When the desire for power is overcome by the desire to solve problems, the concept of sharing leadership rather than being led by a single individual will re-define what leadership means in modern society. Subtle differences in the two conceptualizations of leadership can be seen in the picture above; “the rectangular meeting table signifies that those at the ends have power, while a circular table signifies that everyone has equal power” (Northouse, 2016). We are living in an age where leaders emerge in many different ways; some teams have members that specialize in specific departments, such as finance, special projects, marketing, web design, and so on. We are moving away from the Industrial Revolution where one individual can be seen directing a group of employees working on an assembly line; individual contributions are gaining value and people are recognized as more than just gears in a well-oiled machine.
It is becoming important for Industrial/Organizational psychologists to study teams because organizations are becoming flatter and more team based; we are now faced with learning how to appraise teams instead of individuals (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). As an Organizational Leadership major, when I am working with members of a group for a school project, I am often collaborating with other individuals studying the same or similar disciplines. The concept of shared leadership comes more naturally to leadership-oriented groups because we all recognize the responsibilities of making decisions, solving problems, adapting to changes, achieving goals, developing a positive climate, and solving interpersonal problems (Northouse, 2016). The question for us is not concerning who will take the reins of the project; rather it is how will we utilize each other’s strengths to accomplish our goals and objectives?
The concept of shared leadership helps to re-shape group roles for a business or a project. Dividing power more evenly among group members can allow for diverse perspectives and valuable input that would not be possible if group members are only expected to do what they’re told. Pearce and Sims (2000) found that “shared leadership contributed to team effectiveness beyond traditional leadership,” relative to the groups that did not engage in shared leadership (Northouse, 2016). Consider the scenario of a new start-up; if an individual recruited a bunch of people and assumed the leadership position because he/she started the business, and then allocated responsibilities to the recruited members, it is likely that these individuals will feel that they are feeding this leader’s vision. However, if there is greater buy-in and the group members’ personal visions and ideas are implemented into the greater organization, they will feel that they are all creating the vision together. According to Northouse (2016), “all of the members of the group can contribute to the process of leadership. In fact, when all members have some kind of leadership role, the groups actually perform better.”
But why should we focus on shared leadership instead of traditional leadership? Wouldn’t there be clashes or competition for power? It depends on how underlying power dynamics contribute to the team culture. I worked for a small marketing organization in a team of 10 people, where one person dictated when and how everything was completed. When I presented new ideas for conducting sales and marketing strategies, they were instantly shut down because they weren’t “how things have been done”, even though sales and marketing was supposed to be my department as a Sales Account Executive. I can attest that the structure of a management team, in which direction is coordinated and provided to subunits under the discretion of an individual, is becoming outdated (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). Northouse (2016) notes that two of the components of team leadership are competent team members and unified commitment; when these two conditions exist in a group setting, traditional leadership can stifle creativity and diversity by pushing an individual agenda on followers. The shift to a circle-table mentality will allow shared leadership to blossom, which will consequently result in greater buy-in and commitment from team leaders.
References:
Foley, H. (2015). The 10 commandments of team meetings. Callcentrehelper.com. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from https://www.callcentrehelper.com/the-10-commandments-of-team-meetings-71058.htm
Muchinsky, P. M. & Culbertson, S. S. (2016). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Phillpott, S. (2018). 7 easy ways to make your team meetings more effective. Career Addict. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from https://www.careeraddict.com/team-meeting-ideas
Shared leadership is what stuck out the most for me in the team leadership theory, so I enjoyed your blog and insight on it in a leadership setting. You make a valid point of once the desire to solve problems is prevalent then we will better benefit from sharing leadership instead of having one leader. Northouse (2016) describes shared leadership as when members of a team take on specific behaviors to influence a team and its effectiveness (pg. 365). This can include guidance from each individual of the team.
I agree with Northouse’s (2016) statement that shared leadership has become more prevalent in today’s society, mostly because of individuals need for immediate response (pg. 365). Working in a service industry where people want an answer within seconds and can not wait, it is helpful to be able to make such quick decisions without having to always rely on others. For shared leadership to be effective all members should contribute and play a role for complete success (Williams, 2018). I also concur that this style helps to utilize each individual’s personal and varying strengths to reach stated objectives.
I see the many benefits of shared leadership and agree with your findings that organizations are becoming “flatter and more team based” so this theory helps support the new era of leadership compared to previous traditional leadership styles. However, shared leadership does have its faults and risk when not everyone in the group is looking to achieve the goals at hand (Northouse, 2016). This can corrupt the team and eventually lead to conflict. Unfortunately, I have seen this leadership style turn into a downward spiral, much of which could have been avoided with proper management. To reiterate your quote from Northouse (2016) two of the components needed are competent team members and unified commitment to be successful (pg. 369-370).
Focusing on your question of why should we focus on shared leadership and couldn’t there be clashes or competition for power with this style? I believe along with poor management, others were rivaling for power instead of working as a team in my scenario, but you make an excellent point of sharing your ideas and having them pushed aside because of previous traditional leadership styles of the organization you were in. With proper team and shared leadership, each person should be able to share their ideas and communication to better the business.
With shifting demographics, cultures, times and virtual teams on the rise in organizations; shared leadership is highly beneficial, effective and productive as long as the right team members are present (Williams, 2018). Though I have seen the negative side of shared leadership, I certainly do believe the pros of it are far greater when used in the team leadership theory. It works best when managed successfully and with the right group of individuals; sharing a common goal for the greater good of the organization. It is important that teams do not just have one leader but that the group contributes to leadership as a whole (Williams, 2016). Good blog!
References:
Northouse, Peter G. (2016). Team Leadership. Leadership: Theory and Practice (7thed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Williams, J. (2018). Lesson 9: Team Leadership. PSYCH 485. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1923777/modules/items/23736255
A big part of taking leadership responsibility is the increased task of being held accountable for failure. In this sense, it’s natural that the team who shares the role of leadership would function more efficiently and obtain success. When each team member assumes a certain amount of responsibility, they take on a more direct threat of failure. Fear is a powerful motivator in many cases. When discussing the underlying dynamics of the group, I think attributes definitely contribute to how ideas are given, received and implemented (or not). It is the capacity to acknowledge others contributions from a skill approach and appreciate the power of collective and creative problem-solving. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the idea that shared leadership comes more naturally to leadership-oriented groups. When members are more aware of the benefits of team management (Northouse, 2016) to a project, normally conflicting attributes such as argumentativeness or resistance can be met with openness and creativity, which could spawn ideas that wouldn’t have otherwise come to light. Consequently, when a group is comprised of individuals coming from different departments, backgrounds or environments, it isn’t as easy to bounce ideas back and forth on a shared leadership playing field because all do not feel (and in some cases are not regarded) as valuable. As you stated, jealousy, and competition can arise and general lack of knowledge or desire for problem-solving can all become obstacles. The Team approach is a more effective medium for success than say the Middle-of-the-road approach, because the dual respect that is shared within a team when all become equally accountable is what drives even opposing ideas, to become shared, relevant and effective (Northouse, 2016).