The Experts below are selected from a list of 34332 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Craig L Pearce - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
promoting work motivation in organizations should employee involvement in organizational Leadership become a new tool in the organizational psychologist s kit
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: Jurgen Wegge, Craig L Pearce, Hans Jeppe Jeppesen, Wolfgang G Weber, Silvia Agostinho Da Silva, Alexander Pundt, Thomas Jonsson, Sandra Wolf, Christina L Wassenaar, Christine UnterrainerAbstract:What are the best interventions that Work and Organizational Psychology offers today for promoting high work motivation in organizations? This paper seeks to answer this question in two steps. First, we briefly summarize the main findings from 26 meta-analyses concerned with traditional practices such as goal setting, feedback, work design, financial incentives, or training. These practices can improve both organizational performance and the well-being of organizational members. Second, we examine in more depth a new, increasingly important high performance work practice: Employee involvement in organizational Leadership (EIOL). This approach is built on theories focusing on organizational participation, Shared Leadership, and organizational democracy. We also illustrate recently constructed measurement instruments for assessing these constructs. This synopsis leads us to the development of a new integrative, multilevel model of EIOL. The model includes several mediator (e.g., knowledge exchange) and mode...
-
new forms of management Shared and distributed Leadership in organizations
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2009Co-Authors: Craig L Pearce, Julia E Hoch, Hans Jeppe Jeppesen, Jurgen WeggeAbstract:The Journal of Personnel Psychology (JPP) announces a special issue focusing on Shared and distributed Leadership in organizations. The focus will be on possible antecedents, moderators, and processes and outcomes of Shared Leadership in organizations. In today’s organizations, hierarchies are often replaced by team-based work structures. Organizations are faced with uncertainty and fast-changing environments, and work tasks are becoming increasingly complex. To succeed, organizations therefore need new forms of Leadership to integrate the challenging and complex demands. Shared Leadership describes a Leadership in today’s organizations that is distributed on different levels and can be defined as “a dynamic interactive influence among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (Pearce & Conger, 2003, p. 1). While our knowledge on these concepts, particularly from the theoretical point of view but also from the practitioner side, has grown, systematic investigations of the potential antecedents, processes, and contingencies of Shared Leadership in organizations are still relatively scarce. More research isneeded here (see Pearce, 2008; Pearce & Conger, 2003), and the current special issue is aimed toward filling this gap. This special issue will consider papers that explore the antecedents, processes, moderating variables, and outcomes of Shared Leadership and distributed Leadership across different levels of the organization. Topics that are consistent with this purpose include: – What are the key antecedents of Shared leaders? What causes Shared Leadership to occur? Why do Leadership transitions occur? – What are the important mediating processes of Shared and distributed Leadership in organizations? – How does Shared Leadership impact on employee health, well-being, and satisfaction? – How can supervisors strengthen and encourage the collective Leadership of their team members? – What role does empowerment and employee influence play? How important is organizational participation in its different forms, intensities, and levels? – How do we measure Shared and distributed Leadership? – How important is employee self-Leadership? What role do self-management skills or proactivity of the members play? – Does Shared Leadership reduce employee turnover? – How does team composition (e.g., diversity in terms of members’ personality or other aspects) relate to or interact with Shared Leadership? – How important and how effective is Shared Leadership in modern and globalized or “virtual” workplaces? – Does Shared Leadership have only positive consequences, or are there also possible caveats? What might be important hindrances of Shared Leadership effectiveness?
-
Shared Leadership theory
Leadership Quarterly, 2007Co-Authors: Craig L Pearce, Jay A Conger, Edwin A LockeAbstract:Edwin Locke contributed a chapter to the critique section of Craig Pearce and Jay Conger’s (2003a) edited book, Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, published by Sage. In this letter exchange, they continue their dialogue on this important topic. They focus in particular on clarifying what each means by “Shared Leadership” and on what Shared Leadership can and should look like at the top of organizations.
-
the future of Leadership combining vertical and Shared Leadership to transform knowledge work
IEEE Engineering Management Review, 2006Co-Authors: Craig L PearceAbstract:Executive Overview Knowledge work is becoming increasingly team-based. The reason is clear. It is becoming ever more difficult for any one person to be an expert on all aspects of the work that needs to be done, and this is true in a wide variety of contexts ranging from the R&D lab to the executive suite. With the shift to team-based knowledge work comes the need to question more traditional models of Leadership. Traditionally, Leadership has been conceived around the idea that one person is firmly “in charge” while the rest are simply followers—what is termed vertical Leadership. However, recent research indicates that Leadership can be Shared by team leaders and team members—rotating to the person with the key knowledge, skills, and abilities for the particular issues facing the team at any given moment. In fact, research indicates that poor-performing teams tend to be dominated by the team leader, while high-performing teams display more dispersed Leadership patterns, i.e., Shared Leadership. 1 This is not to suggest that Leadership from above is unnecessary. On the contrary, the role of the vertical leader is critical to the ongoing success of the Shared-Leadership approach to knowledge work. Thus, this article addresses the following questions: (1) when is Leadership most appropriately Shared? (2) how is Shared Leadership best developed? and (3) how does one effectively utilize both vertical and Shared Leadership to leverage the capabilities of knowledge workers?
-
the importance of self and Shared Leadership in team based knowledge work a meso level model of Leadership dynamics
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Michelle C Bligh, Craig L Pearce, Jeffrey C KohlesAbstract:Purpose – To address the increasing need for novel approaches to Leadership that deal with the challenges organizations face as they flatten, diversify, and confront increasingly complex problems.Design/methodology/approach – A meso‐level theoretical model is developed that outlines the relationship between self‐ and Shared Leadership, focusing on the intermediary processes of trust, potency, and commitment that may lead to the development of Shared Leadership and ultimately more innovative knowledge creation.Findings – Nine propositions are developed, addressing the relationships between self‐ and Shared Leadership, concluding with some of the theoretical and practical implications of the model and specific recommendations for future empirical work in this area.Research limitations/implications – An important boundary condition of the model is that it assumes team and organizational incentives are in place to encourage team building and the facilitation of team over individual achievements.Practical impl...
Michael D Ensley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the importance of vertical and Shared Leadership within new venture top management teams implications for the performance of startups
Leadership Quarterly, 2006Co-Authors: Michael D Ensley, Keith M Hmieleski, Craig L PearceAbstract:The current study investigated the relative influence of vertical versus Shared Leadership within new venture top management teams on the performance of startups using two different samples. Vertical Leadership stems from an appointed or formal leader of a team (e.g., the CEO), whereas Shared Leadership is a form of distributed Leadership stemming from within a team. Transformational, transactional, empowering, and directive dimensions of both vertical and Shared Leadership were examined. New venture performance was considered in terms of revenue growth and employee growth. The first sample was comprised of 66 top management teams of firms drawn from Inc. Magazine's annual list of America's 500 fastest growing startups. The seconded sample consisted of 154 top management teams of startups randomly drawn from Dun and Bradstreet, which compiles the most extensive database available for identifying relatively young American-based ventures. Both vertical and Shared Leadership were found to be highly significant predictors of new venture performance. Further, hierarchical regression analysis found the Shared Leadership variables to account for a significant amount of variance in new venture performance beyond the vertical Leadership variables. These results were consistent across both samples, thus providing robust evidence for the value of Shared Leadership, in addition to the more traditional concept of vertical Leadership.
-
the importance of vertical and Shared Leadership within new venture top management teams implications for the performance of startups
Social Science Research Network, 2006Co-Authors: Michael D Ensley, Keith M Hmieleski, Craig L PearceAbstract:Teams and team Leadership have become importantareas of research. This study examines both Shared and vertical Leadership inthe top management teams of new ventures; in such a context, the effects ofShared and vertical Leadership on firm performance are likely to be easily seenbecause of the linkage between entrepreneurship and Leadership, and Leadershipis likely to have a particularly strong impact on firm performance. The twotypes of Leadership are distinguished and merits of each described. The study was based on two sample sets: one of 168 managers from 66 firmsdrawn from the annual Inc. 500 list of fastest growing U.S. startups; the otherof 417 executives from 154 firms drawn from the Dun & Bradstreet MarketIdentifiers database. Measures of Leadership behavior and growth weredevised. The hypotheses consideredwhether more traditional vertical Leadershipby the firm's top executive is related to the firm's growth rate, or whetherShared Leadership among the members of the top management team is related tothe firm's performance. The hypothesis that vertical Leadership, in whichthe more directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering the firm'stop leader is, the higher the firm growth rate will be, is only partlysupported. That Shared, dispersedLeadershipwill result infirm growth is supported. The hypothesis was also supported which posits that Shared Leadership in newventure top management teams will account for a significant amount of variancein new venture performance above and beyond what is accounted for by thevertical Leadership of the new venture top management leader. Althoughboth sources of Leadership were important predictors of new ventureperformance, Shared Leadership was found to be an especially effectivepredictor. Thus, the study demonstrates the value of Shared Leadership in a newcontext. (TNM)
Keith M Hmieleski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the importance of vertical and Shared Leadership within new venture top management teams implications for the performance of startups
Leadership Quarterly, 2006Co-Authors: Michael D Ensley, Keith M Hmieleski, Craig L PearceAbstract:The current study investigated the relative influence of vertical versus Shared Leadership within new venture top management teams on the performance of startups using two different samples. Vertical Leadership stems from an appointed or formal leader of a team (e.g., the CEO), whereas Shared Leadership is a form of distributed Leadership stemming from within a team. Transformational, transactional, empowering, and directive dimensions of both vertical and Shared Leadership were examined. New venture performance was considered in terms of revenue growth and employee growth. The first sample was comprised of 66 top management teams of firms drawn from Inc. Magazine's annual list of America's 500 fastest growing startups. The seconded sample consisted of 154 top management teams of startups randomly drawn from Dun and Bradstreet, which compiles the most extensive database available for identifying relatively young American-based ventures. Both vertical and Shared Leadership were found to be highly significant predictors of new venture performance. Further, hierarchical regression analysis found the Shared Leadership variables to account for a significant amount of variance in new venture performance beyond the vertical Leadership variables. These results were consistent across both samples, thus providing robust evidence for the value of Shared Leadership, in addition to the more traditional concept of vertical Leadership.
-
the importance of vertical and Shared Leadership within new venture top management teams implications for the performance of startups
Social Science Research Network, 2006Co-Authors: Michael D Ensley, Keith M Hmieleski, Craig L PearceAbstract:Teams and team Leadership have become importantareas of research. This study examines both Shared and vertical Leadership inthe top management teams of new ventures; in such a context, the effects ofShared and vertical Leadership on firm performance are likely to be easily seenbecause of the linkage between entrepreneurship and Leadership, and Leadershipis likely to have a particularly strong impact on firm performance. The twotypes of Leadership are distinguished and merits of each described. The study was based on two sample sets: one of 168 managers from 66 firmsdrawn from the annual Inc. 500 list of fastest growing U.S. startups; the otherof 417 executives from 154 firms drawn from the Dun & Bradstreet MarketIdentifiers database. Measures of Leadership behavior and growth weredevised. The hypotheses consideredwhether more traditional vertical Leadershipby the firm's top executive is related to the firm's growth rate, or whetherShared Leadership among the members of the top management team is related tothe firm's performance. The hypothesis that vertical Leadership, in whichthe more directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering the firm'stop leader is, the higher the firm growth rate will be, is only partlysupported. That Shared, dispersedLeadershipwill result infirm growth is supported. The hypothesis was also supported which posits that Shared Leadership in newventure top management teams will account for a significant amount of variancein new venture performance above and beyond what is accounted for by thevertical Leadership of the new venture top management leader. Althoughboth sources of Leadership were important predictors of new ventureperformance, Shared Leadership was found to be an especially effectivepredictor. Thus, the study demonstrates the value of Shared Leadership in a newcontext. (TNM)
Martin Broad - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
governance structures voluntary disclosures and public accountability the case of uk higher education institutions
Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2017Co-Authors: Collins G Ntim, Teerooven Soobaroyen, Martin BroadAbstract:Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent of voluntary disclosures in UK higher education institutions’ (HEIs) annual reports and examine whether internal governance structures influence disclosure in the period following major reform and funding constraints. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopt a modified version of Coy and Dixon’s (2004) public accountability index, referred to in this paper as a public accountability and transparency index (PATI), to measure the extent of voluntary disclosures in 130 UK HEIs’ annual reports. Informed by a multi-theoretical framework drawn from public accountability, legitimacy, resource dependence and stakeholder perspectives, the authors propose that the characteristics of governing and executive structures in UK universities influence the extent of their voluntary disclosures. Findings The authors find a large degree of variability in the level of voluntary disclosures by universities and an overall relatively low level of PATI (44 per cent), particularly with regards to the disclosure of teaching/research outcomes. The authors also find that audit committee quality, governing board diversity, governor independence and the presence of a governance committee are associated with the level of disclosure. Finally, the authors find that the interaction between executive team characteristics and governance variables enhances the level of voluntary disclosures, thereby providing support for the continued relevance of a “Shared” Leadership in the HEIs’ sector towards enhancing accountability and transparency in HEIs. Research limitations/implications In spite of significant funding cuts, regulatory reforms and competitive challenges, the level of voluntary disclosure by UK HEIs remains low. Whilst the role of selected governance mechanisms and “Shared Leadership” in improving disclosure, is asserted, the varying level and selective basis of the disclosures across the surveyed HEIs suggest that the public accountability motive is weaker relative to the other motives underpinned by stakeholder, legitimacy and resource dependence perspectives. Originality/value This is the first study which explores the association between HEI governance structures, managerial characteristics and the level of disclosure in UK HEIs.
-
governance structures voluntary disclosures and public accountability the case of uk higher education institutions
2015Co-Authors: Collins G Ntim, Teerooven Soobaroyen, Martin BroadAbstract:Purpose: We investigate the extent of voluntary disclosures in UK higher education institutions’ (HEIs) annual reports and examine whether internal governance structures influence disclosure in the period following major reform and funding constraints. Design/Methodology/Approach: We adopt a modified version of Coy and Dixon’s (2004) public accountability index, referred to in this paper as a public accountability and transparency index (PATI), to measure the extent of voluntary disclosures in 130 UK HEIs’ annual reports. Informed by a multi-theoretical framework drawn from public accountability, legitimacy, resource dependence and stakeholder perspectives, we propose that the characteristics of governing and executive structures in UK universities influence the extent of their voluntary disclosures. Findings: We find a large degree of variability in the level of voluntary disclosures by universities and an overall relatively low level of PATI (44%), particularly with regards to the disclosure of teaching/research outcomes. We also find that audit committee quality, governing board diversity, governor independence, and the presence of a governance committee are associated with the level of disclosure. Finally, we find that the interaction between executive team characteristics and governance variables enhances the level of voluntary disclosures, thereby providing support for the continued relevance of a ‘Shared’ Leadership in the HEIs’ sector towards enhancing accountability and transparency in HEIs. Research Limitations/Implications: In spite of significant funding cuts, regulatory reforms and competitive challenges, the level of voluntary disclosure by UK HEIs remains low. Whilst the role of selected governance mechanisms and ‘Shared Leadership’ in improving disclosure, is asserted, the varying level and selective basis of the disclosures across the surveyed HEIs suggest that the public accountability motive is weaker relative to the other motives underpinned by stakeholder, legitimacy and resource dependence perspectives. Originality/Value: This is the first study which explores the association between HEI governance structures, managerial characteristics and the level of disclosure in UK HEIs.
Julia E Hoch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
team personality composition emergent Leadership and Shared Leadership in virtual teams a theoretical framework
Human Resource Management Review, 2017Co-Authors: Julia E Hoch, James H DulebohnAbstract:Abstract Limited theory and research has been devoted to the role of team personality composition, as well as emergent and Shared Leadership, in virtual teams. In an effort to provide a theoretical basis for the role of team personality composition, as well as emergent and Shared Leadership, in virtual teams, we propose a virtual team framework that portrays the team personality composition as predictors of emergent and Shared Leadership. These in turn are expected to impact virtual team performance. We further posit that the relationships between team personality composition and virtual team performance are indirect, through emergent Leadership and Shared Leadership. Finally, we present team virtuality as a moderator between team composition and team processes. Suggestions for future research and implications for the management of virtual teams are presented.
-
Shared Leadership and innovation the role of vertical Leadership and employee integrity
Journal of Business and Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Julia E HochAbstract:Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Shared Leadership, as a collective within-team Leadership, and innovative behavior, as well as antecedents of Shared Leadership in terms of team composition and vertical transformational and empowering Leadership.
-
new forms of management Shared and distributed Leadership in organizations
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2009Co-Authors: Craig L Pearce, Julia E Hoch, Hans Jeppe Jeppesen, Jurgen WeggeAbstract:The Journal of Personnel Psychology (JPP) announces a special issue focusing on Shared and distributed Leadership in organizations. The focus will be on possible antecedents, moderators, and processes and outcomes of Shared Leadership in organizations. In today’s organizations, hierarchies are often replaced by team-based work structures. Organizations are faced with uncertainty and fast-changing environments, and work tasks are becoming increasingly complex. To succeed, organizations therefore need new forms of Leadership to integrate the challenging and complex demands. Shared Leadership describes a Leadership in today’s organizations that is distributed on different levels and can be defined as “a dynamic interactive influence among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (Pearce & Conger, 2003, p. 1). While our knowledge on these concepts, particularly from the theoretical point of view but also from the practitioner side, has grown, systematic investigations of the potential antecedents, processes, and contingencies of Shared Leadership in organizations are still relatively scarce. More research isneeded here (see Pearce, 2008; Pearce & Conger, 2003), and the current special issue is aimed toward filling this gap. This special issue will consider papers that explore the antecedents, processes, moderating variables, and outcomes of Shared Leadership and distributed Leadership across different levels of the organization. Topics that are consistent with this purpose include: – What are the key antecedents of Shared leaders? What causes Shared Leadership to occur? Why do Leadership transitions occur? – What are the important mediating processes of Shared and distributed Leadership in organizations? – How does Shared Leadership impact on employee health, well-being, and satisfaction? – How can supervisors strengthen and encourage the collective Leadership of their team members? – What role does empowerment and employee influence play? How important is organizational participation in its different forms, intensities, and levels? – How do we measure Shared and distributed Leadership? – How important is employee self-Leadership? What role do self-management skills or proactivity of the members play? – Does Shared Leadership reduce employee turnover? – How does team composition (e.g., diversity in terms of members’ personality or other aspects) relate to or interact with Shared Leadership? – How important and how effective is Shared Leadership in modern and globalized or “virtual” workplaces? – Does Shared Leadership have only positive consequences, or are there also possible caveats? What might be important hindrances of Shared Leadership effectiveness?
