The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups☆
Introduction
During the last several decades, researchers have become increasingly less accepting of the notion that leadership within organizations stems only from singular individuals (e.g., CEOs) in a top–down, hierarchical process. Alternatives to this view began to emerge and become popularized through the writings of Bass (1985), Burns (1978), Greenleaf (1977), Lawler (1986), McGregor (1960), and Vroom and Yetton (1973). McGregor (1960), in his description of Theory Y, argued that most workers are inherently honest and intrinsically motivated to do what is right for the organization. As such, workers can be trusted to handle responsibilities that would otherwise be shouldered only by top management. Vroom & Yetton (1973) built on the work of McGregor (1960) to develop a model of how and when leaders should involve their followers in decision-making processes. Greenleaf (1977) described the importance of “servant leadership”, which involves understanding followers' needs and aspirations and helping them to fulfill their desires in ways that are ethical and socially responsible. Perhaps most importantly, he suggested that servant leaders could emerge from any level within an organization and are often not formally recognized as leaders—with their true value to the group frequently not being realized until they are gone, when the direction of the group has become noticeably less certain. To this end, Greenleaf spawned the idea that leaders need not be assigned, designated or even recognized in order to have great impact. Burns (1978) was the first to describe transformational leadership, defined as the process through which leaders appeal to the ideals and morals of their followers to inspire them to reach their highest levels of achievement and to take ownership in the goals of the group. His work further highlighted the importance for followers to become involved in shaping the goals of the group and becoming enriched in their work. Bass (1985) expanded the work of Burns, further developing the concept of transformational leadership and placing its importance more squarely into the context of organizations. Lawler (1986) further built on this energy to fuel the movement toward high-involvement management, which sought to flatten the hierarchical structure within organizations and allow workers to have added input into the design of their work and the direction of the organization.
While these classic works have effectively espoused the importance of including followers in important decision-making processes, the focus of these theoretical frameworks remains on the juxtaposition of individual actors who are categorized as either leaders or followers. As such, these views remain yoked to the concept of “leader as commander,” which became the dominant leadership paradigm during the scientific management movement (Gilbreth & Gilbreth, 1924, Taylor, 1911). This has left an unsettled feeling among many who have recognized that high-performing groups often do not have formal leadership structures (Manz & Sims, 1984). Instead, leadership within high-performing groups is often distributed such that those with relevant knowledge, skills or abilities offer their views within specific situations, which are then digested and acted upon by the group as a unit. Kiefer & Senge (1999) describe firms operating in this way as metanoic organizations. Within such firms conversations are not dominated by individuals designated as leaders, but rather flow in rhythm to those possessing the most relevant knowledge to offer regarding the problem or opportunity of the moment. This emerging view of leadership has led to what has become known as distributed (Gronn, 2005) or shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003)—note that these terms are used somewhat interchangeably in the literature.
Pearce (2004, p. 48) defines shared leadership as a simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process within a team that is characterized by “serial emergence” of official as well as unofficial leaders. Although the need for shared leadership was explicitly described many decades ago (e.g., Follett, 1924), the concept has failed to gain traction within the mainstream leadership literature until recently. As Kuhn (1970) has described, knowledge underlying future paradigm shifts is often recognized by many individuals well before an actual paradigm shift occurs. The incentive structure must exist to motivate enough people to make the appropriate connections and actively build momentum toward moving beyond previous ways of thinking (Burke, 1978). It appears as though the current leadership paradigm is just now beginning to expand beyond the leader as commander outlook that has long dominated the field. This, we suggest, is a result of the proliferation of self-managed work groups (Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002), as well as the increased application of systems thinking (Nicholls-Nixon, 2005), complexity theories (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001) and decentralized organizational designs (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). These events have forced individuals to rethink traditional views of leadership. This is not to say that vertical leadership is the way of the past, but rather that future thinking about leadership must encompass both vertical and shared facets in order to capture a fuller view of leadership processes and outcomes (Day et al., 2004, Pearce & Sims, 2002)."
Although the concept of shared leadership has begun to emerge with increased regularity within the leadership literature, there have been, to this point, only few empirical studies on the topic (e.g., Avolio et al., 1996, Pearce, 1997, Pearce & Sims, 2002, Pearce et al., 2004). Instead, the literature on shared leadership has predominately been focused on its theoretical development (Day et al., 2004, Gronn, 2002) and practical application (Pearce, 2004, Pearce & Manz, 2005). The aim of the current study is to empirically examine the explanatory value in models of vertical versus shared leadership using parallel measures of each construct. Our goal in so doing is not to determine whether shared models of leadership are superior to vertical models of leadership, when it comes to predicting new venture performance, but rather to explore whether significant value can be realized by considering shared aspects of leadership—beyond that which is accounted for by more parsimonious models, which consider only vertical leadership. In this regard, we build upon the work of Pearce & Sims (2002); Pearce et al. (2004), who found shared leadership to be a more useful predictor of team outcomes than vertical leadership—in change management and virtual teams, respectively. The current study seeks to determine whether the value of shared leadership can also be realized at the organizational level, thereby extending previous research on the topic. The new venture context is chosen to carry out this study due to the natural linkage between entrepreneurship and leadership (Cogliser & Brigham, 2004, Vecchio, 2003), and the effect that team processes have been found to have on the development and growth of startups (Ensley et al., 2003, Ucbasaran et al., 2003). Further, new ventures provide an entirely different context from that which was studied in previous empirical work, thus maximizing the extent to which we can generalize about the utility of vertical and shared leadership.
We begin in the following section by discussing the important role of leadership within the new venture context. Next, we delineate differences between vertical and shared leadership. Afterward, the case is made for the value of both vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams. We then describe the samples and methods that are used to examine the effects of vertical and shared leadership on new venture performance. Finally, the results of our analyses are described, and their implications are discussed.
Section snippets
Leadership within the new venture context
For startups to come into existence, their founding top management teams need to create a vision for their firms and influence others to buy into their dreams in order to attract employees and acquire necessary resources for developing their new ventures (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998). Further, new venture top management teams need to set the initial goals and reward structures for their workers (Williamson, 2000). Simply put, in the context of new venture creation, founding teams must lead
Distinguishing between vertical and shared leadership
Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish a shared objective (Yukl, 2002). In top management teams, there are two potential sources of leadership, which are defined by “who” engages in leadership. The first source, the vertical leader, has received considerable attention and support in the literature (Gerstner & Day, 1997,
The case for vertical leadership
Research has shown that, although new ventures are often formed by founding teams, one individual often emerges as the principal leader (Ensley, Carland, & Carland, 2000). The inspiration and vision of this person have been often cited as the driving force behind the performance of new ventures, highlighting the importance of transformational leadership behavior within startups (Baum et al., 1998). In addition, the importance for the lead entrepreneur to effectively display empowering
The case for shared leadership
The entrepreneurship literature has long been preoccupied by the concept of the lone entrepreneur who – against all odds – creates a new venture and single handedly takes down larger, more established incumbents, in a David versus Goliath fashion. This fascination with the individual entrepreneur as the nexus of the venture creation process has led entrepreneurship researchers on an unproductive quest to identify the optimal traits of individual entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1989) and has placed an
Sample for study one
The sample for study one was drawn from the annual Inc. 500 list of America's fastest growing startups. Given our focus on the leadership of new ventures, we gathered data from the members of the top management teams of these firms. Because the Inc. 500 typically consists of small firms, in relatively early stages of their development, it seemed an appropriate population for study. Firms such as these are still highly dependent upon the vision and direction of their top management teams. Each
Results
The means, standard deviations and correlations for all variables examined in studies 1 and 2 can be found in Table 1, Table 2, respectively. In addition, the hierarchical regression results used to test the hypotheses can be found in Table 3, Table 4.
Hypothesis 1 stated that vertical leadership in new venture top management teams will be positively related to new venture performance, such that the more directive, transactional, transformational and empowering the top leader of the firm, the
Discussion
Teams and team leadership have become an increasingly important area of research (Day, 2000, Day et al., 2004, Forsyth, 1999, Swezey & Salas, 1992). As Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Sego (1994) observed over a decade ago, “there is a strong need for a better understanding of team functioning and team leadership in a wide variety of contexts.” Nonetheless, as the study of leadership dynamics in top management teams presents considerable challenge, there is a notable dearth of studies in the area (
Conclusion
It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the conceptualization of leadership must be broadened beyond that of top–down heroic leadership (Day et al., 2004, Pearce, 2004, Yukl, 2002). As has been empirically demonstrated in the current article, shared leadership processes add substantial insight into the performance of organizations. Further, shared leadership appears to be particularly important in the development and growth of new ventures. Within this context, the explanatory
References (96)
Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership
Organizational Dynamics
(1991)- et al.
A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance
Journal of Business Venturing
(1992) - et al.
The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned
Leadership Quarterly
(2004) Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on these developing streams of research
Leadership Quarterly
(1999)Leadership development: A review in context
Leadership Quarterly
(2000)- et al.
Leadership capacity in teams
Leadership Quarterly
(2004) - et al.
Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda
Human Resource Management Review
(2003) Substituting for leadership: The neglected role of the leadership couple
Leadership Quarterly
(1999)Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis
Leadership Quarterly
(2002)- et al.
Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct
Journal of Business Venturing
(2004)
Repeated measures regression and mediational tests: Enhancing the power of leadership research
Leadership Quarterly
A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions
Journal of Management
Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
Leadership in complex organizations
Leadership Quarterly
Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship
Journal of Business Venturing
The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge work
Organizational Dynamics
Tough times make tough bosses: A meso-analysis of CEO leader behavior
Leadership Quarterly
Entrepreneurship and leadership: Common trends and common threads
Human Resource Management Review
Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship
Journal of Business Venturing
Financial bootstrapping in small businesses: Examining small business managers' resource acquisition behaviors
Journal of Business Venturing
Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams
Leadership Quarterly
Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams
Academy of Management Journal
Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance
An organizational life cycle approach to leadership
Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking
Academy of Management Journal
Entrepreneurship and organizational behavior
Leadership and performance beyond expectation
A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms
Journal of Applied Psychology
Entrepreneurship
The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team adaptability
Connections
Leadership
The social dynamics of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership
The concept of entrepreneurial leadership
Toward a broader agenda for leadership development: Extending the traditional transactional–transformational duality by developing directive, empowering and shared leadership skills
Differences in large and small firm responses to environmental context: Strategic implications from a comparative analysis of business formations
Strategic Management Journal
The strategic management of corporate change
Human Relations
Investigating the existence of the lead entrepreneur
Journal of Small Business Management
Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Creative experience
Group dynamics
Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues
Journal of Applied Psychology
Classifying the elements of work
Management and Administration
Cited by (503)
Effects of team diversity, emergent leadership, and shared leadership on team performance in a multi-stage innovation and creativity crowdsourcing competition
2024, International Journal of Management EducationMaking shared leadership work: The importance of trust in project-based organisations
2024, International Journal of Project ManagementTime for a group hug? Toward a theory of shared emotional leadership in and of family business
2023, Journal of Family Business StrategyEntrepreneurial leadership, strategic flexibility, and venture performance: Does founders' span of control matter?
2023, Journal of Business ResearchAdaptive distributed leadership and circular economy adoption by emerging SMEs
2023, Journal of Business ResearchCitation Excerpt :For example, our study supports the findings of Collinson and Collinson (2009) which demonstrate that followers search for the certainty of clear top-down direction and a vision linked to participatory leadership. Thus, by suggesting that adaptive distributed leadership has beneficial effects on the adoption of CE practices, our paper extends this study and the others, calling for a shift from a pure DL approach to one that is adapted to the SME context (Cope et al., 2011; Ensley et al., 2006). In addition, our study contributes to emerging studies that apply the DL approach to the emerging market context (Khan et al., 2022).
Source of funding and specialized competences: the impact on the innovative performance of start-ups
2024, Journal of Knowledge Management
- ☆
Names of authors are in alphabetical order to indicate equal contribution.
- 1
Tel.: +1 518 276 3336.
- 2
Tel.: +1 817 257 7537.