A multilevel investigation of predictors and outcomes of shared leadership

For modern organizations, shared leadership becomes increasingly important. Knowledge on shared leadership may be limited, as past research often relies on cross‐sectional data or student samples, and most studies neglect the multilevel nature of shared leadership. Our research model includes transformational leadership, trust, and organizational support as predictors of shared leadership. Furthermore, we analyze the influence of shared leadership on team performance and team creativity. In total, 160 teams with 697 employees participated in our field study. Data collection took place at three time points. To test our hypotheses, we used multilevel modeling with a Bayesian estimator. We found relationships of transformational leadership and trust with shared leadership at the team level and of transformational leadership, trust, and organizational support with shared leadership at the individual level. Furthermore, shared leadership fully mediated the effect of the three input factors on team performance and team creativity. This study contributes to the understanding of the antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership. Furthermore, the dynamic development of team processes based on an input–mediator–output model is explored. On the basis of the results, organizations can increase shared leadership behavior by focusing on transformational leadership and trust building

A diary study on shared leadership, team work engagement, and goal attainment

Theory of shared leadership has suggested that this informal source of team leadership is highly dynamic and changes over time. We draw on this assumption and provide new insights about the nature of short-term changes in shared leadership. Additionally, we advance the nomological network of shared leadership by examining the within-team relations of day-level shared leadership with cohesion, team work engagement and goal attainment. To study these dynamics and short-term relationships, we conducted a daily-diary study. We collected daily measures from 53 teams with 187 team members resulting in 725 person-days and 207 team-days. Bayesian multilevel modeling supported our hypotheses as daily shared leadership was linked to daily cohesion, team work engagement, and goal attainment. The findings contribute to the understanding of within-team associations of shared leadership and add to the understanding about the dynamic nature of this team state. Limitations and directions for further research are then discussed

Temporal dynamics of shared leadership

In this diary study, we consider shared leadership and team workload as antecedents of team mental health. We draw on conservation of resources theory to theorize how linear change trajectories of shared leadership are related to change trajectories in team members’ shared well-being and emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, we investigate the interaction between change trajectories of shared leadership and team workload, predicting that change in shared leadership will be more strongly related to change in team mental health when team workload increases. 265 team members nested in 77 teams completed a daily diary survey over five consecutive workdays. As hypothesized, an increase in shared leadership was associated with an increase in team well-being and a decrease in emotional exhaustion over time. Further, shared leadership interacted with team workload, such that an increase in shared leadership was more strongly associated with a decrease in shared emotional exhaustion when team workload increased. However, team member well-being was not affected by such an interaction. These findings address the missing link between shared leadership and team well-being and exhaustion, establish shared leadership as an important team resource, and contribute a temporal perspective on shared leadership as a dynamic team phenomenon

How modern working environments shape attendance behaviour: A longitudinal study on weekly flexibilization, boundaryless work and presenteeism

In the face of technological advancements, flexibilization and boundaryless work have become integral parts of modern occupational settings. Simultaneously, current research indicates a considerable increase in presenteeism—the behaviour of working while sick. Meta‐analytic findings indicate two main drivers for presenteeism: a high work motivation and an impaired state of health and psychological well‐being. Research on flexibilization and boundaryless work shows that these job conditions enhance employees' work motivation but also impair employees' health. Based on conservation of resources theory and Miraglia and John's (J Occupational Health Psychol, 21, 2016, 261) dual‐path model on antecedents of presenteeism, we investigate how both job conditions affect attendance behaviour (absenteeism and presenteeism) via motivation and well‐being by conducting a weekly diary study over the course of 9 weeks. In total, 284 people provided data on flexibilization, boundaryless work, flow experience, well‐being, absenteeism and presenteeism (N = 2284 week‐level). Multilevel mediational analyses revealed that flexibilization prevents presenteeism, whereas boundaryless work can increase presenteeism. The results further revealed support for the health impairment path at the within‐person and between‐person levels whereas the motivational path was not supported at the within‐person level. Our results offer several theoretical and practical implications for how modern work shape attendance behaviour

On the destructiveness of laissez-faire versus abusive supervision: a comparative, multilevel investigation of destructive forms of leadership

Klasmeier KN, Schleu JE, Millhoff C, Poethke U, Bormann K. On the destructiveness of laissez-faire versus abusive supervision: a comparative, multilevel investigation of destructive forms of leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology . 2021.Different forms of destructive leadership are prevalent in organizations, but rarely studied together. Additionally, most studies take an individual-level view on the consequences of destructive leadership. However, while most supervisors lead teams, it remains unclear how destructive leadership behaviours affect team processes and outcomes from a multilevel perspective. Building on this premise, we analysed the relationship of abusive supervision and laissez-faire leadership with OCB on the individual and team-level. As an important team process, we considered team trust as a mediating mechanism. Further, we investigated whether laissez-faire leadership is more harmful to OCB compared to abusive supervision. We tested our proposed model in a three-wave study with data from 658 team members out of 149 teams. Bayesian multilevel analysis generally supported our assumptions: Abusive supervision lowered team trust and subsequently OCB at the individual and team-level, whereas laissez-faire was not related to team trust on the team-level. Additionally, our results indicated that laissez-faire was more harmful to OCB than abusive supervision on both levels. Finally, implications for theory and practical use in organizations are discussed

Unveiling the interplay between leadership behavior and leader well-being: a person-centered approach

Wittmers A, Klasmeier KN, Thomson B, Maier GW. Unveiling the interplay between leadership behavior and leader well-being: a person-centered approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2024.Purpose** Drawing on COR theory and based on a person-centered approach, this study aims to explore profiles of both leadership behavior (transformational leadership, abusive supervision) and well-being indicators (cognitive irritation, emotional exhaustion). Additionally, we consider whether certain resource-draining (work intensification) and resource-creating factors (leader autonomy, psychological contract fulfillment) from the leaders' work context are related to profile membership. Design/methodology/approach** The profiles are built using LPA on data from 153 leaders and their 1,077 followers. The relationship between profile membership and correlates from the leaders' work context is examined using multinomial logistic regression analyses. Findings** LPA results in an interpretable four-profile solution with the profiles named (1) Good health – constructive leading, (2) Average health – inconsistent leading, (3) Impaired health – constructive leading and (4) Impaired health – destructive leading. The two groups with the highest sample share – Profiles 1 and 3 – both show highly constructive leadership behavior but differ significantly in their well-being indicators. The regression analyses show that work intensification and psychological contract fulfillment are significantly related to profile membership. Originality/value** The person-centered approach provides a more nuanced view of the leadership behavior – leader well-being relationship, which can address inconsistencies in previous research. In terms of practical relevance, the person-centered approach allows for the identification of risk groups among leaders for whom organizations can provide additional resources and health-promoting interventions. </p

The reciprocity of shared and empowering leadership

Leadership has mostly been considered as a unidirectional process centered on leaders influencing their followers. However, recent theoretical developments indicate that followers may also have an impact on their formal leader. In this pre-registered study, we investigate the interplay between shared leadership and formal team leadership (i.e., empowering leadership). We predict that leaders interpret their team’s shared leadership as an investment to reach for common goals. Accordingly, their team’s effort should improve leader trust in the team, which in turn should increase empowering leadership behavior of the leader. Further, we propose that this indirect relation is first-stage moderated by leader self-efficacy. We invited 721 team members and their leaders nested in 169 teams to join a three-wave longitudinal study. Results from Bayesian cross-lagged panel modeling support our predicted mediation effect while also pointing to a reverse effect of empowering leadership on shared leadership. The moderation effect was not supported. This study provides insights into the dynamic and reciprocal interplay between shared and formal leadership. Our findings underline that formal leaders do not perceive shared leadership as a threat but instead value the team effort reflected in higher trust and decision latitude