Understanding (non)leadership phenomena in collaborative interorganizational networks and advancing shared leadership theory: an interpretive grounded theory study

Abstract

Despite the increasing significance of collaborative interorganizational networks, understanding of leadership phenomena in these contexts is still scarce. How, and in what form will leadership emerge in such (a priori) non-hierarchical contexts with peerlike work settings, if at all? Through an interpretive grounded theory study conducted in collaborative interorganizational networks, we found that the networks either remained at the stage of leaderless cooperation (leadership void) or developed shared leadership. We then sought to understand the underlying mechanism of collaboration that might explain the different (non)leadership phenomena. Our study's main result is the empirically grounded identification of two distinct forms of network participation with specific network identities as its core, which are related to the distinct leadership-related phenomena in our networks. (1) Task-based network identity, which includes an individualistic network identity, a single achievement motivation, and a largely instrumentalist orientation towards network participation, is related to a leadership void (non-leadership emergence, i.e. a form of leaderless cooperation). (2) Joint-motivational network identity, which includes a collectivistic network identity, joint network motivation, and a largely value-laden attitude towards network participation, is related to shared leadership. Our findings shed new light on collaboration and leadership phenomena in interorganizational networks, concurrently providing progress on conceptualizing Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

Shared Leadership and Team Performance: The Joint Effect of Team Dispositional Composition and Collective Identification

“…High team collective identification may encourage the members of these teams to set aside their individualistic motives (to not lead) and assume a more collective approach to leadership by distributing responsibilities across multiple members. In a recent qualitative analysis, Endres and Weibler (2020) explored teams that either developed a shared leadership structure or succumbed to a "leadership void" and noted that the defining characteristic distinguishing teams that shared leadership was their collective team identities. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the effect of CSE homogeneity on shared leadership will be enhanced when members collectively identify with their team.…”

Strengthening nursing, midwifery and allied health professional leadership in the UK – a realist evaluation

“…Leadership is the most influential factor in shaping organisational culture so ensuring the necessary leadership behaviours, strategies and qualities are developed is fundamental (Mannion et al , 2005). The literature cites three contemporary views of leadership needed for the twenty-first century which move away from focusing on the individual qualities and skills of leaders: greater emphasis on collective leadership which embraces collective capability and endeavour when acting and learning together to shape the culture (Manley et al , 2019; Sharp, 2018; McAuliffe et al , 2017; West et al , 2014,2015); distributed leadership with a shared distributive and adaptable focus, not just across organisations but also across boundaries and systems (Endres and Weibler, 2020; Beirne, 2017; West et al , 2015) and social leadership, which recognises that social capital is embedded in people with different expertise working together through social movements, connected relationships and networks (Stodd, 2016). …”

“…distributed leadership with a shared distributive and adaptable focus, not just across organisations but also across boundaries and systems (Endres and Weibler, 2020; Beirne, 2017; West et al , 2015) and…”

Toward a methodology for studying leadership-as-practice

“…Power in this sense can be expressed as “authoring,” referring to the practice of actors to inscribe or orchestrate their interests into the decisional framework of the entity (Alvehus, 2019; Kuhn, 2008; Schoeneborn et al., 2019; Taylor, 2014). The researcher is thus encouraged to look beyond the role of those in high leadership positions to find leadership, to consider the effects of networks or coalitions which may formalize or eschew the identification of leadership, to study how multiple actors within local settings through their enactment of competing practices can normalize or disrupt presumed decisions, and to consider the emergence of leadership even through non-deliberate material-discursive practices (Endres and Weibler, 2019; Ezzamel et al., 2001; Hardy and Thomas, 2014; Vaara and Tienari, 2011). As Carroll (2018) puts it: In L-A-P:power exists in a ceaseless series of mostly conversational choices and openings that present fleeting possibilities to shape, move, or confirm a trajectory.…”