Beyond the unidimensional collective leadership model

Abstract

Purpose – A theoretical analysis evidences the existence of multiple patterns of collective leadership and serves as foundation for the proposal of a two-dimensional model of collective leadership, which evaluates leadership sharedness (the extent to which leadership roles are shared by group members), and leadership distribution (the extent to which different leadership roles are permanently assigned to group members). The relationship between these dimensions and committee effectiveness is further tested. Design/methodology/approach – A social networks methodology is used with a sample of 28 committees. Two complementary network properties (centralization and density) are used to operationalize leadership sharedness and a new measure is developed to operationalize leadership distribution. Stepwise regressions test the relation between collective leadership dimensions and performance. Findings – The model proposed advances the understanding of collective leadership’s internal dynamics and facilitates empirical comparisons of the effectiveness of various forms of collective leadership. The highest committee performance was found in groups where members contribute equally to charismatic and supportive leadership but only when these equal contributions were high. In collective directive and participative leadership, however, equality of contribution was associated to higher performance independently on the strength of members’ contributions. No relationship was found between the distribution of leadership roles among group members and committee performance. Research limitations/implications – A small sample size may have reduced hypothesis testing power. The intraclass corrections (ICC(2)) were lower than recommended. Finally, results cannot be extrapolated beyond committees, which have very unique characteristics due to their low typical interaction. Practical implications – Organizations can improve committee performance by ensuring high and equal participation of members in their group’s leadership through training and selection. Enhancing participation of all members in leadership requires special attention to women and members of minorities, that are typically attributed less leadership influence and whose commitment to the group may be hurt by lack of involvement. Originality/value – The two-dimensional model proposed goes beyond previously published models in exploring several aspects of collective leadership internal dynamics by advancing the understanding how different aspects of collective leadership patterns affect group performance.

Identifying factor measuring collective leadership at academic workplaces

“…Different concepts of similar nature can be found in the literature referring collective leadership. For example, shared leadership (Covey et al , 2014), distributed leadership (Mendez et al , 2015), team leadership (Zaccaro et al , 2001), shared decision making (Bernhardt, 2014), democratic leadership (Begley and Zaretsky, 2004), transformation leadership (Yukl, 2008; Liu, 2015), relational leadership (Zhang et al , 2012) and constructive leadership (Wei et al , 2016). According to Mendez et al .…”

“…For example, shared leadership (Covey et al , 2014), distributed leadership (Mendez et al , 2015), team leadership (Zaccaro et al , 2001), shared decision making (Bernhardt, 2014), democratic leadership (Begley and Zaretsky, 2004), transformation leadership (Yukl, 2008; Liu, 2015), relational leadership (Zhang et al , 2012) and constructive leadership (Wei et al , 2016). According to Mendez et al . (2015), employees can be seen as individual leaders at their own place, where they are collectively participating in the distributed leadership role, as a member of a team sharing common goals and collaboratively work to achieve organizational objectives.…”

“…In this way, the role of principals is critical to maintaining the long-term success of their schools. Mendez et al . (2015) distinguished between collective leadership and distributed leadership.…”

“…(2015) distinguished between collective leadership and distributed leadership. Collective leadership does not exert an emphasis on individual leadership rather work as a collective effort of a whole team (Mendez et al , 2015; Lemay, 2009; Jean-Louis et al , 2001). They keep eye on the end results and consciously strive to achieve that target.…”

Collective leadership as institutional work: interpreting evidence from Mound Bayou

“…We recognize that a limitation of this study is that we did not examine ‘alternative patterns of collective leadership’ in terms of the degree to which leadership roles were patterned as shared and distributed among the collective leadership team members (Mendez et al., 2015). Thus, alternative, yet complementary, patterns may emerge as a result of different leadership styles practiced by the team members (Conway and Briner, 2012).…”