Is it better for a team to have one strong leader or multiple leaders who work together? Hill’s Model of Team Leadership doesn’t specify an individual leader or leaders in terms of team effectiveness (Northouse, 2013). As long as the leaders are working together and not contradicting each other it shouldn’t effect team effectiveness negatively.
Shared leadership is defined as “an emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members. It represents a condition of mutual influence embedded in the interactions among team members that can significantly improve team and organizational performance” (Hoch, 2010). In today’s business culture of globalization, change, uncertainty and the need for teams that can handle increasingly more complex tasks, shared leadership is being looked at a better solution then traditional single leader formats used in the past. Shared leadership consists of constructing a more comprehensive idea of leadership that goes beyond a singular appointed leader (Lindsay, 2011). Shared leadership creates a more interactive work environment between team members as they work towards the goals of both the team and the organization. “Shared leadership differs from collective decisions, as it also includes the later phases following the decision processes, such as initiating action, taking responsibility for action and responsibility for outcomes, etc. Shared leadership refers to a collective social influence process shared by team members and aimed toward the achievement of one or more common goals” (Hoch, 2011).
In this day and age of multinational companies and telecommuting I think that we will see more and more companies moving towards a shared leadership approach to teams. Since many teams can now consist of members who are not just separated by an office floor, but an ocean, a single leader doesn’t seem effective. As I stated above, as long as the leaders have the same goals and have a mutual understanding of how the team should be run, I don’t think it would affect team effectiveness.
Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Welzel, L. (2010). Is the most effective team leadership shared? the impact of shared leadership, age diversity, and coordination on team performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(3), 105-116.
Lindsay, D. R., Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2011). Shared leadership in the military: Reality, possibility, or pipedream? Military Psychology, 23(5), 528-549.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
I have to say; too many cooks spoil the broth. I believe this to mean that too many leaders will dilute the effectiveness of one leader. So does Northouse because he mentions it in the text how “effective team leaders are committed to the team’s goals and give members autonomy to unleash their talents when possible” (Northouse 2016, pg. 372).
I also believe Northouse definition of a team as “a specific type of group composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals” (Northouse 2016, p. 364). I think the force of a strong group of individuals is unbreakable especially when there is a strong leader to support them though out the journey.
Effective teams perform according to how the leader sees the situation that is be fronted upon the team. If the leader can successfully interpret the mental conception of the problem the way he envisions it, that the team needs to solve then lead then in the right direction.
I believe that business has a lot of the same qualities as a sports team when it comes to a successful leader. Both needs to “predict” the best direction for a successfully fulfilling their goals.
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
I believe the number of leaders needed varies depending on the size of the team or group. For a small group having multiple leaders can become ineffective as too many voices is not always a good thing. However with a large group such as a football team, having a number of leaders can be more effective for the success of the team. Having the perspective of multiple people is likely to be more effective so long as they are all on the same page and have the same goals. Thus in my opinion, the amount of leaders needed for to be successful varies depending on the size of the organization. Each organization will call for a different model based on their function.
I do agree with your assessment that increasing globalization and a dispersed workforce will cause a change in how company’s address leadership. Teleworking and other non-standard practices in the workplace will also force companies to change from traditional leadership models.
I don’t believe that every occupation or function would necessarily work in a team based or shared leadership environment. I am not sure that assemble line workers or manual labor types of positions would necessarily function properly in a team-based leadership environment. Roles where deviation from a standard specification would cause a faulty product or product failure may be best suited to traditional leadership – one leader and followers.