The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work
Abstract
Executive Overview Knowledge work is becoming increasingly team-based. The reason is clear. It is becoming ever more difficult for any one person to be an expert on all aspects of the work that needs to be done, and this is true in a wide variety of contexts ranging from the R&D lab to the executive suite. With the shift to team-based knowledge work comes the need to question more traditional models of leadership. Traditionally, leadership has been conceived around the idea that one person is firmly “in charge” while the rest are simply followers—what is termed vertical leadership. However, recent research indicates that leadership can be shared by team leaders and team members—rotating to the person with the key knowledge, skills, and abilities for the particular issues facing the team at any given moment. In fact, research indicates that poor-performing teams tend to be dominated by the team leader, while high-performing teams display more dispersed leadership patterns, i.e., shared leadership.1 This is not to suggest that leadership from above is unnecessary. On the contrary, the role of the vertical leader is critical to the ongoing success of the shared-leadership approach to knowledge work. Thus, this article addresses the following questions: (1) when is leadership most appropriately shared? (2) how is shared leadership best developed? and (3) how does one effectively utilize both vertical and shared leadership to leverage the capabilities of knowledge workers?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 · Cited by 3,000
Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research
Bolden, R. (2011) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x · Cited by 1,227
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002 · Cited by 820
Self-citationThe role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938 · Cited by 808
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0441 · Cited by 778
A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034531 · Cited by 731
Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership.
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0030264 · Cited by 657
Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile software development
Moe, N. B., Aurum, A., & Dybå, T. (2012) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.11.006 · Cited by 205
Coun, M. J. H., Peters, P., & Blomme, R. J. (2019) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2018.12.001 · Cited by 83
How virtual team leaders cope with creativity challenges
Han, S. J., Chae, C., Macko, P., Park, W., & Beyerlein, M. (2017) · European Journal of Training and Development · doi:10.1108/ejtd-10-2016-0073 · Cited by 55
Shared Leadership and Team Creativity: A Social Network Analysis in Engineering Design Teams
Wu, Q., & Cormican, K. (2016) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242016000200001 · Cited by 49
On visualizing knowledge flows at a university department
Windhager, F., Smuc, M., Zenk, L., Federico, P., Pfeffer, J., & Aigner, W. (2013) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.704 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearce, C. L.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-57
- ISSN
- 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4529
- OpenAlex
- W2177443865
- Cited by
- 793
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.