5 = β50.

13
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al. The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499

π6 = β60. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investi-
gation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal,
π7 = β70. 50, 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159921.
π8 = β80. Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leader-
π9 = β90. ship: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),
481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481.
Combined Model.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical proce-
ZSHARED = β00 + β01*ZINTERV + β02*ZEXTERVE + dures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational
β03*ZAGREABLE + β04*ZCON + β05*ZNEUR + β06*ZOPEN + Research Methods, 8(4), 375–409.
β07*ZMGPA + β08*ZGENPG + β09*ZFRIEND + β010*ZOXI + β011 Chiu, C. -Y. C., Owens, B. P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership
in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team perfor-
*ZAXI + β012*ZFUNDIV + β10*ZOLINEAR + β11* ZINTERV *ZOLINEAR mance capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1705–1720. https://doi.
+ β20*ZOQUAD + β21 * ZINTERV *ZOQUAD + β30*ZPREPER + org/10.1037/apl0000159.
β40*ZPCPREPER + β50 *ZPROCESS + β60* ZPCROCESS + Cogliser, C. C., Gardner, W. L., Gavin, M. B., & Broberg, J. C. (2012). Big five personality fac-
tors and leader emergence in virtual teams: Relationships with team trustworthiness,
β70*ZPREXQUAD + β80*ZPREXLIN + ꜫ.
member performance contributions, and team performance. Group & Organization
Var(ꜫ) = Δ. Management, 37(6), 752–784.
Note: All variables are z-scored. Contractor, N. S., DeChurch, L. A., Carson, J., Carter, D. R., & Keegan, B. (2012). The topology
ZSHARED is shared leadership. of collective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 994–1011. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.010.
ZOLINEAR is the linear orthogonal polynomial.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its rele-
ZOQUAD is the quadratic orthogonal polynomial. vance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343–359.
ZPREPER is pre-shared leadership performance. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly,
ZPCPREPER is pre-shared leadership performance cluster mean. 11(4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8.
Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review
ZPROCESS is team processes. based on time and levels of analyses. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 2(1),
ZPCPROCESS is team process cluster mean. 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111328.
ZPREXLIN is pre-performance * linear orthogonal polynomial. Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
ZPREXQUAD is pre-performance * quadratic orthogonal polynomial. leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004.
ZINTERV is the intervention dummy coded. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership
ZEXTERVE is mean extroversion. Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880.
ZAGREABLE is mean agreeableness. DeRue, D. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex
adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 125–150.
ZCON is mean conscientiousness.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process
ZNEUR is neuroticism. of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
ZMGPA is mean GPA (i.e., collective competence). 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53503267.
ZGENPG is gender percentages. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., & Ashford, S. J. (2015). Interpersonal perceptions and the
emergence of leadership structures in groups: A network perspective. Organization
ZFRIEND is friendship. Science, 26(4), 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0963.
ZOXI is mean openness*the intervention. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral
ZAXI is mean agreeableness*the intervention. theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
ZFUNDIV is functional diversity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x.
Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better: A meta-analysis of cogni-
IND1 is an indicator for time 1. tive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507–532.
IND2 is an indicator for time 2. D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different
IND3 is an indicator for time 3. forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42
(7), 1964–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales:
References Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological
Assessment, 18(2), 192.
Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., & Rönkkö, M. (2019, July). The endogeneity problem in ran- Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dy-
dom intercept models: Are Most published results likely false? Academy of manage- namics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of
ment proceedings. Vol. 2019. (pp. 18927) no. 1. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036474.
Academy of Management. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., Murray, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly devel- transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing
oped teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569.
In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta- analysis.
studies of work teams (pp. 173–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233.
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of
transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125.
(5), 651–663. Eddy, E. R., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves:
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job perfor- Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 975–1008.
mance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the
Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231.
373–400. Fiedler, F. E. (1970). Leadership experience and leader performance—Another hypothesis
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A shot to hell. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5(1), 1–14.
meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York, NY: Longmans Green.
0021- 9010.92.3.595. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geo-
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about graphic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity
demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta- analy- on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
sis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as sepa-
0149206310365001. ration, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4),
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. 1199–1228.
NewYork, NY: Free Press. Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2017). Team personality composition, emergent leadership
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: and shared leadership in virtual teams: A theoretical framework. Human Resource
Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), Management Review, 27(4), 678–693.
362–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442802237116. House, D. A. (2001). Evaluating a new manager management training program (doctoral
Brown, J. (2002). Training needs assessment: A must for developing an effective training dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
program. Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 569–578. Global1403972..
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of Hu, J., Wang, Z., Liden, R. C., & Sun, J. (2012). The influence of leader core self-evaluation
functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. on follower reports of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5),
Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875–893. 860–868.

14
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From
input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,
517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801–830.
James, S. W., & Deighan, M. (2008). StratSim: Administrator’s guide. Charlottesville, VA: In-
terpretive Software, Inc.
Jaques, E. (1990). In praise of hierarchy. Harvard Business Review, 68, 127–133.
Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive ef-
fects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202–239.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765.
Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative re-
view and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job
and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1),
17.
Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of person-
ality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 27–51.
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30(2), 189–203.
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2001). Assessing the incremental validity of team
consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effec-
tiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54(3), 645–667.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. Klein, & S.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Founda-
tions, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kukenberger, M. R., & D’Innocenzo, L. (2020). The building blocks of shared leadership:
The interactive effects of diversity types, team climate, and time. Personnel
Psychology, 73(1), 125–150.
Kukenberger, M. R., D’Innocenzo, L., & Shin, N. J. (2019). A social and functional perspec-
tive of team leadership networks. In D. J. Brass, & S. P. Borgatti (Eds.), Social networks
at work (chapter 15). New York: Routledge.
Kukenberger, M. R., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. (2015). A cross-level test of empowerment
and process influences on members’ informal learning and team commitment.
Journal of Management, 41(3), 987–1016.
Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development
interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psy-
chologist, 73(4), 517.
Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership
training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(12), 1686.
Leonard, J. S., Levine, D. I., & Joshi, A. (2004). Do birds of a feather shop together? The ef-
fects on performance of employees’ similarity with one another and with customers.
Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(6), 731–754.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis
of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with
team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic
faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(5), 794–813.
Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006).
Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex
adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(4), 2–12.
Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows
and whys of leadership (pp. 271–284).
Marks, M. A. (2000). A critical analysis of computer simulations for conducting team re-
search. Small Group Research, 31(6), 653–675.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and tax-
onomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785.
Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
14–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392809.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A
review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management,
34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The
influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273.
Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D’Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015). Modeling reciprocal
team cohesion–performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and
members’ competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713–734. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0038898.
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance
trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013257.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M.
(2015). Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct va-
lidity. Group & Organization Management, 40(1), 6–34.
15
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258.
McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training.
Washington. DC: US Civil Service Commission – Office of Career Development.
McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2007). Temporal matters in the study of work groups in orga-
nizations. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10887150709336609.
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network ties of group
leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization
Science, 17(1), 64–79.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social con-
structionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.
1016/1048-9843(95)90012-8.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 78–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392813.
Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the
psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109–117.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of
when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 530–547. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2001.5393889.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differ-
ences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research, 34(6),
651–677.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups:
Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relation-
ship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional ap-
proach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management,
36(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective con-
structs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of
Management Review, 24(2), 249.265. https://doi.org/10.2307/259081.
Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., &
Cortina, J. 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.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five
correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
116–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories:
Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43–58.
Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2013). Relationship velocity: To-
ward a theory of relationship dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 13–30.
Paunova, M. (2015). The emergence of individual and collective leadership in task groups:
A matter of achievement and ascription. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 935–957.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago. Shared leadership: Reframing the
hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1–18).
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive,
transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172.
Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2010). Explaining change: Theorizing and testing dynamic
mediated longitudinal relationships. Journal of Management, 36(2), 405–429. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206308331096.
Pituch, K. A., Murphy, D. L., & Tate, R. L. (2009). Three-level models for indirect effects in
school- and class- randomized experiments in education. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 78, 60–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224685.
Ployhart, R. E., & Ward, A. K. (2011). The “quick start guide” for conducting and publishing
longitudinal research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(4), 413–422. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10869-011-9209-6.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the fault line model
to geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group func-
tioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interac-
tions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized
trails. Psychological Methods, 2, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.2.173.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear
and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and
the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, trans-
formational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6),
1365.
Rousseau, D. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level
perspectives. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behav-
ior. Vol. 7. (pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rowold, J. (2007). The impact of personality on training-related aspects of motivation:
Test of a longitudinal model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1), 9–31.
Serban, A., & Roberts, A. J. (2016). Exploring antecedents and outcomes of shared leader-
ship in a creative context: A mixed-methods approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 27
(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.009.
Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., Maynard, M. T., & Salas, E. (2018). Developing, sustain-
ing, and maximizing team effectiveness: An integrative, dynamic perspective of
L. D'Innocenzo, M. Kukenberger, A.C. Farro et al.
team development interventions. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 688–724.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0045.
Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team devel-
opment interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20
(6), 365–372.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate,
and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(6), 662–673.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model
of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group &
Organization Management, 27(1), 66–96.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and ad-
vanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team per-
formance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592–606.
Townsend, A. M., & Scott, K. D. (2001). Team racial composition, member attitudes, and
performance: A field study. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 40
(2), 317–337.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of lead-
ership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.
16
The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2021) 101499
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and
team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0034531.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Vol. 8.
Cambridge University Press.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (topics in social psychology series).
Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Humanities.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483.
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art
review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7),
834–852.
Zhu, X. S., Wolfson, M. A., Dalal, D. K., & Mathieu, J. E. (2020). Team decision making: The
dynamic effects of team decision style composition and performance via decision
strategy. Journal of Management, 0149206320916232.
Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental
Economics, 13(1), 75–98.