Research Paper

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

&n= bsp; = Leading organizations in the current age of change is complex and challenging (Child & McGrath, 2001). The ability of leaders to influence employees to embrace change beyond their natural resistance (Katz & Kahn, 1966) is a credible measure of effective leade= rship (Bridges, 2003). The effectiv= e deployment of leadership skills, roles, and abilities is critical for leading organizations through strategic change (Nadler & Tushman, 1990; McLagan, 2002). Among the effective leadership characteristics for managing change and complexity are the acts = of involving others, building commitment, empowering others, and building empowered team= s (Wellins, 1991; Graetz, 2000; Shield, Thorpe, & Nelson, 2002). The progression of leadership research suggests that increasing levels of involvement and commitment by employees has the potential for evolving into an alternative form of leader= ship. One such form may be shared leader= ship (Bradford & Cohen, 1998).

Leade= rship's response to change and complexity without the involvement of others may suf= fer from the problems of blame, passivity, fear, stress, anxiety, low morale, a= nd loss of performance (Bradford & Cohen, 1998; Yukl, 2002; Applebaum & Gandell, 2003; Bridges, 2003). Bradford and Cohen (1998) suggest that as leaders take more control and responsibili= ty for results of the unit, the more passive the team becomes. Ultimately, the enabling of others = to act (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) is the core of leadership effectiveness. This enablement is also the core o= f shared leadership effectiveness (Pearce & Conger, 2004).

In shared leadership, = both the vertical leader and the team members may demonstrate acts of leadership (Parker, 1990; Rost, 1995; Pearce, 1997; Yukl, 2002; Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004). Therefore, leadership may be shared between the team and the traditional leader (Cleveland, 2002; Pearce & Manz, 2005). A highly educated workforce and pre= ssures imposed by the global economy may create the optimal conditions for organiz= ations to develop this alternative form of leadership. The value of shared leadership is = the assistance it offers to leaders and teams facing organizational complexity.=

One o= ther alternative form of leadership is shared, co-leadership. This form of leadership is one of = two common mental constructs of shared leadership found in the literature. This construct records the dynamic= s of two individuals sharing vertical leadership responsibilities of a group (He= enan & Bennis, 1999; O'Toole, Galbraith, & Lawler III, 2002). Another construct is t= he shared, collective leadership possessed by the whole team (Parker, 1990; Ro= st, 1995; Pearce, 1997; Cleveland, 2002; Yukl, 2002; Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2= 004; Pearce & Manz, 2005). Wit= hin this discussion, all further references to shared leadership define the lat= ter, team-based form of shared leadership.

Where= as shared leadership's existence has been validated and measured within self-managed teams or empowered change management teams (Pearce, 1997), sha= red leadership has only been proposed within new product development teams and empowered sales teams (Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999; Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004). The study of sh= ared leadership within traditional, non-self managing teams is limited. Additionally, shared leadership re= search within high-tech organizations does not exist.

Background of the Study

&nb= sp; Leading organizations through the complexity of change requires effective vertical leadership (Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Child & McGrath, 2001; M= cLagan, 2002). Leaders who lead change most effectively influence employees (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Bridges, 2003) and build commitment through involve= ment and empowerment (Wellins, 1991; Graetz, 2000; Shield, = Thorpe, & Nelson, 2002). These ac= ts of leadership effectiveness have the potential for developing shared leadershi= p.

Shar= ed leadership validates and supports the role of vertical leadership as a necessary entity (Bradford & Cohen, 1998), whereas truly empowered or self-managed teams gradually wean themselves from the traditional roles of = team leaders (Wellins, 1991). Thro= ughout the early to mid-90s and at the time of Pearce's (1997) ground breaking sha= red leadership research, self-managed teams were common (Wellins, 1991; Wellins & George, 1993). Self-man= aged teams have achieved some success as viable organizational structures, howev= er, the expressed concerns for these organizational units have been significant= and numerous (Steinburg & Rissler, 1991; Carr, 1992; Dew, 1995; Wageman, 19= 97; Hut & Molleman, 1998; Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001). As a result, teams with more tradi= tional vertical leadership are now more common than the self-managed, fully empowe= red teams that had been the primary focus of shared leadership.

Pearce (199= 7) found that transformational vertical leadership supports the development of shared leadership among team members within fully empowered, self-managed change management teams. Addi= ng to the common transactional and transformational leadership archetypes, Pearce (1997) also measured aversive, directive, and empowering leadership styles.= To control the number of variables within his statistical tests, Pearce organized directive, aversive, and transactional leadership behaviors into the meta-dimensions of "vertic= al controlling" and "shared controlling" leadership. Transactional leadership has been = shown to be a credible leadership style (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985). Combining both types of transactio= nal leadership styles, contingent reward and management by exception-active (Ba= ss, 1985), with directive and aversive leadership may have created an unintenti= onal barrier to determining the value of the transactional style's distinct role= in developing shared leadership.

Pearce and = Sims (2002) suggested that future research might find that mature teams possessi= ng both technical and leadership skills among team members display more shared leadership. Teams within high= -tech organizations should possess these technical skills. Other factors affecting the emerge= nce of shared leadership might be "team member familiarity, team member proximity, and team maturity" (Pearce & Sims, 2002, p. 187). Team size (Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004) and the stress of team membership load (Wood, 2004) may also be significant team demographic variables.

= Another variable related to vertical and shared leadership is group potency (Pearce, 1997). Group potency, a collective construct, is the collective belief within a team tha= t it can be effective (Guzzo, et al, 1993; Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006). Vertical leadership af= fects team performance through the enhancement of group potency (Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Group potency has been widely studied and shown to have positive effects upon the group outcomes of satisfaction, effort, and performance (Guzzo, et al, 1993) and team effectiveness (Pearce, Gallagher, & Ensley, 2002).

&= nbsp; The environmental complexities associated with managing change within high–tech organizations may enable the requisite vertical leadership style, team demographics, and sense of group potency necessary for the deve= lopment of shared leadership within these traditionally structured teams.

Statement of the Problem

&n= bsp; A large part of leadership effectiveness is the ability to lead others through change, manage complexity, build commitment, empower others, enable employe= es to act, and develop highly effective teams (Kouzes & Posner, 198= 7; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Wellins, 1991; Graetz, 2000; Child & McGrath, 2001; McLagan, 2002; Shield, Thorpe, & Nelson, 2002). While leaders develop increasing l= evels of involvement and commitment, alternate forms of leadership, such as shared leadership, may emerge (Bradford & Cohen, 1998). This collective form of leadership= is shared among the leader and the team (Parker, 1990; Rost, 1995; Pearce, 199= 7; Cleveland, 2002; Yukl, 2002; Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004; Pearce & Ma= nz, 2005). The value of shared leadership is the assistance it offers to leaders and teams facing organizational complexity. Wh= ereas this extant value has been found within self-managed teams (Pearce, 1997), = the study of shared leadership within traditional, non-self managing teams is limited. There has been no su= ch shared leadership research within high-tech organizations.

&= nbsp; Shared leadership validates and allows for the necessary role of vertical leadersh= ip (Bradford & Cohen, 1998), whereas the empowered or self-managed team's general direction is weaning itself from the team leader (Wellins, 1991). Pearce (1997) has demonstrated that teams led by transformational vertical leadership support the development of shared leadership within self-managed change management teams. Though this team structure was once common (Wellins, 1991; Wellins & George, 1993), the overall success of = this initiative is questionable (Steinburg & Rissler, 1991; Carr, 1992; Dew, 1995; Wageman, 1997; Hut & Molleman, 1998; Caramanica, Ferris & Lit= tle, 2001). Shared leadership may = be found within traditionally led, mature teams, possessing both technical and leadership skills among its team members, as may be evident within high-tech organizations (Pearce & Sims, 2002). Pearce's (1997) categorization of c= atalyzing leadership characteristics measured transformational leadership (Bass, 1985= ). Pearce's (1997) inclusion of transactional, contingent reward leadership style into a controlling leader= ship construct may have missed the ability to measure this and other important transactional leadership variables' (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985) role in developing shared leadership. Team demographic variables may influence the emergence of shared leadership. The variables of team member familiarity, team member proximity, team maturity, team size, and team membership load (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004; Wo= od, 2004) have been proposed and have yet to be studied and measured. Group potency is positively relate= d to satisfaction, effort, and performance (Guzzo, et al, 1993; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaa= rd, 2002), team effectiveness (Pearce, Gallagher, & Ensley (2002), and vert= ical and shared leadership (Pearce, 1997). Additional research of the relationships among potency, vertical, and shared leadership would contribute to the body of knowledge of leadership a= nd teams.

Purpose of the Study

&= nbsp; The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between transformati= onal as well as transactional vertical leadership styles with the development of shared leadership. It advance= s an understanding of the relationships between team demographic variables of te= am size, maturity, proximity, familiarity, and team membership load and the development of shared leadership. It further seeks to understand the relationship between vertical and shared leadership with group potency. This research focuses exclusively on the emergence of shared leaders= hip within traditional teams and high-tech organizations, neither of which has = been involved in shared leadership research.&nb= sp;

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses will = guide this study: =

&= nbsp; Research Question 1. To what extent is transformational vertical leadership style related to the emergence of shared leadership within a high-tech team?

&= nbsp; Hypotheses 1. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transformational vertical leaders= hip with the development of team members' shared leadership.

&= nbsp; Research Question 2. To what extent is transactional vertical leadership style relat= ed to the emergence of shared leadership within a high-tech team?

&= nbsp; Hypotheses 2. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transactional contingent reward v= ertical leadership with the development of team members' shared leadership.

&= nbsp; Research Question 3. To what extent do team demographics of team size, maturity, proximity, familiarity, and team membership load influence the development = of shared leadership within high-tech teams?

&= nbsp; Hypotheses 3a. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between the team demographic variables of team maturity, familiarity, and proximity with the development of shared leadership.

&= nbsp; Hypotheses 3b. There is a statistically significant negative relationship between the team demographic variable of = team size and membership load with the development of shared leadership.

&= nbsp; Research Question 4. To what extent are vertical and shared leadership related to gr= oup potency within high-tech teams?

&= nbsp; Hypothesis 4a: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transformational vertical leaders= hip with group potency.

&= nbsp; Hypothesis 4b: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transactional contingent reward vertical leadership with group potency.&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; Hypothesis 4c: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between shared leadership with group pote= ncy.

Rationale & Theoretical Framework

&nb= sp; The perspective of Bradford and Cohen's (1998) shared leadership, where hierarc= hy and the vertical leader's role are not eliminated, supports the rationale t= hat some characteristics of both transactional and transformational leadership are v= alid and necessary forms displayed by both the vertical leader and the team. Both transactional and transformat= ional styles of leadership have been shown to predict high-performance (Burns, 19= 78; Bass, 1985), with transactional leadership, alone, being insufficient (Avol= io & Bass, 2004). Linkages between transactional and transformational f= orms of vertical leadership with shared leadership have been suggested (P= earce & Sims, 2002; Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004). This research seeks to build= upon Pearce's (1997) work by identifying the distinct roles each leadership archetypes play in the development of shared leadersh= ip. Additionally, the team demographic variables of team maturity (Tuckman, 1965; Gersick, 1988; Stoner & Hartmann, 1993; Pearce, 1997; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003; Cox, et al., 2004), team member-to-member proximity (Perry, Peace, and Sims , 1999; Childs & McGrath, 2001; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pooley, 2005), and team member-to-member familiarity (Goodman & Leyden, 1991; Watson, et al, 19= 91) may positively influence the development of shared leadership. Other team demographic variables o= f team size (Campion, et al, 1993; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Cox, et al.; Perry, 20= 04) and team membership load (McGrath, 1991) may negatively influence the development of shared leadership. Transformational and transactional - contingent reward vertical leadership may positively correlate with group potency, whereas transactional - management-by-exception-active vertical leadership may negatively correlate with group potency (Pearce, 1997). Group potency, in turn, may positively correlate with management and team member perception of team effectiveness (Guzzo, et al, 1993; Hecht, Allen, Klammer, & Kelly, 2002; Lester, Megl= ino, & Korsgaard, 2002; Bandura & Locke, 2003).

Significance of the Study

&= nbsp; Beyond the overall research interest for leadership and teams, there are five sign= ificant contributing factors driving this research. First, the research seeks to unders= tand whether shared leadership emerges within conventional leader-led teams. This would confirm that shared leadership develops in other team structures beyond self-managed teams (Pea= rce, 1997; Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2004). Cox, et al. (2004) suggest that the= re are two sources of leadership influence in teams. One is the vertical leader, either appointed or emergent, and the other is the shared leadership demonstrated = by the team itself. Wherever leadership is found, it needs to attend to three levels of organization: the technical level, commonly associated with production; the managerial level, responsible for managing task and processes within the organization; and the institutional level, which manages boundaries between the organization and = the environment (Thompson, 1967). Unlike the empowered or self-direct= ed team initiative (Wellins, 1991), where the team's goal is to wean itself fr= om the traditional roles of the team leader, shared leadership validates the necessary role of vertical leadership to lead (Bradford & Cohen, 1998) = at these organizational levels (Thompson, 1967). Shared leadership opens the possib= ility that the role of leadership in moving today's complex organizations forward= may be shared between the vertical leader and the team (Parker, 1990; Rost, 199= 5; Pearce, 1997; Bradford & Cohen, 1998; Yukl, 2002).

&= nbsp; Second, this shared leadership research extends to a new organizational application that has not been previously studied: technical organizations. Cox, Pearce, and Perry (2004) sugge= st that shared leadership research extend to a variety of organizational sectors. Pearce (1997) found evidence of shared leadership within self-managed, change management teams. In the public sector, = shared leadership has also been identified and studied within public administration workers (Choi, 2006). It has = been proposed to exist within empowered sales teams (Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999), and new product development teams (Cox, et al., 2004). Therefore, it is reasonable to pro= pose that a team led by effective vertical leadership style, working interdependently and facing complex challenges, typical of technical organizations, would display shared leadership. Shared leadership should be presen= t in some knowledge intensive teams (Pearce & Manz, 2005) and therefore found within high-tech organizations.

&= nbsp; Third, the variables of vertical transactional and transformational leadership are kept separate and distinct to assess their unique impact upon the developme= nt of shared leadership. Other research has clustered vertical transactional leadership measures with aver= sive and directive ones (Pearce, 1997). Managers' transactional leadership actions have been shown to positi= vely affect job satisfaction (Levin, 1992).&nbs= p; Satisfaction is related to task significance, autonomy, support, and high competence of job knowledge and skill (DeLoach & Monroe, 2004), wh= ich are logically present when shared leadership exists. Transactional leadership, specific= ally those behaviors associated with the variables defined as contingent reward = (Avolio & Bass, 2004), may be positively associated with the development of sha= red leadership.

&= nbsp; Fourth, the research seeks to validate the relationship among vertical leadership, = group potency, and shared leadership. This relationship has been previously studied in self-managed change management teams (Pearce, 1997). Group potency's relationship with other team variables of job satisfaction and effectiveness suggest its importance as an indirect effectiveness measure (Guzzo, et al, 1993; Hecht, Allen, Klammer, & Kelly, 2002; Lester, Megl= ino, & Korsgaard, 2002; Pearce, Gallagher, & Ensley, 2002; Bandura & Locke, 2003).

&= nbsp; Fifth, the research seeks to answer the recommendations of Perry, Pearce, and Sims (1999) and Cox, Pearce, and Perry (2004) for furthering the study of the effects of team demographic variables upon shared leadership. Among the suggested list of demogr= aphic variables are team size, team maturity, member familiarity, member proximit= y, and team membership load.

&= nbsp; This research is a natural extension of the past shared leadership research to common teams with traditional vertical leadership within technical organizations. Its further significance is its contribution to the body of knowledge of team demograph= ics' effect upon shared leadership. Finally, this research is significa= nt in advancing the knowledge necessary for developing shared leadership and over= all team effectiveness.

Definitions

&= nbsp; The following terms are defined for the purposes of this study:

Transactional Vertical Leadership=

&= nbsp; The transactional leadership (Bass, 1985) process is a power-based reciprocal exchange between leaders and followers.&nb= sp; The transactional leader "clarifies what the associates need to= do for a reward" and is an "essential component of the full range of effective leadership" (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 21). Transa= ctional leadership, associated with behaviors of constructive and corrective transactions, is measured along the factors of contingent reward and active management-by-exception. Thamhain (2004) describes effective vertical team leadership as defining work process and team structure, developing communication channels, properly staffing and organizing the team, and creating proper reward systems. These are consistent with transact= ional leadership actions (Bass, 1985). Transactional leadership balances transformational vertical leadersh= ip in the most effective leaders (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004). This need for balance provides the rationale for incorporating transactional vertical leadership within this research.

Transformational Vertical Leadership <= o:p>

&= nbsp; The concept of transformational leadership was described by Burns (1978) as the process of raising awareness for the importance of achieving outcomes in developing the motivation that transcended self-interest. Ultimately, the transformational l= eader develops others to reach a higher potential. Bass (1985) identified five factor= s of transformational leadership: idealized influence behaviors, idealized influ= ence attributes, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transformational leadership, augmenting transactional leadership, develops others (Avolio & Bass, 2004).= It does so, not through merely empowering others, but through develo= ping the capability to determine one's own course of action. Avolio and Bass (2004) were carefu= l to clarify that transformational leadership does not replace transactional leadership. Both styles of leadership are necessary to be effective (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Examples of transformative (Bass, = 1985) and considerate actions are to stimulate enthusiasm, excitement, and professional interests; ensure senior management support; build commitment; manage conflict and problems; and foster a culture of continuous support and improvement (Thamhain, 2004). The need for developing capability within a team, not merely empowering them, provides the rationale for including the transformational form of vertical leadership within this research. &nbs= p;

&nb= sp; To measure vertical leadership effectiveness, Avolio and Bass (2004) validated= the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Measured factors are categorized w= ithin three major styles of leadership. Transformational leadership is measured via idealized attributes and behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individu= al consideration.

&nb= sp; Transactional leadership, associated with behaviors of constructive and corrective transactions, is measured along the factors of contingent reward and active management-by-exception. Transactional leadership, though necessary, is insufficient to sustain leadership effectiveness (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Passive/avoidant behav= ior, which is undesirable, but often present in ineffective leadership, is measu= red along the factors of passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire.

Shared Leadership

&= nbsp; There have been numerous references to shared leadership. One construct of shared leadership describes the rotation and distribution of leadership responsibilities with= in a team (Parker, 1990). Shared l= eadership research flourished in the 1990s, shortly after the appearance of self-mana= ged teams in organizations. Self-managed teams represent, by definition, an organizational struc= ture requiring the emergence of shared leadership. Shared leadership is leadership possessed by the collective team membership within a team (Cox, Pearce, &am= p; Perry, 2004). Shared leadersh= ip occurs when team members share equal responsibility for ensuring that all tasks necessary to accomplish a goal are completed (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Shared leadership, by definition, = does not require a self-managed team. While a team may have a formal leader, leadership often shifts among team members depending upon the circumstances, the needs, skills, and matur= ity of the team (Pearce & Conger, 2003).

Group potency

&= nbsp; Group potency, a collective construct, is the collective belief within a team tha= t it can be effective (Guzzo, et al, 1993; de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 20= 05; Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006). Group potency is a collective and a generalized construct, assessing the overall team's belief that it can be effective, whereas, self-efficacy is an individual's task-specific belief about one's own competence (de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2005). The group potency construct has been validated by Guzzo, et al (1993), and its eight-item assessment has been widely used in group potency research. Group potency is related to vertic= al and shared leadership (Pearce, 1997).

Assumptions

= From a research perspective, leadership may be either a dependent or independent variable. Vertical leadership is hypothesized, and therefore assumed the independent variable. Leaders and team members influence one another= (Rost, 1995; Yukl, 2002). Since lead= ership is not unidirectional, it may be difficult to determine the degree of verti= cal leadership influence upon the emergence of shared leadership. There is a complex interplay betwe= en vertical and shared leadership (Yukl, 2002). Though the direction of influence = may be somewhat ambiguous, other shared leadership studies have inferred a causal relationship from vertical to shared leadership. For the purposes of this research = and similar to other shared leadership research and proposed models, vertical leadership is hypothesized to be the independent variable (Pearce, 1997; Co= x, Pearce & Perry, 2004; Choi, 2006).&nbs= p;

&= nbsp; Along with these variables, the team's work must be interdependent and sufficient= ly complex to develop a sense of shared leadership. Teams operating within high techno= logy organizations generally meet the characteristics of interdependence and complexity, and yet these conditions of interdependence and complexity are = only logically connected to the nature of the high-tech organization. It is therefore assumed that due t= o the complexity and interdependence of the environment within high-tech organizations, a higher proportion of teams may develop shared leadership. =

Limitations

Past measur= ement of shared leadership has targeted the team, not the individual, perhaps due= to the unmanageable complexity of quantifying individuals' behavior. It is important to note, however, = that consensus for the construct and resultant measurement of shared leadership = has not been reached (Pearce, 1997). Recent validation studies for the assessment of shared leadership ex= ist for the Team Multifactor Leadership Quotient (TMLQ) (Avolio, Sivasubramania= m, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003). This most recent assessment of shared leadership offers a five-const= ruct model and though limited, elements of this instrument have been validated.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Though consensus has not been reach= ed for this instrument as the benchmark for measuring shared leadership, it does provide a limited, but credible way to describe and measure shared leadersh= ip at the time of this research.

&nb= sp; In addition to vertical leadership style, other independent variables may influence the dependent variables of shared leadership. Some of the suggested variables ar= e team structure, boundaries, leadership support, and level of empowerment (Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004). Co= x, Pearce, and Perry also proposed that the team characteristics of members' ability, proximity (geographical collocation), size, diversity, and maturity are viable independent variables affecting shared leadership. The selection of independent varia= bles for this research is challenging and its scope must be limited. In doing so, some important variables may be ignored. Int= act teams and their vertical leaders will be surveyed within a high-technology = organization. As many teams as possible will be = asked to participate in the study and so the sample will be limited by the number= of available teams willing to participate within one organization.

Nature of the Study

&= nbsp; This study determines the relationship between transformational as well as transactional vertical leadership styles with the development of shared leadership. It advances an understanding of the relationships between team demographic variables of te= am size, maturity, proximity, familiarity, and team membership load and the development of shared leadership. It further seeks to understand the relationship between vertical and shared leadership with group potency. This research focuses exclusively on the emergence of shared leaders= hip within traditional teams and high-tech organizations, neither of which has = been a previous target of shared leadership research.

&= nbsp; This quantitative research samples the vertical transactional and transformation= al leadership style, team demographics, group potency, and shared leadership within common teams with traditional vertical leadership roles. As such, the population of convent= ional, intact teams within one high-tech Corporation is targeted through convenien= ce sampling of teams available to participate in the research. This population sample has not bee= n previously involved in shared leadership research.&nb= sp; The methodological approach is positivistic and quantified. The construct of shared leadership= most recently researched by Pearce (1997) is partially used and is influenced by= Bradford and Cohen's (1998) assertion that vertical leadership's role and hierarchy is not eliminated. Vertical leadership is measured via= the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1996) and is essentially= similar to the Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003) which is used to measure shared leadership. The group potency construct, validated by Guzzo, et al (1993), is used in this study = as a measure of group potency. The= team demographic variables of team size, team maturity, member familiarity, memb= er proximity, and team membership load are simple constructs with simple scale metrics. Quantitative data a<= span style=3D'color:black'>nalysis should prove or negate the stated hypotheses through applicable multivariate analysis and correlation tests.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

&= nbsp; This study consists of five chapters. Chapter I has introduced the problem, the background, problem statem= ent, purpose, research questions, rationale and theoretical framework, significa= nce of the study, definitions, assumptions, limitations, and the nature of the study. It has introduced the concept of shared leadership and suggested via= ble leadership and team demographic variables predictive of its emergence. Chapter II provides a review of the related literature, including the organizational context supporting the development and need for shared leadership as well as the prior research wi= thin employee involvement and empowerment, the complexities of self-managed team= s, leadership style, team demographics, potency, and shared leadership. Chapter III provides the research methodology and design. It discusses the management dilemma, research questions, and hypotheses that formulate a quantitative design of the research of shared leadership within high-tech organizations. Chap= ter III also presents sampling procedures, survey questionnaires, and survey distribution methods. Chapter= IV provides the actual collected data and analysis and presents the results and findings of the study. Chapter V presents the implic= ations and conclusions of the study based upon the research results and findings.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This chapter revisits the research questions and notes the theoretical and practical implications of shared leadership within high-tech organizations.= Chapter V also suggests a future direction for the study of shared leadership.

&= nbsp;

CHAPTER 2.&n= bsp; LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction to Shared Leadership

The contemp= orary research of shared leadership can be traced through many developmental path= ways over the past several decades. To understand the concept, efficacy, and benefits of shared leadership, it is necessary to review the literature supportive of its emergence in teams.

This review= seeks to validate some of the relevant factors, dynamics, and variables affecting= the development of shared leadership. In doing so, it relates many of the conditions necessary for the development of most healthy teams and suggests some of the relevant variables related to the emergence of shared leadership. Vertical leadersh= ip, empowerment, and empowered teams are discussed as they may have a nascent relationship with shared leadership. Employee involvement, empowerment, and self-managed teams are review= ed at some length because of the evolutionary nature of this initiative leadin= g to the development of shared leadership. Finally, the shared leadership research is summarized and leads to t= he rationale for the focus of this study.&nbs= p;

The Need for Shared Leadership

Managing in the Age of Change

Lead= ership's ability to lead change and the employees' ability to support the change are important to any change effort. Some of the significant challenges during change have been due to th= e organizations' natural tendency to buffer change. "The fact is that organizations have built-in protective device= s to maintain stability and they are notoriously difficult to change" (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p.26). Lead= ership's response to change challenges may inadvertently create resistance to the change. Some of these efforts= , when taken through the lens of heroic leadership, "contribute to a mutually reinforcing system that causes and perpetuates the leadership trap of contr= ol impassivity" (Bradford & Cohen, 1998, p.8). The more control and responsibilit= y for results of the unit the leader takes, the more passive the team may become, resulting in blame, dysfunction, and loss of performance (Bradford & Co= hen, 1998).

Whether the leader uses instrumental or charismatic leadership or a combination of both= to lead the organization through convergent or strategic change, there are effective change leadership roles and approaches (Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Effective change leade= rs provide guidance through clear goals and feedback, create planning structur= es that optimally provide flexibility, invest in required resources, and create frequent wins (McLagan, 2002). Some of the key dimensions of change leadership are challenging the status quo, inspiring a shared vision, personal communication, involving others to build commitment, and "enabling others to act by energizing, empowering, building teams, providing tangible support with appropriate resources, and putting in place the appropriate systems and structures" (Graetz, 2000, p. 550). It is the enabling, not delegating= , of others to act (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is the core of shared leader= ship (Pearce & Conger, 2004).

Change may produce stress within organizations (Bridges, 2003). Effective responses to change requ= ire behavioral and attitudinal change transitions that must be understood and managed (Bridges). This requires leaders' understandi= ng that change, and the resistance to it, is a healthy dynamic within organizations (DeJager, 2001). Management must not view resistance to change as something that must be controlled (DeJager). Initial resistance= to any change initiative at the beginning stages should be expected (Bridges). Dealing effectively with the human= side of organizational change will increase the probability of a successful chan= ge effort and this requires leadership support.

One example= of the lack of change leadership is the common experience of mergers and acquisitions. Mergers fail at the alarming rate of 60 to 80% due to cultural and leadership communication issues. This results in stress, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, turnover, and low morale (Applebaum & Gandell, 2003). Leadership be= havior and role modeling is important for successful change, including the develop= ment of shared leadership within change management teams (Pearce, 1997). A significant challenge for managi= ng change is the preservation of psychological contracts. A way to build these contracts is = to involve employees in real and meaningful ways to develop and implement strategic change (Shield, Thorpe, & Nelson, 2002). By doing so, effective change lead= ers develop transactional and transformational shared leadership within their change management teams (Pearce). &nb= sp; Given that organizational change is constant (Nadler & Tushman, 1990), supporting the development of shared leadership in teams may prevent leadership overload. E= nvironmental complexity and the constant state of change may overwhelm even the most transformational and empowering leaders (Pearce & Manz, 2005). With an educated workforce and the global economy pressuring organizations to reduce costs and improve efficiencies, the empowering benefits of shared leadership may be required (Pearce & Manz).

Organizational Environment

&= nbsp; The organizational environment influences the emergence of shared leadership. One important variable is the mann= er in which leadership is enacted. Leadership, either vertical or shared, must perform three sets of activities competently and efficiently: "identifying and disseminating= the collective aims of an organization, regulating the flow of resources into a= nd out the organization, identifying and governing duties and rights as well as functions and roles of members of the organization" (Child & McGra= th, 2001, p. 1136). To perform th= ese activities well, three levels of the organization must dynamically interact: The technical level, commonly associated with production; the managerial level, responsible for managing task and processes within the organization; and the institutional level, which manages boundaries between the organization and the environmen= t (Thompson, 1967). Shared leadership does= not aim to replace the role of leader and yet, it opens the possibility that th= is role, in today's complex organizations may be shared among its team members= (Bradford & Cohen, 1998).

&= nbsp; The environment, in which an organization competes, affects the organization and its members. With increasing environmental complexity, more specialization and coordination are necessar= y to effectively respond to organizational challenges (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Both vertical and shar= ed leadership have the capability to manage this coordination within and across team boundaries. The trend to= ward an information-based economy requires organizations to cope with four core issues: interdependence, disembodiment, velocity, and power (Child & McGrath, 2001). Organizations= need to shift their focus from "buffering against uncertainty to responding= to a strategic focus on structure and process design, a reemphasis on the soci= al and interpersonal, and the reemergence of issues of legitimacy" (Child & McGrath, 2001, p.1135). Flatter, team-based organizations are a response to this shifting focus.

&= nbsp; Organizations are naturally comprised of interdepartmental systems. A division of labor within these departments creates uncertainty and leadership derives its power from coping with this uncertainty (Hickson, et al, 1971). Organizations have often taken a traditional approach in managing complexity and change posed by the environment. "The role of hierarchy attempts to respond to changes in the environment and maintain stability by adjusting organizational structure" (Katz & Kahn, 196= 6, p.26). In its attempt to mana= ge the complexity, organizations often mistakenly turn toward a stronger hierarchi= cal approach to manage its complex environment. This traditional organizational re= sponse might support the development of a more controlling style of vertical leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985), but not shared leadership.

&= nbsp; According to Child and McGrath (2001), "power and accountability for its use, which in the traditional bureaucracy was presumed to be placed in the control of top executives by t= heir principles, becomes a far more complex matter in organizations that have multiple stakeholders and are not organized hierarchically" (p. 1140).

&= nbsp; Cleveland (2002) proposed that the future for organizations is the "uncentraliza= tion path" (p. 28). In the post-postmodern era, complex activities will be uncentralized, governed by rules adopted via participation, with some authority ensuring the shared ru= les are followed until such time they are internalized and accepted. Then, they will be perpetually lea= rned "at a parent's knee or at school or by adult experience and informal (but effective) peer pressure" (Cleveland, 2002, p. 29). This participatory, team-based app= roach manages the challenges of complexity. This approach might be served by a combination of vertical and shared leadership (Bradford & Cohen, 1998).= Shared leadership requires employee involvement and yet, employee involvement will not emerge without an organi= zational culture that fosters it through leadership support.

Employee Involvement

&= nbsp; As organizations face complex changes within their competitive environments, organizational culture and vertical leadership encourage the involvement of employees (Robbins, 2003). Em= ployee involvement is a “participative process that uses the entire capacity= of employees and is designed to encourage increased commitment to the organization's success” (Robbins, 2003, p.194). Evidence exists for employee invol= vement programs created specifically to capitalize upon this form of involvement.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Some examples of these early progr= ams included participative management, work councils, and quality improvement initiatives (Robbins).

&= nbsp; The most important and positive influence to employees is the assurance that th= eir manager is fully competent and capable (Garvey, 2004). Vertical leadership is necessary to foster shared leadership. The= most important factor in employee involvement and recognition programs are those with active management support and involvement (Garvey). The influence of top management and their commitment to employee involvement programs has a strong correlation = for such programs’ future success (Rodgers, Hunter, & Rogers, 1993).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

&= nbsp; The advantages of employee involvement to organizations become evident when employees fully participate in the decisions of management and are encourag= ed to provide solutions to problems. Real organizational benefits such as improvement to employee health,= and its reduction in absenteeism is one such gain reported by Gonzalez (2005).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Within a large waste management co= mpany, employee involvement and training programs reduced accidents by 60% (Woods, 2005). Employee involvement programs result in tangible benefits of increased productivity, safety, employee health, and quality. Further, the best employee involvement programs are those viewed by employees and management as successful programs for the organization. The most successful employee invol= vement programs are also manager-involvement programs (Spath, 2004). An important and positive influenc= e upon employee involvement is the assurance that management is fully competent and capable (Corporate Leadership Council, 1999). Competent and capable vertical leadership, therefore, is fundamental for the development of shared leaders= hip (Parker, 1990).

Empowerment

&= nbsp; Empowerment plays an important role in helping organizations face their complex challen= ges (Fulton, 2003).

We are caught in this funny kind of paradox of power and powerlessness. We see how complex the systems are and how daunting the challenges a= re at this moment in history, and so every person individually feels small and unable to do anything. I thin= k that going forward, a lot will depend on the leaders who will emerge and where t= hey emerge from. Much will depend= on the degree to which those leaders can inspire people to see how much power = we actually do possess, both individually and collectively. (Fulton, 2003, p.48)

&= nbsp; The use of teams can be a credible and effective method to empower employees (Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1990). The gain to organizations becomes evident when employees fully participate in the decisions of management and= are encouraged to provide solutions to problems.

&= nbsp; Empowerment is neither easy nor automatic. Supervisors may resist empowerment and cling to autocratic behaviors (Dew, 1995). They may resist empowerment because they fear a loss of influence and viable career path and doubt the practicality of empowered teams (Dew). Suggesting that it may be a role interpretation and skill problem, Dew suggests that practitioners and senior management could support the transition to empowerment by providing strateg= ies for team leadership development. Further, implementing a change process towards empowerment requires = the readiness and involvement of team leaders in the planning process. To sustain the change from supervis= ion to team leadership, influential coaches and mentors must help facilitate the transition from autocratic to democratic leadership (Dew, 1995). Active management support and acti= ve involvement in employee involvement programs is critical (Garvey, 2004). ”You can't simply approach a person or group and expect them to follow you, regardless of the power resources you possess. You mu= st build meaningful connections” (Preston, 2004, p.52).

&= nbsp; Empowering leadership, active involvement, and leadership support of employee empowerm= ent are critical to the success of teams (Dew, 1995; Garvey, 2004; Preston, 2004). The style and influenc= e of leadership, as well as the empowerment of employees, are important factors = in the development of teams and their overall effectiveness (Dew, 1995). A relationship between team effectiveness and shared leadership exists (Pearce, 1997). An understanding of the variables = necessary for developing team effectiveness may support a better appreciation for som= e of the important variables for developing shared leadership.

Team Effectiveness

There are a= lso many descriptions, yet little consensus, for what comprises team effectiveness. Guzzo a= nd Dixon (1996) note that team effectiveness is a broad performance-related te= rm and may be indicated by outputs of quantity, quality, speed, customer satisfaction, team member consequences, or enhancement of team capability. = For a team to = be effective, the team structure should be necessary and appropriate. Teams may not be the best solution and should not be formed to address every problem (Bragg, 1999). Alternatives to teams, such as the= use of work groups or short-term task forces, need to be considered (Carr, 1992). Within these groups, o= ne would not expect to find significant levels of shared leadership, due to the group's greater dependency on the leader.&= nbsp; Goals must be large and exciting enough so that only a team, not an individual, can best solve the problem.&nb= sp; Reinforcing the need for goals and criteria for successful teams, Kezborn (1999) cited some import= ant basics. Teams must develop a = sense of interdependency, common decision-making and problem solving approaches, = team accountability, and a collective purpose for a common goal. Shared leadership requires the tea= m to have clear goals that are aligned with the organization. Successful teams' goals are direct= ed and focused by management, while supporting the company's strategy and values.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ultimately, the team's actions mus= t help achieve business results (Fitz-Enz, 1997).= Effective teams, however, are generally not passive. Such teams create their own identi= ty, are accountable for their actions, and have leadership sponsors who underst= and their unique needs (Frohman, 1995).

Effective t= eams must accomplish the task results at hand as represented by their collective purpose and goals. Effective = teams balance both task accomplishment and the process of learning that result in personal, team, and individual development (Clutterbuck, 2003). There are important team behaviora= l responses that signal and support effectiveness.&nbs= p; Some of these are team members' ability to get = along, listen to one another, set priorities, feel recognized, and reach agreement (Allerton, 1996). These behav= iors are regulated by team norms. =

&nbs= p; Team norms are strengthened when they are viewed as important by the majo= rity of the team's members. Some o= f the behaviors that are reinforced are those that “ensure group survival, facilitate task accomplishment, contribute to group morale, or express the group’s central values” (Feldman, 1984, p.52). Members who conform to group norms= , as opposed to violating them, experience more positive emotions (Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz, 2004). Norms reinforce member= s' positive behavior. Additionally, reinf= orcement of such norms is ensured by “statements of supervisors, critical even= ts in the group’s history, primacy, or carry-over behaviors from past situations” (Feldman, 1984, p.52).&n= bsp;

The underst= anding and influence of norms is critical to the success of teams. However, norm conformity can resul= t in deleterious consequences (Moorehead, Ference, & Neck, 1991). In a well-known analysis of groupt= hink and the Challenger space shuttle tragedy, an out-group was the critical sou= rce of information that could have diverted the unproductive, tragic alternative. Conformance to n= orms may clearly be productive or unproductive.= Managers and employees in team environments need to better understand the conditions in which norms are established, and the effect on productivi= ty.

Alig= ning work with the organization, defining roles, holding people accountable, as = well as building a shared understanding, are additional requirements for effecti= ve teams (Nador, 2001). The righ= t mix of functional knowledge, skills, and personalities on the team must be identified and selected at the time of team formation (Nador). There are additional, common team development issues that may arise such as lack of role clarity, vision, and direction from management, poor business planning, and reluctance to discuss team issues (Higgs, 1996). So= me of the frustrations felt by employees may arise from confusion about the reaso= ns for teams, lacking the proper skills to operate as a team, and having uncle= ar goals and roles (Higgs). As t= he team becomes more empowered, team leaders may no longer understand their ne= wly evolved role, nor have the skills necessary to enact it. Another issue might be lack of det= ailed planning, management support, and the follow-up support necessary to ensure success in a team-based empowerment initiative.

Team member= s need to feel a sense of pride and purpose, information, recognition, challenge, = and self-development. This is inf= luenced by attentive, supportive, and results-oriented managers (Rabby, 2001). Management should give team member= s the space, time, and support to deliberate and work through conflict (Stoner &a= mp; Hartmann, 1993). An important= role of management should be to provide information and perspectives, which are normally unavailable to team members (Stoner & Hartmann, 1993).

&= nbsp; A palpable move toward the development of empowerment came through the empowe= red team movement. As experience = with empowered teams progressed, there were many factors that emerged, which were seen as helpful to the overall effort to empower employees (Yeatts & Barnes, 1996). Experience with team-based organizations highlights important and unique challenges and suggests that the implementation of empowered teams is more complex than mo= st managers realized (Yeatts & Barnes, 1996). A review of the successes and implementation failures of empowered, self-managed teams provides an import= ant background for the emergence of shared leadership.

The Complexity of Empowered Teams=

&= nbsp; The most advanced form of teams, known as empowered or self-managed teams, were extensively reported by Wellins (1991).&nb= sp; Within this discussion, the terms 'empowered teams' and 'self-managed teams' are used interchangeably. An understanding of empowerment and the challenges of team development are necessary in implementing and building empowered teams. Shared leadership and empowered ch= ange management teams have been linked (Pearce, 1997). Based upon leadership style, shared leadership has the potential for development within other types of teams as well. There are numerous vert= ical leadership styles associated with empowered teams. Among these are aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering, though not all support sha= red leadership (Pearce, 1997; Pearce & Sims, 2002).

&= nbsp; Empowered teams have members who manage themselves, assign jobs, plan and schedule wo= rk, make production or service related decisions, and take action on problems (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000). Empowered teams have been widely written about since the early 1990'= s, however, their origin was earlier. Empowered teams date back to the 1950's in the coalmines of England. In the mines, employees worked int= erchangeably and helped each other by trading jobs responsibilities. Empowered teams have the advantage= s of managing worker burnout and employee control within an extremely harsh work= ing environment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).&n= bsp; Wellins, Byham, and Wil= son (1991, p. 7-8) report "clear indications of higher productivity and job satisfaction among those workers who were given more control of their jobs."

&= nbsp; These team structures gained popularity within organizations seeking to fully emp= ower employees. The benefits of empowered teams were enthusiastically touted (Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1990; Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1993). Wellins (1991) reported wide initi= al success. Early on, the majori= ty of executives predicted that half of their work force would be organized into self-managed teams by the middle or end of the 90’s (Wellins). Though some caution was given, it = was overshadowed by the unbridled excitement for empowered teams' promised bene= fits (Orsburn, et al.; Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1990; Wellins; Wellins,= et al.).

&= nbsp; Team-based organizations experience important and unique challenges. Management has a significant impac= t upon the ability of the team to become empowered (Dew, 1995). A supportive attitude among team me= mbers for empowerment has a significant positive effect (Hut & Molleman, 1998). Given the appropriate = time, environment, leadership, training, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishm= ent, teams have improved their performance (McNerney, 1994).

&= nbsp; Managers may not appreciate the level of difficulty for reaching a level of collaboration necessary to build an effective team (McNerney, 1994). The implementation of empowered te= ams is more complex than most managers have realized (Yeatts & Barnes, 1996).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Some of the contemporary authors i= n the 1990's might have amplified some of these problems. Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, and Z= enger (1990) proposed a time-sequenced, five-stage model. They predicted that the first two = stages were attainable in nine months. They further predicted that Stages 3 and 4, hallmarked by leader-centered teams = and tightly formed teams, were reachable in twelve months. Therefore, an expectation was set = for the attainment of the highest form of empowerment, the self-managed team, short= ly after one year (Orsburn, et al.). Other factors my have deemed this expected timeline for the development of empowe= red teams to be somewhat unreasonable. = Resistance to the widespread use of empowered teams, especially within union environme= nts, has been reported (Steinburg & Rissler, 1991). Managers, practitioners, and resea= rchers have discovered that the complexity involved with implementing empowered te= ams was greater than anticipated, resulting in an overall resistance to it (Caraman= ica, Ferris & Little, 2001). <= /p>

&= nbsp; Team members required extensive skill development more often possessed by manage= ment (Wellins & George, 1993). Most empowered teams found that both problem solving ability and boundary management, necessary for bargaining and reaching agreements with suppliers= and buyers inside and outside of the organization, required high-level skills a= nd the explicit support of upper management (Hut & Molleman, 1998). Some of the expectations and level= of involvement may have been exaggerated. "They often become involved in company-wide issues such as vendor quality, safety, and business planning&q= uot; (Wellins & George, p.27). There was an expectation that any organization that implemented empowered teams w= ould realize significant performance benefits.&= nbsp; An empowered team-based organization was to become leaner, with fewer layers of managers and supervisors. The remaining leaders were to become coaches. New reward systems, tending to be = skill or team-based rather than seniority-based, were needed. There was an expectation that empl= oyees learn all needed skills within the team (Wellins, 1991). The expectations for these complex roles, skills, and processes were rarely fulfilled (Dew, 1995; Wageman, 199= 7; Hut & Molleman, 1998).

&= nbsp; In most instances, the performance benefits were clear to management. Experience would demonstrate that = most teams never reached the level of complex development promised by the expert= s of the time (Hut & Molleman, 1998). Some of the causes for implementation failure were confirmed by Dew (1995), Wageman (1997), and Hut and Molleman. Though there were many benefits of empowered teams, successful team development needed to address the implementation issues of lack of management support and communication, inappropriate human resource systems, lack of training and development, and unrealistic expectations (Wellins & George, 1993).

Some of the largest issues were a readjustment of management expectations away from ful= ly empowered team development to a more realistic level of team development. Additionally, management needed to provide the necessary developmental support of resources, support systems, = and clearly understood boundaries (Hut & Molleman, 1998). For most teams, the level of team development may have been limited. Other factors that played in the success or failure of empowered tea= ms were the role of management, group dynamics, individual attitudes, and work characteristics. At the time = of team implementation, most team members and managers were unaware of these practical limitations (Hut & Molleman).

When teams = are not implemented correctly, employees may become confused and demotivated. Managers may think effective empow= erment and self-direction involves abdication, permissiveness, overlooking poor performance, giving up accountability, or relaxing standards (Hut & Molleman, 1998). There must b= e a clear business reason for implementing teams, where teams can best manage w= hole processes, serve an identified customer base, and develop and improve produ= cts and services. Effective empow= erment will not occur by simply organizing employees into a new team structure (Ca= rr, 1992). Carr stressed the impo= rtance of leadership within team implementation.&= nbsp; “It is a mistake for companies to fail to recognize the import= ance of their first-and second-level supervisors” (p.43). Team leaders may grow frustrated a= nd confused about their role. Se= nior managers might declare teams as a failure and return to the command and con= trol method of management that achieved results in the past (Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001).

For self-ma= naged teams, the necessary tasks should be complex. If not, another structure may be m= ore appropriate (Carr, 1992). Problem solving is a complex skill, requiring development and transition time.= To compensate for this complexity, Herman (1999) suggested that teams might be limited to problem identification and analysis. Once approved by management, they = should recommend the best practice solutions to implement management’s decisions. Herman (1999) warn= ed leaders and practitioners against using empowered teams for quick turn arou= nd, or radical change initiatives, due to the long development time necessary f= or these teams.

When consid= ering empowered teams, some of the most significant issues to be addressed are: unrealistic management expectations (Herman, 1999), lack of clear understan= ding and motivation for the initiative (Dew, 1995), unclear leader and member ro= les (Roy, 2003), an attitude that teams are one-size-fits-all (Wageman, 1997), = and lack of support for the time and resources necessary to build the team (Hut & Molleman, 1998). A long= and natural sequence of events to implement teams must be considered and planned. One of the most impo= rtant and overlooked steps is the ongoing support and development that is needed = long after the initiative has been officially launched (Wageman, 1997). Leadership support is critical for= the implementation of any empowerment initiative to be successful. <= /span>

The Importance of Leadership Support

Wageman (19= 97) cautioned against dismissing the importance of leadership behavior. The leader's coaching behavior is important to the team's success. Specifically, leaders must provide clear and engaging direction alig= ned with the organization, challenge the entire team to make decisions with cle= arly defined authority, utilize team-based reward systems, provide resources, and promote strategic thinking. T= here is an important role of leadership in supporting the development of these success factors, starting from top management down through the level of tea= m leader (Wageman, 1997).

An importan= t role of management should be to provide information and perspectives, which are normally unavailable to team members. Management should give team members the space, time, and support to deliberate and work through the conflict that predictably happens in teams (Stoner & Hartmann, 1993). Management may not have the patience to allow the team to grow and develop to this level of optimal performance. This lack of patience for teams ma= y be a mistake, since building teams take considerable time, 12 to 24 months with consultants regularly intervening (Stoner & Hartmann). Management's patience and support = for teams can be rewarding, since a successful, harmonious, and cooperative tea= m is a direct reflection upon effective management (Wolff, 1988).

Team member= s need to feel a sense of pride and purpose, information, recognition, challenge, = and self-development. This can be= best influenced by attentive and supportive, results-oriented managers (Rabby, 2001). Dew (1995) sugge= sted practitioners and senior management support the transition to empowered tea= ms by providing strategies for team leadership development. Implementing a change process towa= rds empowerment requires the readiness and involvement of team leaders in the planning process (Dew, 1995). To sustain the change from supervision to team leadership, influential coaches and men= tors must help facilitate the transition from autocratic to democratic leadership (Dew, 1995).

Teams must develop the proper knowledge, skills, and authority to make decisions (Herm= an, 1999). True measures of succe= ss are the actions and results achieved by teams.= To support this, team leaders need to have had prior success with ga= ining senior management's support. = Team leaders play an important role in this regard. An empowered team’s value in= cludes decision–making authority. Herman cautioned against asking empowered teams to validate decisions that have already been made under the guise of empowerment. This is manipulative and demotivating. Management must honestly assess whether the team is being organized to solve problems, make recommendations, or to delay a management decision (Morris, 1991). Finally, implementation effectiven= ess must be objectively evaluated and readjusted.

Transition from Empowered Teams to Sha= red Leadership =

There are s= ome important lessons learned from empowered teams and the degree of leadership support that is necessary for this team-based structure to work effectively. Vertical leaders= hip behavior and team members' production/service responsibilities have been fo= und to be positively correlated with team empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 199= 9). When teams had access to important information and resources generally held by management, higher levels of empowerment developed (Kirkman & Rosen). Avolio, Bass and Jung (1996) sugge= st that a goal of transformational leadership is to develop leaders or shared = leadership within a group, citing self-managed teams as an example. Vertical transformational leadersh= ip, supplementing transactional leadership, developed shared leadership within teams (Avolio & Bass, 2004). It should = so, not merely by empowering others, but through developing the capability to determine one's own course of action (Avolio & Bass). The transformational leader develo= ps others to reach a higher potential (Burns, 1978). Overall, highly empowered teams we= re found to be more effective than less empowered teams (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Autonomy, alone, does = not predict overall effectiveness. Important factors for effective teams are the teams' experience of potency, meaningfulness, and impact. T= he important outcomes of team empowerment are team productivity, customer serv= ice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team commitment (Kirkman &= amp; Rosen).

Developing = shared leadership requires a cultural change.&nbs= p; Schein (1986) warned of simplistic views of how culture begins, evol= ves, and changes. Leadership expectations or resistance to shared leadership may prevent its emergence a= nd development, similar to the resistance to empowered teams. Line managers influence the develo= pment of a sharing culture. Knowled= ge hoarding increases during change (Schein, 2000) and would prevent the development of shared leadership. Ineffective or unsupportive vertical leadership can be a barrier to effectively develop= ing a team with shared leadership. Team leaders that are willing to take risks and share information in support of developing effective teams need to be identified (Myers, 1999).

As employee= s are empowered within flattened team-based environments, self-leadership is necessary for the distribution and sharing of leadership in knowledge-based teams (Pearce & Manz, 2005). Self-leadership not only involves meeting set standards but also analyzing, establishing, and modifying them. It also involves self-motivation, self-influence, and self-reward (Pearce & Manz). "Shared leadership entails a simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process within a team that involves= the serial emergence of all official as well as unofficial leaders" (p. 134). It is important to note= that Pearce and Manz did not propose that self-leadership and shared leadership replace vertical leadership. = Since shared leadership does not displace the role of vertical leader as was ofte= n the case in self-managed teams, the degree of leadership resistance for shared leadership may not be as high as that experienced against self-managed teams.

Shared Leadership Research

&= nbsp; Simply stated, shared leadership is an alternative form of leadership. This leadership is collectively he= ld by all team members. Evidence of shared leadership is the rotation and distribution of leadership responsibilities within a team (Parker, 1990). Shared leadership research appears= to have flourished shortly after the appearance of self-managed team research, occurring with greater frequency in the 1990s. Self-managed teams represent, by definition, an organizational structure requiring the emergence of shared leadership. To date, the rese= arch of shared leadership is predominantly a study of leadership within self-man= aged teams (Pearce, 1997; Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2004).

&= nbsp; Two sources of leadership influence in teams are the vertical leader, either appointed or emergent, and the other is the collective, shared leadership within the team (Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2004). Shared leadership occurs when team members = share equal responsibility for ensuring that all tasks necessary to accomplish a<= /span> goal are completed (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Whereas self-managed teams may req= uire shared leadership, shared leadership, by definition, does not require a self-managed team. While a te= am may have a formal leader, leadership often shifts among team members depending = upon the circumstances, the needs, skills, and maturity of the team (Pearce & Conger).

Though ther= e is no one accepted definition of shared leadership, or way to measure it, quantitative studies of shared leadership have been dominated by Pearce and colleagues (Pearce, 1997; Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999; Pearce & Sim= s, 2002; Pearce, Sims, Cox, Ball, Schnell, Smith, & Trevino, 2003; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Manz, 2005).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There has been significant researc= h in another form of shared leadership, co-leadership, as leadership shared betw= een two leaders. Citing co-leader= ship as a shared leadership construct, Heenan and Bennis (1999) posit its necess= ity for executives leading organizations in complex environments. Judge and Ryman (2001) advise that= CEOs of two organizations involved in a strategic alliance may share leadership = to ensure success of strategic alliances between two firms. In their view of shared leadership= as co-leadership, they contend that post alliance innovation often requires top executives to "abandon their known and proven bases of expertise"= (p. 77). O'Toole, Galbraith= , and Lawler III (2002) agree with the practical application of two CEOs sharing the leadership role to move beyond the difficult transition following mergers a= nd acquisitions. However, for co-leadership to work, key factors such as "joint selection, complemen= tary skills and emotional orientations, and mechanisms for coordination" (O'Toole, Galbraith, & Lawler III, p. 82) must be ensured. Within these views of co-leadershi= p, leadership can be an effective shared leadership construct.

Another transition from vertical leadership to shared leadership was suggested by C= ohen (2004) through the construct of entrepreneurial leadership. Entrepreneurial leadership can be = found among employees who are "opportunity obsessed – constantly looki= ng for unfulfilled needs, gaps in service or product, and broken processes&quo= t; (Cohen, p. 16). Entrepreneuri= al leaders are usually vertical leaders at the top of an organizational unit.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> These leaders are skilled at motiv= ating others and are comfortable with sharing their leadership. Cohen proposed that other entrepreneurial leaders might be found at any level of the organization, working to advance constructive change.&nb= sp; A necessary condition, however, is an organization that supports this form of leadership, reward systems that encourage risk-taking, and support = to build effective cross-functional teams.&nb= sp; All of these contribute to the building of shared entrepreneurial leadership.

In search o= f a shared leadership construct, Yang and Shao (1996) proposed that eight leadership roles must evolve through the actions of the vertical leader, ba= sed upon the life cycle of the organization.&n= bsp; A leadership behavioral shift is necessary as the team develops. In response to the environment and= needs of the team, leadership roles must shift from innovator and broker, to ment= or and facilitator, to monitor, coordinator, director and producer, and finally back to broker and innovator (Yang & Shao). Successful self-managed teams must= then develop all eight of these shared leadership roles within the team. This model has not been used by ot= her researchers to study shared leadership.&nb= sp;

Pearce (199= 7) proposed an overall causal model of change management team effectiveness, dealing with multiple variables assigned to meta-dimensions. He proposed that four antecedents: vertical leadership, shared leadership, team size, and networking behaviors would positively impact team effectiveness through two intervening variable= s of group potency and citizenship behavior.&nb= sp; Pearce summarized a set of leadership archetypes, derived from past research. His proposition was= that the behaviors, collated by archetype and used to assess vertical leadership, could also be used to assess the collective leadership construct of shared leadership. His research incl= uded the leadership archetype styles of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering. To control the number of variable entering within the statistical te= sts, Pearce organized directive, aversive, and transactional leadership behaviors into the meta-dimensions of "vertical controlling" and "shar= ed controlling" leadership. He organized transformational and empowering leadership behaviors into "vertical catalyzing" and "shared catalyzing" leadership. His research supp= orted the following relationships:

Vertical controlling leadership negatively influences group potency.

Vertical catalyzing leadership positively influences group potency and team effectiveness.

Shared con= trolling leadership negatively influences citizenship behavior and team effectivenes= s.

Shared cat= alyzing leadership positively influences citizenship behavior and team effectivenes= s.

Team size negatively influences citizenship behavior and team effectiveness.

Networking behavior positively influences group potency, citizenship behavior, and team effectiveness.

&= nbsp; Pearce's (1997) categorization of controlling and catalyzing leadership constructs managed the number of statistical variables used in the study; however, tra= nsactional contingent reward leadership style includes the setting and gaining agreeme= nt for team member expectations (Bass, 1996).= This and other important transactional leadership effectiveness variables (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985) may play an important role in developing shared leadership. This uniqu= e role may have been lost by clustering the transactional leadership variables of contingent reward and management by exception-active with other more controlling leadership variables.

Pearce (199= 7) hypothesized that team size negatively influences citizen behavior and team effectiveness. To further sup= port Pearce's work, Peace challenged others to further research the relative importance of vertical and shared leadership as they relate to team maturity, team size, = team member familiarity, team diversity, task complexity, team proximity (includ= ing geographical dispersion), and crisis decision-making. Most of these additional variables reflect team demographics and are relatively simple constructs with simple scale metrics.

Bradford and Cohen (1998) proposed post-heroic forms of leadership, including shared leadership. Again, they cauti= oned against eliminating the important, catalyzing vertical leadership role in support of shared leadership. "Leaders still have plenty of = work and remain accountable for the unit's performance. But they must now encourage and bu= ild a shared responsibility system, where the leader and direct reports collabora= te in the management of the unit" (p. 15). Through this perspective, transact= ional and transformational vertical leadership may be necessary forms of leadersh= ip to develop shared leadership.

Meanwhile, = as Pearce (1997) had set the stage for empirically based, quantitative shared leadership research, many qualitative studies of shared leadership had dominated the field. Taggart's (2000) qualitative approach sought to understand the capability and challenges of a large federal service delivery office to create an environment of shared leadership. The study was lim= ited to the conditions within one specific federal office. Most of the shared leadership rese= arch is qualitative studies, applied to the academic leadership held among teach= ers and administrators. One exception to the numerous qualitative studies in academic environments was a relatively straightforward quantitative research study that demonstrated positive correlations between the shared leadership of educational stakehol= ders and the development of school district technology plans with the degree of satisfaction experienced by the stakeholders (Decker, 1998). Here, the construct of shared lead= ership was synonymous with collaboration and input by stakeholders.

Pearce's (1= 997) groundbreaking research studied shared leadership within empowered change management teams. Perry, Pearce, and Sims (1999) proposed a shared leadership model for developing empowered selling = team effectiveness, whereas team proximity, ability, maturity, diversity, and si= ze affect the development of shared leadership. Selling task characteristics of interdependence and complexity might be enhanced by shared leadership in achieving team effectiveness. They further proposed that shared leadership could contribute to team effectiven= ess via the development of team responses of team trust, team commitment, group potency, satisfaction, and cohesiveness.&n= bsp; Shared leadership might also contribute to the development of behavi= oral responses including effort, communication, productivity, task performance, absenteeism, and citizenship behaviors.&nb= sp; Shared leadership, team responses, behavioral responses, and selling task characteristics might all contribute to the development of team effectiveness. This conceptua= l model was simply proposed as a guide to future research in this area.

Using the five leadership archetypes of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering, Pearce and Sims (2002) found both vertical and shared leadershi= p to be a useful predictor of team effectiveness. The style of leadership showed correlations in different directions. Both vertical and shared aversive leader were negatively related to = team self-ratings of team effectiveness. Manager-rated team effectiveness was negatively correlated with dire= ctive-style transactional leadership. Int= ernal customer ratings of team effectiveness were also negatively related to shar= ed directive leadership. Both ve= rtical and shared transformational leadership were positively related to team and customer ratings of team effectiveness.&nb= sp; Team self-ratings and manager ratings of team effectiveness were positively related to vertical empowering leadership.

Pearce and = Sims (2002) suggest that future research might find that mature teams possessing both technical and leadership skills might display more shared leadership.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Other factors affecting the likeli= hood of shared leadership display might be "team skills, team member familiarity, team member proximity, and team maturity" (Pearce & S= ims, p. 187).

&= nbsp; The Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003) has been used to define and measure shared leadership. This instrument i= s a modification of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1996)= and measures overall leadership possessed by the group, again within the areas = of transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant behavior. The focus of the TMLQ targets the overall shared leadership for the entire team, not its individual members. =

Extending b= eyond change management and empowered selling teams, Cox, Pearce, and Perry (2004= ) propose a shared leadership model as applicable to new product development teams. Supporting shared leadership, Cox, Pearce and Perry proposed the independent variables of vertical leadership, team formation, the boundaries of the team and its members, leadership supp= ort, and the level of empowerment. They also proposed that the team characteristics of proximity (geographical coll= ocation), team size, members' ability, diversity, and maturity are viable independent variables affecting the development of shared leadership.

Cox, Pearce= , and Perry (2004) further suggested that given the existence of shared leadership within a team, the important outcomes of positive affective, behavioral, and cognitive changes result. Additionally, Cox, Pearce, and Perry proposed that shared leadership results in overall team effectiveness, which may have quantitative, qualitative, and time benefits, typical of existing business productivity metrics.

In a quantitative study of church management team members, Wood (2004) investigated the relationship of shared leadership, team behaviors, and team structure on a set of dependent outcome variables of role and stress (role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity,= job stress) and job satisfaction. The control variables were age, ethnicity, gender, education, team size, job role, job tenure, and team tenure. The study found shared leadership = to be negatively related with stress outcomes and positively related with job satisfaction. It indicated a positive relationship between empowered team behaviors and shared leadershi= p as well as team behavior positively influencing satisfaction and negatively influencing stress outcomes. Horizontal team structure did not relate to shared leadership or empowered team behavior. It d= id, however, have a positive relationship with role conflict. Wood warned that a lack of a relia= ble measure of organizational structure was detrimental to the study, raising caution about the research results. &= nbsp;

Pearce and = Manz (2005) proposed five different factors influenced the conditions under which shared leadership may emerge. These factors are the level of urgency, importance of employee commitment, the ne= ed for creativity and innovation, the level of interdependence, and the degree= of complexity. Oppositely, organ= izations requiring employee compliance to routine may require strong vertical leadership. In these situatio= ns, employee commitment, which is a "willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty" (Pearce & Manz, p. 136), may not be required. Under these conditions, one would = not expect to find shared leadership. Alternative forms of leadership may be necessary for organizations requiring a higher l= evel of creativity and innovation. Employees would need to be fully involved in problem-solving, opportunity-thinking, and influencing self and peers. One might expect a highly interdep= endent empowered team to have developed shared leadership. The level of task complexity withi= n an organization, such as in high-tech organizations, might necessitate shared leadership. It might be unreasonable to expect one individual, the vertical leader, to possess the knowledge and skills necessary to deal with the complexities facing such an organization.

In support = of an important role for vertical leadership and empowered organizations possessi= ng shared leadership, the role of team leader, facilitator, or coach are neces= sary role models to facilitate process and allow the team members to contribute expert knowledge and skills to the tasks at hand (Pearce & Manz, 2005). Pearce and Manz sugges= ted the organization must promote the development of alternative leadership for= ms through organizational rewards and training. In addition to vertical leader= ship development, team members must also develop leadership skills, if shared leadership is to be developed within organizations.

Choi (2006) proposed a simple measurement of shared leadership claiming there is no one agreed method to assess it. A= rguing that shared leadership is a mutually shared process occurring in the public sector, Choi studied the relationships among organizational structure, cult= ure, context, and shared leadership. Choi applied multiple regression analysis to a conceptual model of t= en independent variables and one control variable (gender) against only one de= pendent variable of shared leadership. The results showed that organizational crisis, technology, innovative culture, = and hierarchy of position variables are significantly and positively associated with shared leadership and reflected a partial relationship with organizati= onal structure, culture, and context factors.&n= bsp; The study suggested that shared and vertical leadership coexist in bureaucratic organizations.

Influential Variables for the Emergence of Shared Leadership

Vertical Leadership<= o:p>

Early indus= trial age organizations demanded leadership approaches that still permeate contemporary thinking about leadership theory. American railroads and the industri= al age perpetuated the need for management principles touting top to bottom leadership, unity of followers under the leader's direction, managerial oversight, and Taylor's scientific management. In his seminal work, The Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911, Taylor's study of management practice a= nd worker efficiency consisted of comparative observations measuring worker production output and efficiency. The focus of Taylor's study was the effective use of time a= nd motion and the productivity gained by the use of the right tool. After having directed workers in th= e new method, an improvement of loading 47 ½ tons of coal per day rather t= han the average 12 ½ tons was achieved (Clark, 2000). Taylor's guiding philosophy for scienti= fic management, was a belief in the application of scientific principles to the= act of management. The goal was to achieve harmony, cooperation, maximum output, efficiency, and prosperity (Robinson, 1992). With the work of Taylor and other traditional management theorists, the foundation of management control over employees was established early and strongly within management theory. This may have suppressed distribut= ed or shared leadership theory development from occurring earlier (Pearce & Conger, 2003).

Perrow (197= 3) summarized these traditional management theorists of Taylor, Fayol and Webe= r:

This school started by parading simple-minded injunctions to plan ahead, keep records, write-down policies, specialize, be decisive, and keep your span of control to about six people. These injunctions were needed as firms grew in size and complexity, since there were few models around beyond the railroad= s, military and the Catholic Church to guide organizations. (Perrow,1973, p. 42)

Within this rationalist approach, vertical leaders direct, reinforce rules, processes, = and deadlines. "In other wor= ds, it is not the free will of individual members that directly influences their o= wn decisions. Instead, behavior = is deliberately molded by management" (Davis, 1996, p.42). These ideas influenced the leaders= hip construct of aversive and directive leadership (Pearce & Manz, 2005).

Pearce and = Manz (2005) opine that even the more contemporary and attractive leadership theo= ries of transaction and transformation "emphasize a one-way influence proce= ss of leaders over followers" and a "primary focus, and source of thinking, ideas and decision-making is designated as the role of the leader" (p. 132). In sup= port of this assertion, leadership and power are intertwined (Hickson, et al, 1971). Vertical leaders posse= ss power when they help an organization cope with uncertainty. The uncertainty caused by interdepartmental systems' division of labor is managed through leadership's interpersonal and task connections (Hickson, et al, 1971). Leaders share a common need for power. This power strives for dominance over tasks, while the social form of power creates a positive work climate (McClelland & Burnham, 1975).&= nbsp;

However, over-reliance on technical or task aspects of the job might be at the expen= se of employees’ feelings of empowerment and sense of customer loyalty (= Robbins, 2003). Two balancing dimensio= ns of leadership, “initiating structure” and “considerationR= 21; exemplify the behavior of effective leaders. ”You can't simply approach a = person or group and expect them to follow you, regardless of the power resources y= ou possess. You must build meani= ngful connections” (Preston, 2004, p.52)= . Even so, the transactional leaders= hip (Bass, 1985) process is a power-based reciprocal exchange between leaders a= nd followers. The transactional = leader "clarifies what the associates need to do for a reward" and is an "essential component of the full range of effective leadership" (Avolio & Bass, p. 21). Thamhain (2004) described a balanced leadership influence upon team performance in the areas of people, process, work, and tools and techniques. Thamhain (2004) p= rovided guidelines for effective vertical team leadership: Define work process and = team structure, develop organizational interfaces and communication channels, properly staff and organize the team, and create proper reward systems. These examples are congruent with = transactional leadership actions (Bass). Transactional leadership also provides an important element of a balanced vertical leadership model. This need for balance provides the rationale for incorporating it wi= thin this research.

The concept= of transformational leadership was described by Burns (1978) as the process of raising awareness for the importance of achieving outcomes in developing the motivation that transcended self-interest.= Ultimately, the transformational leader develops others to reach a higher potential. To further = the goal of helping others reach their potential, Goleman (1999) suggested that= an important ability for every manager is to develop “emotional competence” (p.19). This begins with self-awareness and awareness of others. Bass (1985) identified five factor= s of transformational leadership: idealized influence behaviors, idealized influ= ence attributes, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

&= nbsp; Transformational leadership, augmenting transactional leadership, develops others (Avolio &a= mp; Bass, 2004). It does so, not through merely empowering others, but through developing the capability to determine one's own course of action. Avolio and Bass were careful to clarify that transformational leader= ship does not replace transactional leadership.

&= nbsp; Transformational leadership supplements transactional leadership. Examples of transformative (Bass, 1= 985) and considerate actions are to stimulate enthusiasm, excitement, and professional interests; ensure senior management support; build commitment; manage conflict and problems; and foster a culture of continuous support and improvement (Thamhain, 2004). The need for developing capability within a team, not merely empowering them, provides the rationale for including the transformational form of vertical = leadership within this research. <= /p>

&n= bsp; To measure vertical leadership effectiveness, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) assesses three major styles of leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transformational leadership is measured via idealized attributes and behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Transactional leadership, associate= d with behaviors of constructive and corrective transactions, is measured along the factors of contingent reward and active management-by-exception. Transactional leadership, though necessary, is insufficient to sustain leadership effectiveness. Passive/avoidant behavior, which is undesirable, but often present in ineffective leadership, is measured along= the factors of passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire (Avolio & Bass).

The MLQ is = one of many valid assessments. Yukl, Gordon and Taber (2002) posit that a major problem in leadership research is the lack of agreement concerning the construct of leadership. They propose a hierarchical taxonomy with three metacategories of task, relationship, and change behaviors. Within leadership task behaviors, they propose the skills of short-term planning, clarifying responsibilities, and monitoring operations and performance. Relationship behaviors inclu= de supporting others, developing or coaching, recognizing, consulting, empower= ing, and external monitoring. Chan= ge behaviors include envisioning change, encouraging innovative thinking, and taking personal risks. Though= the MLQ is imperfect, it has been widely used and validated for leadership research.

Transaction= al or transformational leadership actions may be displayed by the vertical leader, the team, or both (Bass, 1986; Pearce, 1997). Avolio, Bass and Jung (1996) sugge= sted that a goal of transformational leadership is to develop another individual= 's vertical leadership or a team's collective, shared leadership. Transformational leadership influen= ces team performance (Pearce, 1997; Dionne, et al, 2004). Dionne, et al (2004) posit that the intermediate outcomes of shared vision, team commitment, empowered team environment, and functional team conflict may facilitate team processes of = team communication, cohesion, and conflict management that leverage team performance. Transactio= nal and transformational leadership are only two styles of leadership described= in recent literature. Pearce, et= al. (2003) support the existence of directive, transactional, transformational,= and empowering leadership styles. They warned, however, that due to possible methodological error, additional rese= arch might confirm aversive style as separate and distinct from directive style.=

Research of alternative forms of leadership such as shared leadership is still in its infancy. Gordon and Yukl (200= 4) outlined several reasons for slow progress in defining leadership factors f= or improving organizational performance. Some of the issues are the quest for universal leadership truths that focus on outcomes rather than leadership processes. Academics and practitioners have frequently misunderstood the intentions of each other's leadership research= and perceived importance. Whereas strategic leadership's focus is most often the relationship between leader = and subordinate, there are alternative structural forms, such as, empowered and cross-functional teams that have received little research into their own un= ique forms of leadership processes. Gordon and Yukl (2004) opine that most leadership research has been concerned primarily with granting subordinates more delegated authority, ra= ther than the development of shared leadership.= The extant shared leadership research, when compared with traditional leadership studies, is minimal.

&nb= sp; More than an individual's ability predicts leadership effectiveness. The degree of support within an org= anization's culture influences leadership competence and effectiveness (Harris, 2002).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Rost's (1995) definition of leadership, "an influence relatio= nship wherein leaders and collaborators influence one another about real <= span style=3D'letter-spacing:-.05pt'>changes that reflect their mutual purposes&= quot; (Rost, p. 134), suggests that leadership development is complex. This complexity may lead to alterna= tive leadership forms. "Leaders and collaborators may change p= laces. There may be a number of lead= ership relationships in one organization, and the same people are not necessa= rily the leaders in these different relationships" (Rost, p. 134). Yukl (2002) agrees that leadership= is not unidirectional. From a research perspective, leadership may be either a dependent or independent variable. Leaders may influence the behavior of followers. However, followers may influence the behavior of leaders. Both are influenced by the organizational context and situation. Yukl suggests that further research might better grasp this complex interplay between vertical and shared leadership.

Team Size

The overall effectiveness of teams has been proven to be related to the size of the team. It is reasonable to con= clude that team size has a similar relationship to the development of shared leadership. Campion, et al (1= 993) found a negative correlation between team size and performance. The overall productivity within new product teams has been reported as optimal when team size approaches between five and ten members (Peters & Waterman, 1982). A positive relationship between sm= all team size (less than seven) and productivity was confirmed by Peters (1997)= . Team size has been found to be negatively correlated to customer ratings of team effectiveness, whereas, manager and team self-ratings of team size were negative in tendency but not statistically significant (Pearce & Sims, 2002). Faure (1995) discovered a negative relationship between team size and individual team member effort. Team members may lose a sense of p= ersonal efficacy as their individual contribution becomes lost within the large team identity. Oppositely, team si= ze as a moderating variable, has been shown to have no effect on the relationship= s among transformational leadership, team trust, and team commitment within software development teams (Hsu, 2006).

Team Maturity

Gersick (19= 88) researched the dynamics of project teams and discovered that teams matured = over time, but not necessary in a sequential step-by-step format, such as that suggested by Tuckman (1965). = Teams developed in a pattern of "punctuated equilibrium" (p. 9), whereby the team experienced an initial phase of activity. Marked by a transitional period of inertia at the halfway point of a deliverable, when reminded, the team experienced an additional phase of urgency. At this point, a revolution of act= ion and direction reenergized the team through phases or cycles until the task = or milestone was completed. Gers= ick stressed the importance of the start and transition stage as times when the team was most capable of being open to influence. The way in which a team was starte= d was found to be predictive of their success later in their development (Gersick= ).

Stoner and Hartmann (1993) warned that management must not push too hard on teams duri= ng their initial development phase; otherwise, they will negatively affect the team's overall effectiveness. Maturity, by any definition, involves time. Management should give team member= s the time and support to deliberate and work through their issues (Stoner & Hartmann). Management may not= have the patience to allow the team to grow and develop to the level of optimal performance associated with shared leadership (Stoner & Hartmann). Stoner and Hartmann suggest that management should expect team development to take 12 to 24 months with consultants regularly intervening for a team to reach a level of effectiven= ess.

There have = been several propositions that the team characteristic of team maturity is a via= ble independent variable positively affecting the development of shared leaders= hip (Pearce, 1997; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Cox, Pearce & Perry, 2004).

Team Member Familiarity <= /i>

           The degree to which team mem= bers have worked together in the past within a team environment has been linked = to important team variables. Low levels of team member familiarity among coal miners have been related to low levels of productivity (Goodman & Leyden, 1991). Decision-making effectiveness, an important team skill, improves over time as group members become more famil= iar with one another (Tuckman, 1965; Watson, et al, 1991). Blickensderfer (2000) found that t= eam member familiarity within tennis partners was positively related to the sha= red knowledge of rules and responsibilities.&n= bsp; This shared knowledge was significantly related to team coordination= . Resick (2004) found that team member familiarity influences the ability for team members to develop shared task-focused mental models, which were positively related with team coordination. Since shared leadership would require team coordination to exist, it is reasonable to propose that the level of familiarity among team members would be positively correlated with the development of shared leadership.

Team Member Proximity

           As teams are deployed within the competitive landscape of the global economy, one or more team members are often located in other cities or countries. This may have negative implication= s for the productive development of shared leadership within teams. It is possible that due to this dy= namic, team members may have a greater dependency upon the structures, communicati= on, and direction set by the vertical leader.&= nbsp; In other words, geographical separation of team members may prevent,= or increase the difficulty for the development of shared leadership. Individual team members located out= side of the main geographical location of the organization may suffer from disembodiment (Childs & McGrath, 2001). Pooley (2005) warned of communicat= ion issues arising from geographical separation. Within different geographies, cult= ural boundaries may amplify the differences.&nb= sp; Though it is has been demonstrated that modern communication tools, = such as videophone and Internet-based electronic meeting software, may have favorable effects upon team member ratings of satisfaction and productivity (Vanjani, 1996), geography and its embedded culture makes the development o= f a healthy team dynamics challenging. Schein (1986) warned of taking a simplistic view for how culture beg= ins, evolves, and changes over time. Managers must not ignore the effects of cultural issues brought on by different organizational life stages. Both geographical and organizational cultures affect a team's abilit= y to develop. Leadership should ex= pect difficulty for shared leadership development when membership is geographically dispersed. Line managers infl= uence the development of a sharing culture. Knowledge hoarding increases during change. This knowledge hoarding across geographical boundaries might be easier for team members that are divided by geographical boundaries. Perr= y, Peace, Sims, Jr. (1999) proposed that proximity affects the development of shared leadership within selling teams.&nb= sp; Additionally, other functional teams may be affected by proximity of members (Pearce & Sims, Jr., 2002). Therefore, this research may valida= te a negative relationship between geographical dispersion and the development of shared leadership.

Team Membership Load

           In organiza= tions, more demands are being placed on team members to do more with less. Multiple team memberships are a co= mmon occurrence. McGrath (1991) as= sumes the nature of groups to be loosely coupled, referring to the fact that individuals are members of more than one group. Role stress can occur when team me= mbers are placed on too many teams. This might occur in organizations with cross-functional project or process teams, typical of high-tech organizations. McGrath also asserts that teams and= their members must perform multiple tasks concurrently, which might further add to role stress and time pressures. The time allocated to accomplish the goals must be reasonable. Task conflicts, = when substantive and reasonable in nature, positively supports group performance (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).&nbs= p; However, when team members are assigned to an excessive number of te= ams, the resulting conflict can render the individual members and the team less effective. Time pressure, a r= esult of team member load, has been shown to be somewhat moderated by group poten= cy (Gevers, van Eerde, & Rutte, 2001). Team membership load and its associ= ated excessive role stress and time pressure may be negatively related with shared leaders= hip and lower team performance.

Group Potency

        &= nbsp; Group potency, a collective construct, is the collective belief within a team tha= t it can be effective (Guzzo, et al., 1993; Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006). Group potency is a "group-level construct parallel to the individual-level variable of self-efficacy because both are motivational constructs that reflect apprais= als of capabilities" (de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2005). Though group potency is related to self-efficacy, it is separate and distinct from it (Bandura & Locke, 20= 03; Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles) due to differences in levels of conceptualization (Chan, 1998). Group potency is a collective and a generalized construct, assessing= the overall team's belief that it can be effective, whereas, self-efficacy is an individual's task-specific belief about one's own competence (de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels). The g= roup potency construct has been validated by Guzzo, et al., and its eight-item assessment has been widely used in group potency research. Group potency is related to vertic= al and shared leadership (Pearce, 1997). Vertical leadership affects team performance through the enhancement= of group potency (Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Group potency has been widely stud= ied and shown to have positive effects upon the group outcomes of satisfaction, effort, and performance (Guzzo, et al.; Gevers, van Eerde, & Rutte, 200= 1) and team effectiveness (Pearce, Gallagher, & Ensley, 2002). Group potency is important in reduc= ing the negative effects of perceived time pressure (Gevers, van Eerde, & Rutte). Group potency has been positively linked to group performance (Hecht, Allen, Klammer and Kelly, 20= 02). Shared mental models of task performance have been found to be related to group potency, which in turn predicts team performance (Resick, 2004). Teams within individualistic cultur= es, such as the US, display more group potency and functional heterogeneity than teams within collectivistic cultures. No differences in performance were found (Sosik & Jung, 2002).

           Charismatic leadership effects group performance through the mediating effects of group potency (Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). In this longitudinal study, the de= gree of group potency diminished slightly after some initial performance, but le= ss so for groups under high charismatic leaders versus low charismatic leaders.

Summary

           A logical developmental pathway has been drawn to the point of the most recent existi= ng shared leadership research. M= any evolutionary organizational and leadership initiatives have contributed to the developme= nt of this alternative form of leadership.&nb= sp; To build this understanding for the need for the efficacy and benefi= ts of shared leadership, it was necessary to review the literature of managing change, organizational environment, employee involvement, empowerment, team= effectiveness, the complexity of empowered teams, the importance of leadership support, vertical transactional and transformational leadership, team demographics, = group potency, and the extant research in shared leadership. This lengthy review has served as a historical and logical foundation for the construction of the research meth= ods, discussed within the next chapter of this dissertation.

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

        &= nbsp; This study determines the relationship between transformational as well as transactional vertical leadership styles with the development of shared leadership. It advances an understanding of the relationships between team demographic variables of te= am size, maturity, proximity, familiarity, and team membership load and the development of shared leadership. It further seeks to understand the relationship between vertical and shared leadership with group potency. The methodological approach for this research is positivistic and quantified.&n= bsp; The construct of shared leadership most recently researched by Pearce (1997) is partially used and is influenced by Bradfo= rd and Cohen's (1998) assertion that vertical leadership's role and hierarchy = need not be eliminated.

   &nb= sp;       One of the most important criteria of good research is the clarity and focus of= the research question. Cooper and Schindler (2006) state the hypothesis is a specific management question that focuses the research question. More specific sublevels of the research questions guide the creation and develop= ment of the data collection instrument (Cooper & Schindler). The research questions and hypothe= ses for this research of shared leadership follow.

   &nb= sp;       These research questions and hypotheses guide this study and are answered through= the data collection instruments:  &n= bsp;

        &= nbsp; Research Question 1. To what extent is transformational vertical leadership style related to the emergence of shared leadership within a high-tech team?

        &= nbsp; Hypotheses 1. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transformational vertical leaders= hip with the development of team members' shared leadership.

        &= nbsp; Research Question 2. To what extent is transactional vertical leadership style relat= ed to the emergence of shared leadership within a high-tech team?

        &= nbsp; Hypotheses 2. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transactional contingent reward vertical leadership with the development of team members' shared leadership= .

        &= nbsp; Research Question 3. To what extent do team demographics of team size, maturity, proximity, familiarity, and team membership load influence the development = of shared leadership within high-tech teams?

        &= nbsp; Hypotheses 3a. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between the team demographic variables of team maturity, familiarity, and proximity with the development of shared leadership.

        &= nbsp; Hypotheses 3b. There is a statistically significant negative relationship between the team demographic variable of = team size and membership load with the development of shared leadership.

        &= nbsp; Research Question 4. To what extent are vertical and shared leadership related to gr= oup potency within high-tech teams?

        &= nbsp; Hypothesis 4a: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transformational vertical leaders= hip with group potency.

        &= nbsp; Hypothesis 4b: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transactional contingent reward vertical leadership with group potency.&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp; Hypothesis 4c: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between shared leadership with group pote= ncy.

Research Design

        &= nbsp; The favored research design approach is described by Arbnor and Bjerke (1997, p= .29) as "reality as a concrete determining process." Within this description, teams are= seen as an organically evolving process that is concrete and its details are changing. People relationship= s may be described in a factual process context, and they both influence and are influenced by their environment. Some of these relationships are more describable, predictable, and stable than others. The corresponding methodological approach is rooted in positivistic, quantitati= ve, and fixed methods.

   &nb= sp;       Robson (2002) believes that good research is enacted with scientific attitude, requiring that research be carried out "systematically, skeptically, a= nd ethically" (p. 18). Robs= on clarifies positivism as objective knowledge being obtained from direct experience, separated from values, based largely on quantitative data, definable through hypotheses, and above all, capable of determining causality. Cooper and Schindl= er (2006) believe that "good research follows the standards of the scient= ific method: systematic, inherently based procedures for generating replicable research" (p. 22). The p= lanned shared leadership research design is to produce usable, replicable research that can be applied confidently by managers and employees beyond the sole environment in which it was originally observed. It is for this reason that the ana= lytical base of a fixed, quantitative design is preferred over a qualitative one for the research of shared leadership. <= /span>Though it may be challenging to identify finite, predictable, causal relationships, patterns of behaviors may be determined and quantified through validated surveys. These quantitative s= urveys are available and validated, ensuring the ability for leaders and team memb= ers to apply the research results to their own similar teams and organizations. This advantage of replicating results in other organizations, places quantitative research in a more advantageous position over qualitative rese= arch for the study of shared leadership (Cooper & Schindler). Other research of shared leadership within non-academic environments has also used the quantitative research methods (Pearce, 1997; Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce, Sims, Cox, Ball, Schnell, Smith, & Trevino, 2003; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Wood, 2004; Pearce & M= anz, 2005; Choi, 2006). This compe= lling precedence clearly points this shared leadership research in the direction = of a quantitative study.

   &nb= sp;       Robson (2002) purports the value of research is to solve problems and generate actionable items for real organizations under time and cost constraints, wh= ile meeting the needs of the client. To further the clarity of the planned research method, the sampling approach, instrumentation and measures, data collection, and data analysis = and display are discussed. Within= this discussion, the instrument validity and ethical considerations are also highlighted.

Sampling Approach

        &= nbsp; This research focuses exclusively on the emergence of shared leadership within traditional, vertical leader-led teams and high-tech organizations, neither= of which has been a previous target of shared leadership research. This quantitative research samples= the vertical transactional and transformational leadership style, team demographics, group potency, and shared leadership within common teams with traditional vertical leadership roles.&nbs= p; As such, the population of available conventional, intact teams with= in one high-tech company's engineering-based population is targeted for partic= ipation in the research. This populat= ion sample has not been previously involved in shared leadership research. The sa= mpling approach to survey effective vertical and shared leadership is a questionnaire-based survey, suitable for this non-experimental explanatory approach (Robson, 2002). To control some of the unknown variables outside of the scope of this study, t= he boundaries of the research frame includes the largest business unit of a high-tech organization to achieve a sense of consistency and therefore, gen= eralizability to similar organizations.   Initially, this selection of functional and cross-functional teams within a for-profit, high-tech organization may provide such a frame.

        &= nbsp; Cooper and Schindler (2006) suggest the steps in a sampling design involve the selection of nonprobability or probability samples, defining the relevant population and sampling frames, and selecting the sampling technique. Robson= (2002) and Cooper and Schindler list a number of probability sampling techniques having statistical computation advantages within quantitative research. The shared leadership sampling des= ign will gather all available team and team leader samples within the Company's largest engineering-based business unit, where the deployment of teams has = been determined to be the optimal organizational structure. Within this engineering-based organization, the deployment of an integrated product team (IPT) structure = has been used for approximately twenty years to manage the complexity of engineering design for the highly technical products manufactured by this company. The IPT is organized= to most effectively manage the design of critical component parts that are to = be manufactured and assembled into larger, component modules of this highly technical product. The IPT's = are led by experienced engineers. The= IPT's are accountable to one of many integrated product component teams (IPCT). The IPCT is generally comprised of= middle managers representing the engineering, quality, product support, manufactur= ing, and sales functions. The IPCT= 's, organized by major product module, report to the integrated product managem= ent team (IPMT), which are comprised of senior leaders from all of the major disciplines within the company.

   &nb= sp;       Given the size of this organization and the potential disruption that surveying an entire organization may cause, the sampling target will be restricted to all available IPT's managed under two or three IPCT's. These target IPCT's are selected f= or the high activity level of their IPT's at the current stage of the product life cycle. Of the available 60 te= ams within this segment of the organization, it is anticipated that 50 teams wi= ll participate within this research. This sample involves 50 vertical team leaders.&= nbsp; Though each team may include as few as 3 and as many as 20 team memb= ers, it is neither expected nor necessary to sample all team members within each team. The key to achieving the maximum team participation level will be gaining the support of the senior leader in the organization with leadership responsibility of the IPCT's. The target organization's ability to identify the team leaders and members of existing IPT's, as held within a database by human resources and the organization's leadership team, is nece= ssary to achieve this probability sample.

   &nb= sp;       Common nonprobability sampling issues, such as researcher bias, convenience and purposive sampling, snowball or referral sampling should be avoided (Robson, 2002). Convenience and purpos= ive sampling are based upon the ease and judgments of the researcher. Similar to Pearce (1997), who mana= ged this bias due to the high proportional number of available change management teams being sampled, this research will seek to include all available teams within this organization as the target sample. This plan to survey all available = IPT's should avoid these nonprobability sampling issues.

Instrumentation and Measures

        &= nbsp; To answer the research questions and test the hypotheses, vertical leadership = is measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avo= lio, 1996). The Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003) is used to measure shared leadership, and is essentially simi= lar to the MLQ. The group potency construct, validated by Guzzo, et al (1993), is used in this study as a mea= sure of group potency. The team demographic variables of team size, team maturity, member familiarity, memb= er proximity, and team membership load are simple constructs with simple scale metrics. Quantitative data a<= span style=3D'color:black'>nalysis should prove or negate the stated hypotheses through applicable multivariate analysis and correlation tests.

        &= nbsp; Robson (2002) cites the most commonly used quantitative scale is the summated rating or Likert scale. Within quantitative designs, Robson further advises that "fixed-alternative responses should be accurate, exhaustive, mutually exclusive and on a single dimension" (p. 244) when constructing survey questions and possible fixed response alternatives. Quantitative data analysis require= s a clear understanding of the utility and limitations of available statistical tools. Cooper and Schindler (2006) advise that certain parametric and nonparametric tests are available to the researcher based upon the type of = data that is available. Interval and ratio data may only be used for the more ro= bust parametric tests, which involve parameters such as means, proportions, and variances. Certain assumptions such as normality and equal variances must be met. Nonparametric tests must= be used when only nominal or ordinal data is available. These tests lack statistical robustness, require no assumptions, and assess population distributions, instead of parameters. Cooper and Schindler report a professional debate regarding Likert scales collecting either ordinal or interval–based data. Within this research, the applicab= le leadership assessment is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Avolio and Bass (2004) validated t= he MLQ's Likert scales as interval data. Interval versus ordinal data provides researchers the advantage of m= ore statistically robust data analysis. Within the MLQ, the Likert scales are: 0=3DNot at all, 1=3D Once in = a while, 2=3D Sometimes, 3=3D Fairly often, 4=3D Frequently, if not always.

   &nb= sp;       To measure vertical leadership effectiveness, the MLQ short form evaluates nine factors, containing 45 items evaluated along the given Likert scale. The measured factors are categorize= d within three major styles of leadership: transformational, transactional, and pass= ive avoidant. Transformational leadership is measured along five factors: Idealized Attributes (IA), Ideal= ized Behaviors (IB), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS= ), and Individual Consideration (IC). Transactional leadership, associated with behaviors of constructive = and corrective transactions, is measured along the factors of Contingent Reward (CR) and Management-by-Exception: Active (MBEA). Transactional leadership, though necessary, is insufficient to sustain leadership effectiveness (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Passive / Avoida= nt Behavior, which is undesirable, but often present in ineffective leadership= , is measured along the factors of Management-by-Exception: Passive (MBEP) and Laissez-Faire (LF). Bass and = Avolio (p. 107-108) cite examples of the measured factor statements:

   &nb= sp;       IA-Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group

   &nb= sp;       IB-Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose

   &nb= sp;       IM-Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished

   &nb= sp;       IS-Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems

   &nb= sp;       IC-Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group

   &nb= sp;       CR-Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations

   &nb= sp;       MBEA-Concentrates full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, failures

   &nb= sp;       MBEP-Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action

   &nb= sp;       LF-Delays in responding to urgent questions

        &= nbsp; To measure shared leadership, a similar instrument, the Team Multifactor Leade= rship Questionnaire (TMLQ) (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003), will be used to define and measure the variables of shared leadership. Validation studie= s have been reported for the TMLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1996; Avolio, et al.). This modification of the MLQ measu= res overall leadership possessed by the group, again within the areas of transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant behavior.

        &= nbsp; Additional survey-based questions measure the other influential variables, not include= d in the TMLQ, but believed to influence the emergence of shared leadership. The group potency construct, valid= ated by Guzzo, et al (1993), is used in this study as a measure of group potency= . The team demographic variables of = team size, team maturity, member familiarity, member proximity, and team members= hip load are simple constructs with simple scale metrics.

Validity

&= nbsp; The assumptions of the analytical approach are that all behavior is quantifiable and measurable, variables may be controlled or removed from the research st= udy, and the researcher is objective and does not affect the results of the study. The overall research methodology seeks to control these assumptions. One important way that is accompli= shed is by ensuring the validity of the data collection and analysis processes.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A strength of the quantitative, analytical approach is its ability to be scientifically scrutinized, since a fundamental concept of this approach is repeatability. Statistical procedures and relevan= ce may be readily applied. Another strength is its wide acceptance in academia and in business among professio= nals accustomed to the scientific method, such as engineers, social scientists, = and mathematicians. Potential disadvantages are the difficulty in constructing research methods which reliably separate unwanted variables from affecting the data and resulting conclusions.

&nb= sp; Robson (2002) reminds us of some of the difficulties with building validity and reliability with fixed design research. The experimenter effect, whereby the beliefs, values, and expectations, introduces bias. Though Robson argues that particip= ant error, participant bias, observer error, and observer bias make true reliability challenging at best, the ability to statistically demonstrate reliability within fixed design variables is an advantage. Robson (2002) cites several threat= s to achieving internal validity, which is the ability to demonstrate causal relationships through the data. He further cites Maxwell (1992), suggesting that fixed, positivist approaches = to achieve predictability through internal validity is so flawed as to be unimportant.

A critical realist assumption is that all methods are fallible: 'a realist conception of validity…sees the validity of an account as inherent, not in the procedures used to produce invalidated, but= in its relationships of those things that it is intended to be an account of' = (p. 106). He is further critical = of fixed designs' attempt to attain external validity, or generalizability. The research findings may be specif= ic to the group that is selected, the setting in which they are studied, the hist= ory that is specific and unique to that group, and the constructs that are used= to study the group may be flawed (Robson).

&= nbsp; The data collection and analysis methodology of quantitative studies are questionnaires. Robson's (200= 2) favorable assessment of questionnaire-based surveys are that they provide a straightforward approach, collect readily generalized data, may be standard= ized, are readily accessible from a large sample, are efficient, and allow anonymity. As Robson states, measurement scales are commonly used to assess, "usually quantitativel= y, the individual's performance or standing on the attribute in question"= (p. 292). When a scale is arbitra= ry or measuring attitude, the measurement of opinion, belief or value is clearly qualitative. However, Robson purports that systematic procedures may be used to build internal reliabili= ty and validity, necessary for quantitative measurement. The most commonly used scale is the summated rating or Likert scale. These measurement scales are generally designed with a set of positi= ve or negative statements whereby a respondent evaluates statements on a 5, 7,= or 9-point scale. These scales a= re anchored with responses, such as, strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree. Within quantitative designs, Robson advises that "fixed-alternative responses should be accurate, exhaustive, mutually exclusive and on a single dimension" (p. 244) when constructing survey questions and possible fi= xed response alternatives. The ML= Q and TMLQ survey questions are constructed along a single dimension and fit the above criteria.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Validity/Reliability <= /p>

&nb= sp; The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is based upon the transformative leadership work of Burns (1978) and has been refined over the years by Avol= io and Bass (2004). The current = MLQ Form 5X "has been used in nearly 300 research programs, doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe in nearly 10 years between 1995 and 2004" (Avolio & Bass, p. 35). The most recent construct validati= on of the MLQ by Avolio and Bass demonstrates confirmatory factor analyses within acceptable limits in support of a nine factor model for MLQ Form 5X. Confirmatory factor analysis is wi= dely used to test the construct validity of instruments (Avolio & Bass). High, positive intercorrelations, averaging .64, were achieved among the five transformational factors of Idealized Attributes (IA), Idealized Behaviors (IB), Inspirational Motivati= on (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS), and Individual Consideration (IC). See Table 1 for sample items found= in the transformational factors. Due to copyright law, only a limited number of items may be included in this di= ssertation and have been used with the permission of Mind Garden, Inc. at www.mindgard= en.com. The transactional leadership = factor of Contingent Reward (CR) associated with behaviors of constructive and corrective transactions, achieved high correlation when compared with the transformational construct. T= his factor as well as the other transactional items may be found in Table 2. Avolio and Bass explain both leade= rship forms to be positive and necessary for leadership effectiveness. The Contingent Reward factor is co= nsistent with building "trust, dependability, and perceptions of consistency wi= th leaders among followers, which are a basis for transformational leadership" (p. 71). Avo= lio and Bass further report that the active corrective transactional leadership, Management-by-Exception: Active (MBEA), "exhibited neither low positiv= e or negative correlations with the transformational and a constructive form of transactional leadership (CR).

Table 1

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire- Sample Transformational Items by Factor

Items By Transformational Factor<= /p>

Idealized Attributes (IA)

Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group

Idealized Behaviors (IB)

Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission

Inspirational Motivation (IM)

Expresses conf= idence that goals will be achieved

Intellectual Stimulation = (IS)

Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems

= ;

Intellectual Consideration (IC)

Helps me to de= velop my strengths

Table 2

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire- Sample Transactional Items by Factor <= /span>

Items By Transactional Factor

Contingent Reward (CR)

Makes clear wh= at one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved

Management-by-Exception: Active (MBEA)

Focuses attent= ion on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards<= /o:p>

&nb= sp; MBEA also positively correlated with its more passive and corrective form (MBEP)= and inactive laissez-faire leadership ratings" (2004, p. 71). These Passive/Avoidant items may be found in Table 3. The MLQ also includes nine Outcomes of Leadership items, collated within Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction with Leadership. (See Table 4.) The overall Goodness of Fit measur= e for the full nine-factor model was a .92. Reliability scores (Cronbach alphas) were reported within acceptable limits for all MLQ factors, includi= ng transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant behaviors, and outcomes of leadership. These scores rang= ed from a low of .69 for the transactional leadership factor of Contingent Rew= ard (CR) to a high of .83 for the transformational leadership factor of Inspirational Motivation (IM) and the outcomes of leadership factor of Extra Effort (EE).

Table 3

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire- Sample Passive/Avoidant Behavior Items by Factor =

Items By Passive/Avoidant Behavior Factor

Management-by-Exception: Passive (MBEP)

Waits for thin= gs to go wrong before taking action

Laissez-Faire (LF)

Avoids getting involved when important issues arise

Table 4

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire- Sample Outcomes of Leadership Items

Items By Outcomes of Leadership

Extra Effort (EE)

Increases my willingness to try harder

Effectiveness (EFF)

Is effective in meeting organizational requirements

Satisfaction (SAT)

Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying

= ;

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Teams (TMLQ) Validity/Reliability <= /span>

= ; The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Teams (TMLQ) is based upon the similar, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1996). The original constru= ct of the TMLQ was essentially similar in all factors as the MLQ and is represe= nted in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8. Another, more recent validation study for the TMLQ by Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, and Murry (2000), confirmed a five-factor model for measuring leadership within teams, held and displayed at the collective level. Unlike the validatio= n of the MLQ Form 5X that confirmed a nine-factor model (Avolio & Bass, 20= 04), Avolio, et al. validated a five-factor model using confirmatory factor analysis. "The first t= hree scales, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration, represented team transformational leadership. The fourth factor represented management-by-exception-active leadership, and the fif= th dimension was avoidant/laissez-faire leadership" (Avolio, et al., p. 11).

&nb= sp; The scale reliabilities were found to be at or above minimum standards for correlations for all scales. = The transformational leadership factors had scale reliabilities of .84 for inspirational motivation, .79 for intellectual stimulation, and .80 for individual consideration. The reliability for the management-by-exception-a= ctive scale was .61, which was only "marginally acceptable in terms of reliability" (p. 12). The passive avoidant scale reliability was .87, which was well above the minimum standard. Though the validati= on study confirmed only five factors, it is important to note that the original TMLQ's specific items still maintain the identity of all nine factors found within the MLQ, upon which the TMLQ is based.

&nb= sp; In a more recent validation study of the TMLQ, two additional sample populatio= ns, one student and one army platoon, were added to the earlier student sample. The three population samples= were used to construct and validate the shared leadership assessment for the pur= pose of future shared leadership research (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003).
Table 5

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Teams- Sample Transformational Items by Factor=

Items By Transformational Factor<= /p>

Idealized Attributes

Display confid= ence in each other

Idealized Behaviors

Emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission

Inspirational Motivation &= nbsp;

Talk enthusiastically about our work

Intellectual Stimulation =

Seek a b= road range of perspectives when solving problems

Individualized Consideration

Listen attentively to each other's concerns

Table 6

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Teams- Sample Transactional Items by Factor

Items By Transactional Factor

Contingent Reward (CR)

Work out agreements about what's expected from each other

Management-by-Exception: Active (MBEA)

Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards

Table 7

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Teams- Sample Passive/Avoidant Behavior Items = by Factor

Items By Passive/Avoidant Behavior Factor

Management-by-Exception: Passive (MBEP)

Allow performance to fall below minimum standards before trying to make improvements

&nbs= p;

Laissez-Faire (LF)

Avoid addressing problems

Table 8

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire- Sample Outcomes of Leadership Items

Items By Outcomes of Shared Leadership

Extra Effort

Motivate= each other to do more than they thought they could do

Effectiveness

The over= all effectiveness of the team can be classified as:

&nbs= p;

Satisfaction

In all, = how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of the team that you are rating?

&nb= sp; In the creation of the TMLQ assessment, the original TMLQ items were factor lo= aded according to two criteria for considering each item as representative of a factor: "a factor loading of greater than .45 (Gorsuch, 1983) and item cross loading on other factors that were no greater than .3" (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & G= arger, 2003. p. 153). This validation study again confirmed a best fit model of five factors, some of which conta= in a blend of items from the original instrument. This five-factor model achieved the highest comparative fit index (CFI) scores of .882, .957, and .879 for all three population samples when compared with other multiple-factor models. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The five factors are Intellectual Stimulation (IS-4 items), Inspiring Leadership (IL-5 items), and Individual= ized Consideration (IC-5 items), Management-by-Exception-Active (MBEA-4 items), = and Passive Avoidant Leadership (PA-5 items).&= nbsp; The transformational factors of IS, IL, and IC were significantly an= d positively correlated with correlation coefficients between .545 and .716. These transformational factors wer= e each negatively correlated (or nearly so) with the transactional factor of MBEA = with values of IL (-.059), IS (.060), and IC (-.223). They were also negatively correlat= ed with the passive avoidant (PA) factor with values of IL (-.203), IS (-.493), and IC (-.553). MBEA and PA w= ere significantly positively correlated with a value of .385. Among the most significant blendin= g of items is the creation of the Individualized Consideration (IC) factor. The IC factor is actually an asses= sment comprised of three items from the original Contingent Reward (CR) factor and two items retained from the IC factors.&nb= sp; In all, 23 items were retained from the original TMLQ's 45 items collated with nine factors (Bass & Avolio, 1996). In removing these contingent reward items from those factors considered transactional, the remaining transactio= nal factors of MBEA and PA represent a stronger controlling style of leadership. This shorter rese= arch version of the TMLQ will be used to assess shared leadership since it represents the best available validity at the time of this research. Table 9 identifies sample items of= the five-factor research version of the TMLQ model.

Table 9

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Teams (Research Version) Sample Items by Facto= r

Items By Factor (Original TMLQ Factor)

Inspiring Leadership (IL)=

Encourag= e each other to rethink ideas which had never been questioned before (IS)

Focus on developing each other's strengths (IC)

Recogniz= ed member and/or team accomplishments (CR)

Intellectual Stimulation = (IS)

Seek a b= road range of perspectives when solving problems (IS)

Provide = useful advice for each other's development (IC)=

Individualized Considerat= ion (IC)

Work out agreements about what's expected from each other (CR)

Listen attentively to each other's concerns (IC)

&nbs= p;

Management-by-Exception-A= ctive (MBEA)

Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, deviations from standards

(MBEA)

Tell each other what they've done wrong rather than what they've done right (MBEP)<= o:p>

Passive/Avoidant Leadership (PA)

Allow performance to fall below minimum standards before trying to make improvements

(MBEP)

Avoid addressing problems (LF)

&nbs= p;

= ;

&= nbsp; Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, and Garger (2003) caution against a blanket application of the TMLQ as the definitive measure of shared leadership for = all teams. Specifically, they not= ed that the MBEA factor, found only marginally acceptable as a reliable factor with Bass and Avolio's (1996) original TMLQ validation study, improved its reliability equal to the other TMLQ factors, when the targeted teams had mo= re than one month experience together. They recommend that the teams involved in shared leadership research have team maturity greater than one month, and the level of complexity in t= heir work that exceeded the relatively simple work structures that were represen= ted by the teams within the validation studies. The targeted integrated product te= ams of this research satisfy these recommendations for both maturity and work complexity. It will also be i= mportant to track the contingent reward items, since they represent a crossover from transactional to transformational style of leadership within the TMLQ. Since Avolio and Bass (2004) exper= ienced a similar challenge of blending some of the CR factor items from transactio= nal to transformational, it will be important to track some of these CR items w= hen comparing vertical leadership via the MLQ and shared leadership via the TML= Q. =

Group Pote= ncy Questionnaire Validity

&= nbsp; Group potency, a collective construct, is the collective belief within a team tha= t it can be effective (Guzzo, et al, 1993; Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006). Guzzo, et al. developed and validated an eight question group potency assessment w= ith an internal consistency reliability of .88. These eight assessment items, meas= ured along a five-point Likert scale, are used within this research to measure g= roup potency. This group-centered = construct has been widely accepted and used in group potency research. The eight items are represented in= Table 10.

Table 10

Group pote= ncy Questionnaire

Questionnaire Item Description

This team has confidence in itself.

This team believes it can become unusually good at producing high quality work= .

This team expects to be known as a high-performing team.

This team feels it can solve any problem it encounters.

This team believes it can be very productive.

This team can get a lot done when it works hard.

No task is too tough for this team.

This team expects to have a lot of influence around here.

= ;

Common Sou= rce Bias

&= nbsp; Another potential issue that is of concern is common source bias from self-report d= ata, which may result in estimate inflation.&nb= sp; There has been some concern that self-report questionnaire methods, "if used as the sole means of data collection, artificially elevate measures of covariation, producing percept–percept inflation in publi= shed correlations" (Crampton & Wagner, 1994, p. 72). However, the overall condemnation of self-report data may be unwarranted. "…Our results suggest that percept–percept inflation may be more the exception than the rule in microresearch on organizations&q= uot; (Crampton & Wagner, p. 72). Crampton and Wagner found external, observation-based phenomenon involving perceptions of job involvement, organizational culture, and organizational structure appear free of self-report estimate inflation.

&= nbsp; The original construct of the MLQ was validated using multiple rater sources and therefore, it may be argued that common source bias might be an issue witho= ut assessing multiple perspectives of vertical leadership style. Other researchers have addressed t= his concern with common source bias within the method of MLQ data collection. "Common source bias concerns prompted supplementation of self-report d= ata on perceived leadership style…by upper-level managers' (those who ove= rsee the same superiors assessed by the subordinates) responses to the same set = of MLQ items" (Madzar, 2001). Despite this, "It remains unclear whether percept–percept inflation can = be legitimately attributed to self-report methods" (Crampton & Wagner, 1994, p. 73). To address any = extant common source bias concern, team member, team leader, and upper-level manag= er data will be used to assess multiple perspectives of vertical leadership st= yle with the MLQ.

&= nbsp; The original construct and validation of the TMLQ used self-report, team member data from student teams and army platoons (Avol= io, Sivasubramaniam, & Murry, 2000; Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003). Gi= ven that the validation study of the TMLQ was conducted with self-report data a= nd that the measured perspectives are external and observation-based, concern = for common source bias may be somewhat mitigated (Crampton & Wagner, 1994). Self-reported measurement of team demographic data has been shown to be free of common source data bias (Cram= pton & Wagner). Therefore, the= re is little concern for introducing estimate inflation when assessing team demographic = data within this research.

= ;

Instrument= ation Level of Analysis

&nb= sp; Within this shared leadership research, there are multiple levels of focal constru= cts assessed by the instrument questions. = Chan (1998) encouraged researchers to be aware of the level of analysis that is unique to each theoretical construct. Researchers need to communicate at = the same level along a "conceptual framework for developing and validating= new focal constructs and multilevel theories" (Chan, p. 235). Chan's typology of five basic form= s of composition models are: "(a) additive, (b) direct consensus, (c) referent-shift consensus, (d) dispersion, and (e) process composition"= (p. 235). Simplifying this typology, Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, and Murry (2000) identified a "multi-level framework = of leadership measurement" consisting of four levels (p.7).

&nb= sp; Within this research, the assessment of team demographics is, for the most part, an individual's assessment of facts concerning the team. For example, the team's size, matu= rity, and proximity may be readily answered by the team leader. Team member familiarity and= team membership load are individual perceptions about themselves within the team. This measurement scheme= for team demography appropriately "represents an additive model where individual perceptions…are averaged or aggregated to develop an index…" (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, &a= mp; Murry, 2000, p. 8). This is synonymous to Chan's (1998) additive model, where the simple sum of the individual, lower level variables are averaged to represent the higher level value through calculation of the mean.&nbs= p; To assess team demographics, self-report data collection from the te= am leader and/or members will appropriately represent the individual rater lev= el of analysis (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Chan; Avolio, et al.). <= /span>

&nb= sp; The calculation of vertical leadership style via the MLQ examines the common perceptions from team members of one individual's leadership of the team. According to Chan (1998) and Avoli= o, Sivasubramaniam, and Murry (2000), the appropriate level of analysis and typology is direct consensus. Since the assessment of vertical leadership is derived from the agreement of the followers, summation and "within-group agreement is considered adequate evidence to aggregate individual ratings of the leader" (Avolio, et al., p. 8). A simple summation and within-group agreement calculation of the data responses of the different rater groups of vertical leader, team members, a= nd senior-level managers suffices and has clear precedence (Chan; Avolio, et al.) .&nb= sp;

&nb= sp; Both assessments of shared leadership and group potency represent "a referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998) in that respondents are asked to shift the referent from an individual to a collective, and evidence for escalation to a higher level is provided by within-group agreement. Chan provides a lengthy discussion, comparing the individual model of self-potency that is referent-shifted to a new, collective construct of group potency. A similar argument may be made for= the measurement of the collective construct of shared leadership via the TMLQ, which is a referent-shift from the individual construct of vertical leaders= hip via the MLQ. Chan argues that= a team member may not individually possess the qualities of the individual-level measured construct, and yet, he or she may assess a great degree of the group-level form of the construct as possessed by the collective group. To appropriately assess for group = potency and shared leadership, the referent-shift consensus within a group can be measured via calculation of within group agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). This test is used to justify the aggregation of individual respondents into a collective construct, necessary for measuring shared leadership and group potency. Validation of the collective const= ruct may be attained by measuring intracorrelation coefficients (ICC) to determi= ne interdependence and whether there is a group-level effect upon the variable= of interest (Bliese, 2000; de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2005).

Pilot Test= ing

&nb= sp; Though the MLQ and TMLQ are validated surveys, organizations may have their own un= ique interpretations of survey questions and reactions to surveys. The target organization for this research, being high-tech, prefers to complete surveys that are web-based (= P. Sakitis, personal communication, October 25, 2007). For this reason, the surveys will = be administered online, using a web-based service that specializes in the self= -design and administration of online surveys (Survey Monkey, n.d.). Though there is an online version o= f the MLQ, no such online data collection method is available for the TMLQ, the g= roup potency questionnaire, or the specific team demographic variables. The shortened, 23-item research ve= rsion of the TMLQ is not available in any form from the author. For this reason, and to minimize t= he time and steps necessary for team members to complete all of the surveys, a= ll necessary survey questions have been consolidated within one web-based shar= ed leadership survey. All questi= on items have been previously validated, though some wording may be ambiguous = or misinterpreted by this specific target sample. It is anticipated that intracorrel= ation reliabilities will be determined during the pilot study as well. The online survey process may also= have design flaws that a pilot test sample might identify as needing improvement.

&nb= sp; A pilot test of three teams from the target organization will be used to determine any data collection design flaws or unforeseen sampling issues. One such potential issue may be th= at the target organization does not include team members that are geographically dispersed (P. Sakitis, personal communication, October 25, 2007). If the pilot confirms this, the independent team demographic variable of team proximity may be dropped from= the survey and the research altogether. Additionally, it is strategically necessary to include in the pilot,= a key leader in the organization and member of an active IPCT with many IPT's reporting into his IPCT. His = participation in the study should help gain the necessary leadership support and commitme= nt for the study (Dew, 1995; Rabby, 2001).= A request for permission to use his organization in this study is essential. This support will be necessary to reach the maximum number of sample teams neces= sary for participation in the study. Additional support for the overall research as well as ensuring face validity of the assessment may be gained = via post survey interviews. This addit= ional qualitative data may uncover unforeseen content face validity and process issues inherent within the data collection process.

Data Collection

&nb= sp; Following the pilot test and having gained the key IPCT leader's support, it is antic= ipated that the maximum number of sample teams will be accessible to participate in the survey. This will not only increase the number of teams, but will also increase the participation rate= of team members responding to the survey.&nbs= p; Furthermore, given a successful pilot test, additional IPCT leaders = may wish to be included.

Invitation= to Participate

&nb= sp; Having gained permission of the target organization's key leader to participate in= the pilot and successive distribution of the survey, a scan of the organization= 's organizational chart, should reveal the most active IPCT's and IPT's team leaders. A letter from the organizational leader will encourage these team leaders to participate in t= he web-based shared leadership survey. Given the organization's current strategic development focus on buil= ding effective team leadership, teams, and teamwork, the data collected for this research should provide important insights into the progress and future direction for this organizational initiative. All that is necessary for th= e team leaders' initial participation is to include a letter inviting participatio= n by the researcher and a Web link to the online survey. A list of team leaders, their e-ma= il addresses, and a unique team leader identification number, will be compiled= by the organizational contact for the purpose of follow-up to ensure maximum participation. Each team lead= er will be asked to distribute the Web link and their unique team leader identification number, so that the team membership data can be compiled by team. This is important, sinc= e the study of shared leadership is a collective construct, not an individual one= . It is also important to maintain the identity of the team leader so that this independent variable's effect upon the emergence of shared leadership withi= n their team can be identified.

&nb= sp; The web-based survey application has the capability of recording the individual survey data collected, collated by team leader identification number. The tallied responses may then be entered automatically into an Excel spreadsheet. This Excel format can be exported = to the SPSS statistical processing software for data analysis. The pilot test should reveal any d= ata importing glitches from each survey or exporting issues into SPSS.

Ethical Considerations<= /p>

&= nbsp; As a researcher, one's major role is to become a creator of knowledge. A desired outcome of this role is "to mean a conscious individual doing research, or involved in consult= ing or in any kind of development of new knowledge when that development is at = its best" (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997, p. 4). Being at one's best in research re= quires a full understanding of the beliefs, assumptions, and interests that shape one's paradigm. These paradig= ms formulate a researcher's view of the important principles, practices, and roles, as well as, the diagnosis and interpreted meaning of observations ma= de about the research target. To sustain the drive and passion necessary to conduct this research, it is important to be guided by clear principles. These same principles, however, mu= st include the assurance that objectivity is maintained throughout the research. Without objectivity= , the ethical principles that ensure the validity of the research and more importantly, the safety of the participants may be compromised.

&= nbsp; The study of shared leadership is deeply rooted in the principles and practices= of organization development (OD). Deaner (1994) asserts that the effective practice of OD should be ba= sed upon principles that guide behaviors within research. Some of the principles of OD inclu= de the effective use of human resources through acts of participation, employee involvement, empowerment, collaboration, openness, authenticity, employee influence upon organizational direction, respect, and honesty. These are heavily influenced by the ethical values of utilitarianism. One of the underpinnings of OD is the act of harnessing the power of= the full organization for its mutual benefit.&= nbsp; A full understanding of these principles is important because it may influence the researcher's objectivity in the research design, data collect= ion and analysis of the shared leadership study. The practice of shared leadership embraces all of the aforementioned principles as well as those deemed criti= cal to the practice of OD: participation, shared power, and truth (Deaner).

&= nbsp; These same principles, however, guide and ensure the objectivity of the planned shared leadership research. Employees' sense of involvement and control over their destiny shoul= d be fostered throughout the implementation of the research. "The voluntary nature of the participation respects individual free will" (Deaner, 2004, p. 437). Every research participant will be invited, but not be required, to participate. No research participant should per= ceive either reward nor sanction for their agreement or refusal to participate.

&= nbsp; Evident of Kantian ethics and supported by OD principles throughout the research, t= he targeted teams need to be treated as the end, not the means to the end. Deaner (1994) suggests that congru= ent with these principles, the research should move the organization towards hi= gher levels of employee involvement, as well as seeking the opinions of all those knowledgeable in the organization. Relative to this research, this would require team members' involvem= ent and decision-making in assessing the current state of the organization. This may be reached through open communication about the study as well as the use of valid and reliable inst= rumentation. In support of truthful behavior throughout the research, the researcher "would advocate such disclosur= es, provide accurate information about qualifications, and disclose perceptions= of project results" (p. 442). Clear contracting with the target organization needs to occur to ens= ure that all collected data will remain anonymous and confidential. This assurance must be communicated prior to the beginning of data collection.= Since the research involves a team leadership assessment, it is important to maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of each team leader throughout the research. To t= his end, team leaders' identity to remain anonymous and tracked through a team leader identification number. This is necessary to collect and collate the data by team, a step that is integr= al to the study of shared leadership. To protect the confidentiality of the team leader and their respecti= ve teams, the individual leaders' data will not be released to the organization. No one in the organization, including the human resources department, owns the individual data. The difficulty that some researchers might experience in maintaining anonymity may be better managed= if the researcher funds the project. For this reason, the research will be wholly funded by the researcher. Since this research is fully funded= by the researcher, this and other ethical issues regarding the preservation of anonymity should be readily managed. =

&= nbsp; In order to win leadership support for the research project, the leader should have some expectation for a benefit to the organization. This is understandable and support= s the need to clearly contract for the details of a post-research report. In order to maintain the highest e= thical standards and still gain leadership support, the organization will receive = an executive summary, including a roll-up of the data analysis, if desired. No individual team leaders and tea= ms will be able to be identified within this data, since no team leader names = or numbers will be included in this report.&n= bsp; It is anticipated that a set of recommendations for enhancing team or shared leadership may be included as a follow-up for this organization. That should satisfy the organizati= on's need for a tangible benefit for participation without comprising any resear= ch ethics.

Data Display and Analysis

&nb= sp; Most of the data collection and analysis that needs to be displayed within the research of shared leadership will involve quantitative analysis from two primary instruments, the MLQ and the TMLQ. Through the instruments' design, it= ems are measured via the Likert scale, and organized within factors. At the factor level, across instru= ments, correlation coefficients will need to be calculated and displayed in tables. Shared leadership stu= dies of Pearce (1997) and Wood (2004) highlighted significant correlations within tables to demonstrate support of stated hypotheses. Additionally, survey samples withi= n explanatory tables of the factors and the supportive item relationships are displayed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Descriptive statistics are general= ly displayed within simple, SPSS-generated tables and charts. Pearce (1997) and Wood (2004) used regression analysis to show causal relationships among dimensions. To manage the complexity, path ana= lysis flow diagrams, generated through structural equation modeling (SEM) software hel= ped visualize the direction and strength of the relationships. Correlation coefficients were plac= ed adjacent to the connecting, directional arrows.&nbs= p; This path model may be facilitated through Analysis of Moment Struct= ures (AMOS) software. This softwar= e, when used with SPSS, enables an understanding for the likely directional relationship paths among multiple variables. AMOS also allows for a more compreh= ensive examination of the model as a whole. The directional relationships, or path, among vertical leadership, shared leadership, and group potency is best explored with the combination = of multiple regression analysis and path analysis. An example of the style of diagram = and likely directional path between key variables is shown in Figure 1.

&= nbsp; The vertical team leadership data may be obtained through the MLQ. The shorter research version of th= e MLQ increases this instrument's practicality.&= nbsp; Using frequency-based Likert scales, demonstrated behaviors are organized within factors as independent variables. In order to test the null hypothes= is that several independent population means are equal, which in the assessmen= t of vertical leadership style, they should not, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test must be conducted. It is important to satisfy the assumptions of independent random samples, normally distributed populations, and equal population variances. The latter is accomplished by calculating and comparing within-group and between-group variability of the means, known as the F Ratio (Norusis, 2003).

&= nbsp; Shared leadership data, assessed through the TMLQ, is essentially similar to the v= ertical leadership MLQ assessment. Us= ing the same Likert scales as in the MLQ, each of the TMLQ factors are assumed dependent variables (Pearce, 1997). The major difference of the TMLQ is the level of analysis within the typology of composition (Chan, 1998). Shared leadership, measured at the = collective, group level via the TMLQ, not the individual level, is assessed by each team member with the entire collective team as the "referent shift consensus" (Chan, p. 235). To validate this group level construct, it is necessary to measure and confirm= within-group agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). "Within group consensus is us= ed to justify aggregation of individuals' perceptions of collective leadership to represent the value of the higher-level construct…" (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, & Murry, 2000. p. 22). Acceptable agreement index values = of Cronbach Alphas of .7 are generally necessary to demonstrate high consistency in rat= ings among team members within groups and justify aggregation from an individual= to a group level construct (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, & Murry, 2000). Additionally, the intraclass correl= ation coefficient (ICC(1)), based upon the ANOVA, and essentially similar ICC(2), which accounts for group size, is used to determine interdependence and whe= ther there is a group-level effect upon the variable of interest (Bliese, 2000; = de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2005).

&= nbsp; Group potency (Guzzo, et al, 1993; Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006), anoth= er collective, referent shift consensus measure (Chan, 1998, p. 235), is hypothesized to be positively related with certain styles of both vertical = and shared leadership. Group pote= ncy may be a dependent variable for vertical leadership and either an independent o= r a dependent variable for shared leadership.&= nbsp; This has been demonstrated in part by Pearce (1997) and Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, and Murry (2000). Similar to the shared leadership construct, measured via the TMLQ, group potency must be confirmed to be a <= /span>group level construct, by validating within-group agreement via analysis of varia= nce of the within and between group means (ANOVA) and intraclass correlation coefficients.

&nb= sp; In addition to multiple regression analysis to determine the relationships bet= ween group potency and vertical and shared leadership, path analysis, using AMOS, should confirm or negate the directional path of these relationships as sho= wn in Figure 1.

&= nbsp; <= span style=3D'color:black'>

Figure 1. Directional Path of Hypothesized Variables

&= nbsp; The independent team demographic variables of team size, team maturity, member familiarity, member proximity, and team membership load are measured via an add-on survey to the MLQ and TMLQ. <= /span>

&= nbsp; The quantitative analysis of the research involves multivariate analysis, specifically, multiple regression analysis. Assuming Likert data as interval, = as with prior cited shared leadership research, multiple regression analysis is possible for the data analysis of all hypotheses. Since there is some ambiguity for t= he direction of influence between group potency and shared leadership (hypothe= sis #4), path analysis should help to determine a likely relationship path. It = is reasonable to project that vertical leadership predicts group potency as opposed to the reverse, as has been confirmed in prior research (Pearce, 19= 97). Again, the tested hypotheses are: =

&= nbsp; Hypotheses 1. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transformational vertical leaders= hip with the development of team members' shared leadership.

&= nbsp; Hypotheses 2. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transactional contingent reward vertical leadership with the development of team members' shared leadership= .

&= nbsp; Hypotheses 3b. There is a statistically = significant negative relationship between the team demographic variables of team size a= nd team membership load with the development of shared leadership.

&= nbsp; Hypothesis 4a: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transformational vertical leaders= hip with group potency.

&= nbsp; Hypothesis 4b: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between transactional contingent reward vertical leadership with group potency.&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; Hypothesis 4c: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between shared leadership with group pote= ncy.

Table 11

Data Analy= sis – Statistical Test by Hypothesis

Hypo # &nbs= p; Independent Variable &nbs= p; Dependent Variable &nbs= p; Statistical Tests

1 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Transformational VL &nbs= p; Shared Leadership &nbs= p; ANOVA &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

2 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Transactional VL &nbs= p; Shared Leaders= hip &nbs= p; ICC

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

3 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Team Size &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Shared Leadership &nbs= p; Multiple Regression

3 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Team Maturity &nbs= p; Shared Leadership &nbs= p; AMOS

3 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Team Familiarity &nbs= p; Shared Leadership &nbs= p;

3 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Team Proximity &nbs= p; Shared Leadership &nbs= p;

3 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Team Membership Load &= nbsp; Shared Leadership &nbs= p;

4 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Transformational VL<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> &nbs= p; Group potency<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> &nbs= p; =

4 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Transactional VL &nbs= p; Group potency<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> &nbs= p; &nbs= p;

4 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Group potency &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Shared Leadership &nbs= p; &nbs= p; &nbs= p; &nbs= p;

= ;

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

&= nbsp; As stated in earlier chapters, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between transformational as well as transactional vertical leadership styles with the development of shared leadership. It further sought to understand the relationships between team demographic variables of team size, maturity, proximity, familiarity, and team membership load and the development of sha= red leadership. Finally, it explo= red the relationship between vertical and shared leadership with group potency.

Data Collection

&nb= sp; The anticipated sample size, for collecting research data within this segment of the organization, was 50 teams. The potential disruption caused by surveying an entire organizational segment h= ad been identified as a potential risk. The workload of the teams, coupled with the voluntary nature of participation in the study, resulted in a data sample of 33 teams. Following within-group agreement an= alysis to validate the teams’ perceived convergence of their shared leadersh= ip observations, 31 teams reached the intraclass correlation test threshold of= .7, or nearly so, as recommended by James, et al. (1984). Though this sample was smaller than anticipated, it is reflective of the workload of technical teams, not the l= evel of commitment to the study. I= t is important to note that these teams were selected for their high activity le= vel at the current stage of the product life cycle. Further, the use of 31 teams is we= ll within the data sample size of similar shared leadership research. Avolio, et al. (2003) used similar= sample sizes of 35 student teams in one study and 28 Army platoon teams in another. These were the usable sample sizes following within-group agreement analysis. Each team in this present study was comprised of 4 to 18 members, including the team leader, with most teams ha= ving less than 10 members. Since i= t was neither expected nor necessary to sample all team members within each team, 155 responses were collected, with each team assessed by 4-7 members, including leaders.

&nb= sp; A pilot “trial run” was performed to verify the usability of the online survey. Two issues surfaced. It was necessary to create specific and unique online survey collectors to maintain the identit= y of each team. Otherwise, it woul= d not have been possible to identify the collective constructs of shared leadersh= ip and group potency. This creat= ed additional administrative steps, however, without it, full data analysis would have be= en impossible. Another issue that surfaced was th= e need to use a Likert scale to measure team maturity. Initially, maturity data was colle= cted in the form of months spent on the team.&n= bsp; Given the nature of the teams, team members’ maturity varied widely. Some new members were= on the team for two months, while some others had 48 months of seniority. Measuring maturity by months on th= e team would have allowed these outliers to skew the data, so a new scale was devised. The new duration sca= le was created to encompass both the newest and the most experienced members: 1) less than 6 months; 2) 6 months – 1 year; 3) greater than 1 year – 2 years; 4) greater than 2 y= ears – 3 years; 5) greater than 3 years.&= nbsp; The nature of the teams proved that team member movement in and out = of the team, coupled with assessing only a sample of team members, created some unforeseen issues with the research utility of the duration variable. =

Data An= alysis

&= nbsp; There are four research questions that the data presented in this chapter seeks to address.

&= nbsp; Research Question 1. To what extent is transformational vertical leadership style related to the emergence of shared leadership within a high-tech team?

&= nbsp; Research Question 2. To what extent is transactional vertical leadership style relat= ed to the emergence of shared leadership within a high-tech team?

&= nbsp; Research Question 4. To what extent are vertical and shared leadership related to gr= oup potency within high-tech teams?

&= nbsp; In order to address these research questions, this chapter presents the result= s of ANOVA, multiple regression analysis, intraclass correlation coefficients, correlations, descriptive statistics, and path analysis. All tests were conducted at the .05 level of statistical significance. <= /span>These tests were used to discover the relationships among the variables and to de= termine the validity of the data and suitability for each test. After such tests, acceptable data = from 147 individuals within 31 teams was used.&= nbsp;

Testing the Usability of the Vertical = and Shared Leadership Data

        &= nbsp; To address the first two research questions, the first two hypotheses must be = tested. The first two hypotheses are:

1. There i= s a statistically significant positive relationship between transformational vertical leaders= hip with the development of team members' shared leadership.

2. There is a statistically significa= nt positive relationship between transactional contingent reward vertical lead= ership with the development of team members' shared leadership.

        &= nbsp; In order to test both of these hypotheses, regression analysis was used to determine the linear relationships between vertical transformational and contingent reward transactional leadership with transformational shared leadership. To determine whic= h of the team data could be used, ANOVA tests were performed for both vertical a= nd shared leadership data to determine whether the data represented independent population samples. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were determin= ed to validate the collective constructs of shared transformational leadership= and group potency.

        &= nbsp; The most important determinant for identifying the validity of the team data involved data analysis confirming or rejecting the dependent, shared leader= ship construct. If within-group agreement was not reached within each team, there would be no need to analy= ze that team’s data further for vertical leadership or any of the other independent variables.

&nb= sp;         Shared leadership data was collected through the Team Multifactor Leadership Quoti= ent (TMLQ). Each of the TMLQ fact= ors was assumed dependent variables. Since shared leadership is a collective constr= uct measure, it was necessary to confirm within-group agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). "Within group consensus is us= ed to justify aggregation of individuals' perceptions of collective leadership to represent the value of the higher-level construct…" (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, & Murry, 2000. p. 22). An argument may be made for inclus= ion of the team leader’s responses with the team members’ responses, s= ince the measurement of the collective construct of shared leadership, via the T= MLQ, does not specifically discount the team leader from each shared leadership survey question. Therefore, f= or the purpose of assessing the shared leadership construct, the team leader’= ;s data is included. The measure= ment of the shared leadership construct, being a referent-shift from the individ= ual construct of vertical leadership (Chan, 1998), logically supports the inclu= sion of the team leader data. Acce= ptable intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values of .7 (Cronbach alpha) dete= rmine which teams’ shared leadership and group potency data justify aggrega= tion from an individual to a group level construct (Avolio, et al.). Survey responses assessing group l= evel constructs, transformational shared leadership and group potency, were test= ed for within-group agreement. S= ince the available sample of team members represents a larger population set of = all team members within each team, a two-way random model option was chosen (Norusis, 2005). <= /span>

   &nb= sp;       Table 12 displays the ICC values for 33 teams.&n= bsp; Thirty of these teams reached ICC within-group threshold values of .= 7 or greater. One additional team = had a marginally acceptable value of .651 and was retained. There is some precedence within the shared leadership construct research for accepting a lower reliability value. Avolio, et al. (2000) = deemed the shared leadership management-by-exception-active scale of .61 to be "marginally acceptable in terms of reliability" (p. 12). In Table 12, the ICC values for Te= ams 2, 5, and 13 were .651 (marginally acceptable), .583, (unacceptable), and -1.944 (unacceptable), respectively= . Since shared leadership and group potency are collective constructs, and data from Teams 5 and 13 were suspec= t, it was necessary to disqualify these two teams from the study. Following this within-group agreeme= nt analysis, the remaining 31 teams’ identification numbers were renumbe= red from 1 to 31 to avoid confusion.

   &nb= sp;       Once it had been established that = all team members, including the team leader, had experienced within-group agreement, it was important to ensure sufficient between-group variability = in the shared leadership mean scores. <= /span>To test this, ANOVA was used to reject the null hypothesis that several independent population means are equal.&nb= sp; Table 13 displays the ANOVA results for Transformational Shared Leadership. The corresponding= descriptive statistics, in Appendix B, show a variance in the mean scores from a low of 1.69 in Team 20 to a high of 3.45 in Team 25. More significantly, the ANOVA in T= able 13 shows a Between Groups F-Ratio of 2.884 at a significance level of .000. The null hypothesis that the indep= endent population means for 31 team’s transformational shared leadership sco= res is clearly rejected. The coll= ective construct of transformational shared leadership and group potency data for = 31 teams may be used in the remaining analysis, in support of the recommendati= on of Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, and Murry (2000).

Table 12

Intraclass Cor= relation Coefficients – Shared Leadership and Team Potency

Intraclass Correlation^a

95% Confidence Interval

F Test with True Value 0

Team ID (Number of Members Includ= ing Team Leader)

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Value

df1

df2

Sig

&= nbsp;

Team 1= (4)

.957

.928

.976

23.059

36

108

.000

&= nbsp;

Team 2= (4)

*.651

.423

.804

2.865

36

108

.000

&= nbsp;


	Intraclass Correlation^a	95% Confidence Interval	F Test with True Value 0
Team ID (Number of Members Includ= ing Team Leader)	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Value	df1	df2	Sig
&= nbsp;
Team 1= (4)	.957	.928	.976	23.059	36	108	.000
&= nbsp;
Team 2= (4)	*.651	.423	.804	2.865	36	108	.000
&= nbsp;