sharing is caring: toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership

Human Resource Management Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

HUMRES-00497; No of Pages 15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /humres

Sharing is caring: Toward a model of proactive caring throughshared leadership

Jeffery D. Houghton a,⁎, Craig L. Pearce b, Charles C. Manz c, Stephen Courtright d, Greg L. Stewart e

a West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USAb MEF University, Istanbul, Turkeyc University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA, USAd Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USAe University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.D.

[email protected] (S. Courtright), greg-stewa

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.12.0011053-4822/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Houghton, J.D., etHuman Resource Management Review (201

a b s t r a c t

Available online xxxx
In this paper we address an age-old expression – “sharing is caring.”We offer a model and prop-ositions suggesting that shared leadership proactively increases group-level caring and ultimatelygroup-level performancewithin organizations through two keymediatingmechanisms – psycho-logical empowerment climate and group solidarity. In addition, we identify collaborative capacityand collaborative context as two potential moderators of the relationships between shared lead-ership and the two mediators. We conclude by exploring the implications of our model for bothresearch and practice.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Shared leadershipGroup-level caringPsychological empowerment climateGroup solidarityCollaborative capacityCollaborative context

In the face of unprecedented financial scandals and breaches of acceptable ethical conduct by certain organizations and top-levelexecutives, increasing focus has been placed on the establishment of new standards for more humane business practices (Welbourne& Gomez-Mejia, 1995). In this article, we address the age-old idea that “sharing is caring” and consider its implications for organiza-tions. This well-known idiom suggests that sharing facilitates or is equivalent to caring. Our notion of sharing is grounded in theemerging concept of shared leadership (Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). Shared leadership involves an interactive dynamic influ-ence process among individuals, usually in a context that involves some kind of teamwork, who lead one another to help reach thegoals of the group or organization (Pearce & Conger, 2003). With shared leadership, traditional hierarchical forms of leadership aresupplemented with more cooperative forms of mutual influence (Yukl, 2010). In addition to offering flexibility and more optimaluse of the capacities and expertise of individual employees, shared leadership affords the opportunity for members to experiencean increasing sense of meaning, psychological ownership, social support and belonging, and respect and dignity within the work set-ting (Pearce, Waldman, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2006).

In exploring this “sharing is caring” premise we introduce a model and propositions, focused on the group level of analysis, thatposit how shared leadership proactively increases perceived and actual caring and ultimately group-level performance within orga-nizations through two key mediatingmechanisms – psychological empowerment climate and group solidarity. We also explore howcollaborative capacity and collaborative context may act as potential moderators of the relationships between shared leadership andpsychological empowerment climate and group solidarity respectively. Hence, the primary purpose of our paper is to examine the re-lationships between shared leadership, group-level caring, and group-level performance along with specific mediating mechanismsand moderating influences.

Houghton), [email protected] (C.L. Pearce), [email protected] (C.C. Manz),[email protected] (G.L. Stewart).

al., Sharing is caring: Toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership,4), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.12.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.12.001

mailto:[email protected]






http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10534822


2 J.D. Houghton et al. / Human Resource Management Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Research examining caring from a managerial or organizational perspective is relatively scarce (Kroth & Keeler, 2009) and to ourknowledge no research to date has examined the role of shared leadership in facilitating caring in groups. Our model aims to fill thisgap in the literature by being among the first to examine shared leadership as an antecedent to group-level caring, as mediated bypsychological empowerment climate and group solidarity. Our paper, therefore, extends our understanding of both the shared lead-ership and caring constructs in important ways that have the potential for guiding future research and informingmanagerial practice.Indeed, beyond the basic development of our theoreticalmodel, we explore its implications for creating amore positive organizationallife with a focus on why caring is relevant and important in today’s organizations. Finally, while sharing and caring havemany poten-tial upsides, we also briefly consider some possible downsides of sharing and caring in organizations.

1. Proactive facilitation of caring through sharing

At times, organizations can manifest as cold uncaring entities driven by rationalized rules and objectives in the myopic pursuit ofprofitability and competitiveness. This can be especially true in difficult economic times when the focus is on the very survival of thefirm or when the prominent self-serving values of key executives drive the system towardmaximum financial returns at any cost, in-cluding ethical breaches (Manz, Anand, Joshi, & Manz, 2008). In such contexts, top-down organizing often dominates in ways that af-ford organizational members little opportunity for meaning, purpose, self-efficacy or even dignity, as they follow the dictates ofnarcissistic superiors in order to simply keep their jobs (Winter, 1991).

Here, however, we focus on a proactive stance toward caring thatmay prevent certain aspects of organizational life that could trig-ger psychological and emotional pain and suffering. We specifically define group-level caring as a process involving positive relation-ships among members who look out for the interests of one another (cf. Mayeroff, 1971; Moore, 1992). Given this perspective wefocus on the construct of shared leadership as a primary facilitator of proactive caring among group members. We first provide abrief literature review of the caring and shared leadership constructs before developing our model of sharing and caring.

1.1. Group-level caring

As Kroth and Keeler (2009) have noted, although caring has received substantial attention in the disciplines of nursing(e.g., Swanson, 1999) and education (e.g., Noddings, 2005), it is a relatively underdeveloped construct in the management literatureand there is no universal theory, model, or definition of caring (cf. Swanson, 1991). Deriving from the Latin word cura, meaning the“cure of the soul,” caring, in a general sense, may involve the concepts of devotion, healing, and attention (Moore, 1992). Thus, caringextends beyondmerely having compassion or concern to themore proactive concept of taking care of some person or thing (Kroth &Keeler, 2009). Just as a curator is someonewho oversees something, like a museum, the role of carator (i.e., someonewho cares) maybe an integral part of being amotivatingmanager (Kroth, 2006). Caremay be described as a state inwhich somethingmatters, in otherwords, the opposite of apathy (May, 1969). Mayeroff (1971) suggests that caring involves helping another person to grow bysupporting and encouraging them.

Although the caring construct is much better developed in the context of the “caring professions” such as social work, counseling,health care, clinical psychology, and education (e.g., Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001; Daloz, 1986; Skovholt, 2005), more attention isbeing allocated to the concept of caring in the management literature, as evidenced by the theme of the 2010 Academy of Manage-ment Meeting: “Dare to Care” and a special issue of the Academy of Management Review focusing on “Care and Compassion Throughan Organizational Lens: Opening Up New Possibilities” (Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, & Margolis, 2012). Nevertheless, despite this recentincrease in attention, research on caring in the management literature remains relatively scarce (see Kroth & Keeler, 2009).

In a notable exception, McAllister and Bigley (2002) found that caring organizations, defined as those organizations whose valuesand principles are focused on fulfilling the needs and acting in the best interests of employees, demonstrated higher levels oforganization-based self-esteem. Similarly, Sewell and Barker (2006) make a distinction between coercion and care in the contextof organizational surveillance, suggesting that a “discourse of care” focuses on fairness, effectiveness, and protecting the interests ofthe majority of organization members.

Moving from the organizational perspective to a focus on supervisory behavior, Kahn (1993) identified eight dimensions of care-giving, including accessibility, inquiry, attention, validation, empathy, support, compassion, and consistency. According to Kahn(1993), caregivers protect and safeguard the growth of organizational members by supporting them with emotional, physical, andtechnical resources. Along a similar line, Burton and Dunn (2005) draw upon thework of Gilligan (1982) and Noddings (1984) to de-velop a caring approach to management and social issues that entails relationships, communications, trust, cooperation and respon-sibility to multiple stakeholders. Finally, Kroth and Keeler (2009) recently presented a comprehensive recursive model of manager-employee caring. Within this model, the caring manager or “carator” invites (is fully available to employees), advances (has a desireto help employees succeed), capacitizes (sees individual potential and helps employees to grow), and connects (shares feelings anddevelops relationships) with employees. The model suggests that employees may respond in a number of ways that may serve togrow or diminish the reciprocal caring relationship.

Although caring may be conceptualized at multiple levels of analysis, we are specifically interested in examining caring at thegroup level within our model. We focus on group-level caring because shared leadership is a group level phenomenon that has itsmost proximal effects on group level outcomes, rather than those at the organizational-level or individual-level. As such, for our pur-poses, we draw from the Kroth and Keeler (2009) supervisory model of caring to develop a group-level model of sharing and caring.More specifically, we conceptualize group-level caring as a process that involves recursive, inviting, advancing, capacitizing, andconnecting behaviors by group members. Caring generally is presented by theorists as being recursive in nature (Kroth & Keeler,

Please cite this article as: Houghton, J.D., et al., Sharing is caring: Toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership,Human Resource Management Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.12.001


3J.D. Houghton et al. / Human Resource Management Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

2009), with some theorists describing it in terms of reciprocity (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001;Mayeroff, 1971)while others character-ize it as a cyclical process (Skovholt, 2005). Caring also involves inviting or engaging with others in important ways (Kroth & Keeler,2009), including deep listening (Skovholt, 2005), entering another’s world (Mayeroff, 1971), and being entirely accessible (Kahn,1993; Noddings, 2005) or emotionally engaged (Swanson, 1991). Furthermore, caring encompasses advancing or encouraging anoth-er person’s success (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). It involves being fully committed to another’s well-being (Mayeroff, 1971) as facilitated byenabling (Swanson, 1991) and supporting (Kahn, 1993) behaviors. Capacitizing entails seeing the potential in others and striving tohelp them learn and develop (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). Capacitizing is further characterized by a desire to see others grow (Mayeroff,1971), a belief in the capacity of others to succeed (Swanson, 1991), and a willingness to provide resources and feedback to help fa-cilitate growth in others (Kahn, 1993). Finally, connecting involves being emotionally invested in others (Kroth & Keeler, 2009), ascharacterized in terms of emotional attachment (Skovholt, 2005) and empathy (Kahn, 1993). As Kroth and Keeler (2009) note,these caring dimensions represent common themes across the caring literature. We maintain that these dimensions are valid, andperhaps even more potent, at the group level of analysis. Consequently, they serve as the impetus for the development of our theo-retical model of sharing and caring.

Moving beyond our conceptual delineation of the group-level caring construct, we note that a number of research streamswithin the management discipline are tangentially connected to the concept of caring. For example, perceived organizationalsupport (POS) involves situations in which “employees develop global beliefs about the extent to which the organization valuestheir contributions and cares [emphasis added] about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986).Similarly, the field of positive psychology and positive organizational behavior (e.g., Luthans, 2002; Peterson & Seligman,2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) has served as a context for examining caring. For instance, Wiegand and Geller(2005) examined an actively-caring model under the umbrella of positive psychology and achievement motivation. Themodel suggests that active caring promotes the person states of self-efficacy, personal control, and optimism, which in turn, re-sult in feelings of empowerment, self-esteem and belonging within a team (Wiegand & Geller, 2005). Likewise, organizationalcitizenship behaviors (OCBs, e.g., LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002) may be conceptually related to caring. For example, Joireman,Daniels, George‐Falvy, and Kamdar (2006) found that the likelihood of engaging in OCBs was higher among those high in em-pathy. Within the leadership domain, the idea of caring is implicit within the transformational leadership dimension of individ-ualized consideration, which occurs when leaders support, coach and generally tend to the development needs of theirfollowers (Bass, 1999). Finally, the concept of servant leadership (e.g., Greenleaf & Spears, 2002; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke,2010) may have relevance to caring processes. As Spears (1996) has observed, servant leadership is strongly based in caring be-havior and may improve caring among group members.

1.2. Shared leadership

Shared leadership is markedly different from the more traditional models of leadership where the influence and decisionmaking travels from the top to the bottom; that is, from the hierarchical leader to the followers (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006;Pearce & Conger, 2003). With shared leadership the leadership function does not simply reside in the hands of the nominal lead-er, but rather is structured as a group-level responsibility as the group moves together toward common objectives. Shared lead-ership may be defined as an emergent and interactive process that results in the distribution of leadership influence amonggroup members for the purpose of achieving group or organizational goals or both (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). Sharedleadership is generally considered distinct from traditional vertical forms of leadership including aversive, directive, transac-tional, transformational, and empowering leadership (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Pearce & Sims, 2002). Shared leadership hasalso been distinguished from other related constructs such as team autonomy, team empowerment, cooperation, team cogni-tion, emergent leadership, shared purpose, social support and participation or voice (Carson et al., 2007). Shared leadershipoften takes place in conjunction with delegation processes. For example, in a qualitative investigation of leadership processesin extreme action medical teams in emergency trauma centers, Klein, Ziegert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) identified a system ofshared leadership characterized by a process of dynamic delegation in which senior leaders rapidly and repeatedly first delegat-ed and then withdrew the active leadership role from more junior members of the team. Consequently, shared leadership alsogenerally involves employees engaging in effective self-leadership and responsible followership (Neck & Manz, 2013; Riggio,Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008), depending on the requirements of the immediate work situation.

A variety of studies have supported the idea that sharing leadership among organizational members can have a powerful effect onthe collective performance of individual employees within interdependent contexts (Avolio, Jung, Murry, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996;D’Innocenzo,Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2014; Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Pearce& Conger, 2003; Shamir& Lapidot, 2003;Wanget al., 2014). Yet, less is known about the process bywhich shared leadership influences other organizational phenomena such as car-ing for others.

In brief, our model proposes that shared leadership, which entails the dispersion of power and influence among group members,allows employees the opportunity to be more involved in the decision making and chosen actions of their work group. This involve-ment can increase levels of empowerment and perceptions of solidarity among groupmembers,which can help them to enjoy a senseof dignity, respect and social belonging (Pearce et al., 2006). Individualmembers are able to actwith greater authenticity in their workand to have a sense of being cared about by their fellowmembers because of the respect, authority and responsibility afforded them. Inturn, this may lead tomore proactive caring in groups and ultimately to higher levels of group performance, propositions that are ex-plained in greater detail in the following section.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275859545_Shared_Leadership_in_Teams_An_Investigation_of_Antecedent_Conditions_and_Performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275859545_Shared_Leadership_in_Teams_An_Investigation_of_Antecedent_Conditions_and_Performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276950024_Caring_for_the_Caregivers_Patterns_of_Organizational_Caregiving?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233234548_Virtuous_Leadership_A_Theoretical_Model_and_Research_Agenda?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21125006_Empirical_Development_Of_a_Middle_Range_Theory_of_Caring?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249673882_Caring_as_a_Managerial_Strategy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232466604_Vertical_versus_shared_leadership_as_predictors_of_the_effectiveness_of_change_management_teams_an_examinations_of_aversive_directive_transactional_transformational_and_empowering_leader_behaviours_Gr?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228693091_Two_Decades_of_Research_and_Development_in_Transformational_Leadership?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==


2. A model of sharing and caring in groups

Our theoreticalmodel, presented in Fig. 1, indicates that shared leadership influences the extent towhich caring takes placewithingroups. At its most fundamental level, shared leadership facilitates caring in groups through the dispersion of power and influenceamong group members. Indeed, definitions of shared leadership converge on the belief that shared leadership entails “all memberspossessing significant power and exercising meaningful influence as needed in the process of performing work” (Pearce, Manz, &Sims, 2008, p. 354). It may be noted that although shared leadership is conceptualized as a group level phenomenon, its influencecan flow not only laterally within the group, but also upward or downward through the organizational hierarchy thereby impactingindividual behaviors as well as organizational norms and values (Pearce & Conger, 2003). However, such multi-level effects are be-yond the scope of the present model. Hence, all of the constructs and proposed relationships contained in our model are conceptual-ized at the group-level of analysis.

As a group moves further away from strong hierarchical leadership toward true shared leadership, power differences betweengroup members begin to become blurred. This erosion of power differences triggers various affective and behavioral mechanismsthat should result in amore caring group environment. Two suchmechanismswith clear theoretical ties to shared leadership and car-ing are psychological empowerment climate and group solidarity, which are also group-level variables in our model.

Our proposedmodel operates on the basis of two primary theoretical foundations: social identity theory and social exchange the-ory. First, social identity theory (e.g., Ellemers & Haslam, 2012; Van Knippenberg, 2000) suggests that people in social situations oftenidentify themselves and others as groupmembers, rather than as individuals. This theory suggests that group identification can some-times become a primary basis for a person’s self-image (Turner, 1982). Furthermore, achieving a group identity requires a basis oftrust because it involves sacrificing some degree of power and control to others (Tanis & Postmes, 2005). This process is essentiallya social transaction in which the shared group identity helps to compensate members for relinquishing their individuality with theexpectation that other group members will reciprocate in some positive way that counterbalances the losses (Lewis, 2011). Second,social exchange theory (e.g., Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) also provides a theoretical foundation supporting the relationships pro-posed in our model. Social exchanges may be described as interdependent and contingent interactions between parties that resultin obligations leading to high-quality relationships (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Emerson, 1976). This process of socialexchange operates on the basis of the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), which assumes that people acknowledge and reciprocatethe behavioral investments of others.

Fig. 1. The effects of shared leadership on group-level caring.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228079727_The_Norm_of_Reciprocity_a_Preliminary_Statement?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229891221_A_Social_Identity_Approach_to_Trust_Interpersonal_Perception_Group_Membership_and_Trusting_Behavior?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233345407_Assessing_social_identity_and_collective_efficacy_as_theories_of_group_motivation_at_work?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234021447_Social_Exchange_Theory_An_Interdisciplinary_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234838135_Social_Exchange_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==


Based on social identity theory and social exchange theory, we propose that shared leadership is linked to psychological empow-erment climate, which then fosters group-level caring behavior because of an increased sense of identification and involvement withothers in the group-level social system.We also propose that shared leadership is linked to group solidarity, which facilitates group-level norms for caring because it consists of enhanced levels ofmutual trust, affective regard, social unity, and commitment. We focuson these two potential mediators of the relationship between sharing leadership and group-level caring not only because of their rel-evance to our theoretical model, but also because they are broad constructs that are conceptually distinct from one another yet, intheir totality, encompass a number of other potentialmediators, such as self- and collective efficacy, psychological ownership,mutualtrust, and positive affect. The broad and overarching nature of these constructs made them especially appealing for inclusion in themodel. Ourmodel also incorporates two potential moderators of the relationships between shared leadership and both psychologicalempowerment climate and group solidarity: collaborative capacity and collaborative context. Finally, we use our overarching theoret-ical framework of social exchange to support the idea that group-level caring will result in higher levels of group performance. In thefollowing sections, we develop the relationships proposed in ourmodel, proving theoretical and empirical justifications for each alongwith formal research propositions.

2.1. Psychological empowerment climate

Over three decades ago, scholars began arguing that decentralized power structures, similar to shared leadership, create anempowering environment in which organizations can derive the most value from their employees (Hackman & Oldham, 1980;Manz & Sims, 1980). In recent years, however, theory and research has shifted away from viewing empowerment as a structuralelement of organizations toward viewing empowerment as a psychological state reflecting one’s overall sense of control overwork that is triggered by decentralized power structures (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Specifically, Thomas and Velthouse(1990) and Spreitzer (1995) defined psychological empowerment as consisting of four work-related cognitions: meaning(i.e., perceived fit between the requirements of a task and one’s personal values, goals, and beliefs), competence(i.e., perceived capability to perform a specific task), impact (i.e., sense of personal influence and ownership over group or or-ganizational outcomes), and self-determination (i.e., sense of choice in initiating and overseeing task processes and actions). Al-though some researchers have noted that the impact and self-determination dimensions are highly correlated (Kraimer, Seibert,& Liden, 1999) leading others to propose a three-factor model of psychological empowerment (e.g., Menon, 2001), the four-factor model is widely accepted in the organizational literature. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis indicates that these four cogni-tions each contribute to a global feeling of psychological empowerment that in total represents an active, rather than a passive,orientation to one’s work (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011).

Classic motivation theory provides some additional theoretical context in support of a multi-dimensional psychological empow-erment construct. The psychological empowerment dimensions of meaning, competence, and impact are analogous to the primarycomponents of Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory: valence, expectancy, and instrumentality respectively. Indeed, these expectancytheory components have been used to explain themotivating effects of other important leadership and organizational practices of in-terest. For example, Hertel, Konradt, andOrlikowski (2004) found evidence supporting amodel inwhich valence, instrumentality, andself-efficacymediated the effects of goal setting, task structure, and team-based rewards on individualmotivation and performance invirtual teams.

At the group level, the psychological empowerment construct has been operationalized as psychological empowerment climate,which is defined as “shared psychological perceptions of empowerment related to meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact.” (Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, & Paul, 2011, p. 841). Wallace and his colleagues (Wallace et al., 2011) notethat psychological empowerment climate is distinct from the related concepts of team empowerment (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy,2006) and empowerment climate (Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004) because these constructs do not capture the psychological as-pects of empowerment (i.e., feeling empowered). Furthermore, psychological empowerment climate is also unique with respect toempowering leadership (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999) and empowering leadership climate (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen,2007) for similar reasons; these empowering leadership constructs focus on the structural aspects of empowerment rather than onthe psychological aspects (Wallace et al., 2011).

We argue that shared leadership results in a stronger psychological empowerment climate, which in turn motivates group-levelcaring behavior. First, in relation to shared leadership’s effect on psychological empowerment climate, shared power and influenceshould enhance feelings of meaning because individual workers have a clearer sense for how their role as a fellow leader in thegroup fits with the goals and objectives of the group (Patterson,West, &Wall, 2004). Second, shared leadership should enhance peo-ple’s feelings of competence because assuming a leadership role in the group provides more opportunities for challenging tasks andmastery learning (Bandura, 1986). Third, and perhaps most obviously, shared leadership should also result in greater perceptions ofimpact becauseworkerswill sense that theirwork directly influences groupoutcomes, thereby eliciting feelings of psychological own-ership over thework (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Finally, shared leadership should lead to greater feelings of self-determination because,as fellow leaders of the group, individual employees have a greater sense of control over their work (Houghton, Neck, &Manz, 2003).Shared leadership increases a group’s sense of autonomy and control because it gives group members the collective sense that they,rather than a hierarchical superior, are in charge of their outcomes (Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). This sense of control helpsgroups to face challenges and learn skills that build collective efficacy or potency (Pearce & Ensley, 2004). We therefore, suggestthat it is from such leadership experiences that one can gain a greater sense of choice in initiating and overseeing task processesand actions.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50303002_Structural_and_Psychological_Empowerment_Climates_Performance_and_the_Moderating_Role_of_Shared_Felt_Accountability_A_Managerial_Perspective?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50303002_Structural_and_Psychological_Empowerment_Climates_Performance_and_the_Moderating_Role_of_Shared_Felt_Accountability_A_Managerial_Perspective?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227609402_Employee_Empowerment_An_Integrative_Psychological_Approach?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240917131_The_Empowerment_Process_Integrating_Theory_and_Practice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270820349_Beyond_Self-Management_Antecedents_and_Consequences_of_Team_Empowerment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==


Empirical evidence supports the notion that shared leadership can help to facilitate a climate ofmeaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact among groupmembers. For example, Hoch (2013) reported that shared leadership resulted inmore inno-vative behaviors among team members, which is likely to lead to greater perceptions of meaningfulness, competence and impact.Similarly, Klein et al. (2006) found that shared leadership in the formof dynamic delegation in extreme actionmedical teams resultedin increased teamreliability alongwith thedevelopment of novice teammembers’ skills, likely resulting in increased feelings ofmean-ingfulness, competence, self-determination and impact. Solansky (2008) documented that shared leadership is positively related togroup efficacy and transactivememory systems,which should lead to greater impressions of competence and self-determination. Fur-thermore, in their meta-analysis Wang et al. (2014) showed that shared leadership was significantly related to team effectiveness,particularly attitudinal (i.e., job satisfaction) and behavioral (i.e., cooperation) outcomes that are likely to create perceptions of mean-ingfulness, competence, and impact. Finally, Steinheider,Wuestewald, and Bayerl (2006) found that shared leadershipwas associatedwith perceptions of empowerment in a cross-functional steering committee called the Leadership Team in a suburban policedepartment.

As group members like these experience psychological empowerment climate stemming from shared leadership, they are morelikely to engage in caring behavior. This happens because feelings of empowerment lead to greater identification and involvementwith one’s group (Kraimer et al., 1999). In other words, employees in a psychologically empowered climate view the well-being ofthe group as being directly related to their own well-being and having implications for the self. Thus, individual contributors in ashared leadership setting are more likely to step outside the normal boundaries of their work roles and engage in behavior, such ascaring, which benefit other individuals in the group and the work group as a whole (see Pearce & Ensley, 2004). This notion hasbeen supported in part by research indicating that decentralized power structures lead to greater perceptions of psychological em-powerment (Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009), and also that psychological empowerment is related to citizenship and helping behav-iors (Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Seibert et al., 2011).

Unlike in a strict hierarchical leadership structure where groups are told how to execute a task and then told to do it, sharedleadership allows a group to see their contributions as taken seriously by and important for the group, thereby increasing a col-lective sense of meaningfulness and impact. The more a group’s members experience a psychological empowerment climate,the stronger will be group members’ identification with and commitment to the group and/or organization (Kirkman &Rosen, 1999; Seibert et al., 2011). The result is a context where group-level caring is expected to occur because such behavioris a manifestation of the group members’ collective identification with and commitment to the group. Accordingly, we advance:

Proposition 1. Psychological empowerment climate mediates the positive relationship between shared leadership and group-level caring.

2.2. Group solidarity

The second broadmediatingmechanism throughwhich shared leadership relates to group-level caring is group solidarity, definedby sociologists as consisting of mutual trust, affective regard, social unity, and commitment between members of a group (Molm,Collett, & Schaefer, 2007). Sociologists have continually shown that generalized exchange—a system of exchange in which powerstructures are equalized and each member of a group has the chance to influence the group as a whole—facilitates group solidaritymore than other types of exchange (Levi-Strauss, 1969). Given this fact, we likewise expect shared leadership to be related to the var-ious facets of group solidarity and therefore to facilitate group norms for caring as explained in more detail below.

First, shared leadership should increase mutual trust because trust is greater in groups where a greater diffusion of power exists(Lawler & Yoon, 1996). This should happen because shared leadership requires that groupmembers share influence and power. Shar-ing leadership alsomeans, however, that groupmembers share a degree of risk as well. This is important to note because sharing riskhas been shown to be one of the most crucial antecedents of mutual trust (Malhotra &Murnighan, 2002). Power-dependence theory(Emerson, 1962) suggests that distributed power structures create a sense of mutual dependence between group members. With asense of mutual dependence, individuals who, for instance, withhold information from or intentionally undermine their peers doso at their own peril because such behavior results in forfeiting social rewards, status conferral, and influence in the group (Ferres,Connell, & Travaglione, 2004). Group members are thus more willing to accept vulnerability because they possess positive expecta-tions for the intentions and behaviors of their peers, which is the essence of mutual trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998).The relationship between shared leadership and mutual trust is further supported empirically by the findings of Bergman, Rentsch,Small, Davenport, and Bergman (2012), who found a relationship between shared leadership and intragroup trust in 45 ad hoc deci-sionmaking teams Similarly, Drescher, Korsgaard,Welpe, Picot, andWigand (2014) reported that the expansion of shared leadershipover time resulted in the growth of group trust in 142 groups engaged in a strategic simulation game in a longitudinal study spanninga 4-month period. In sum, shared leadership should result in mutual trust, as group members share risk and experience a strong de-gree of mutual dependence.

Second, shared leadership also should increase group members’ affective regard for one another. In addition to the findingsoutlined above, Lawler and Yoon (1996) also found that equal power and mutual trust increase the frequency and the quality of ex-change between groupmembers. For example, they found that groupswith equal power tend to resolve conflictmore effectively thangroups with power differences. Solansky’s (2008) findings provide additional empirical support for this idea, showing that teams inwhich shared leadership has been established tend to have lower relational conflict than teams not engaged in shared leadership.Bergman et al. (2012) also reported less conflict among decision-making teams with shared leadership. In addition, Lawler andYoon (1996) found that, as a result of frequent high-quality exchanges, group members experienced positive emotions, which they



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28675924_Dynamic_delegation_Shared_hierarchical_and_deindividualized_leadership_in_extreme_action_teams?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247728412_Psychological_Empowerment_as_a_Multidimensional_Construct_A_Test_of_Construct_Validity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200130279_The_Influence_of_High-Involvement_Human_Resources_Practices_Procedural_Justice_Organizational_Commitment_and_Citizenship_Behaviors_on_Information_Technology_Professionals'_Turnover_Intentions?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258280191_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Shared_Leadership_and_Team_Effectiveness?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240286603_Leadership_Style_and_Team_Processes_in_Self-Managed_Teams?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50890449_Antecedents_and_Consequences_of_Psychological_and_Team_Empowerment_in_Organizations_A_Meta-Analytic_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50890449_Antecedents_and_Consequences_of_Psychological_and_Team_Empowerment_in_Organizations_A_Meta-Analytic_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a964903d-e5b4-44e9-8fbd-c2847a27f247&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTc3NzI0NDtBUzoyMDUxMTQxNjcwNDIwNTRAMTQyNTkxNDQzNjQ5MA==


attributed to the relationships they had built in the group. Groupmembers thus grew in their affective regard for one another and be-came more cooperative and mutually committed in executing group tasks (Ferres et al., 2004).

Third, shared leadership should result in greater social unity in the face of group tasks and situational pressures. In support ofthis assertion, Balthazard, Waldman, Howell, and Atwater (2004) demonstrated that shared leadership facilitated better socialintegration, while Erez, Lepine, and Elms (2002) found that groups practicing shared leadership had the highest levels of voiceand cooperation compared to other groups. Further, Solansky (2008) found shared leadership to be positively associated withhigher levels of motivation and lower levels of conflict, while Klein et al. (2006) showed shared leadership to be related to re-liability in high pressure emergency room settings. Bergman et al. (2012) demonstrated significant positive relationships be-tween shared leadership and both team consensus and team cohesion. Moreover, Wang et al.’s (2014) meta-analysisrevealed significant relationships between shared leadership and key behavioral processes and emergent states likely to resultin social unity, including cooperation, helping, and cohesion.

Fourth, shared leadership should result in a greater common commitment to maintain the group. Perry, Pearce, and Sims (1999)first suggested a relationship between shared leadership and team commitment. Subsequent empirical studies have provided somepreliminary evidence in support of this relationship. For example,Wang et al. (2014) found a significant relationship between sharedleadership and a number of attitudinal outcomes including team commitment. Likewise, Steinheider et al. (2006) reported that affec-tive organizational commitment was an outcome of shared leadership processes in a sample of police officers in a suburban policedepartment.

Finally, perhaps Lawler and Yoon’s (1996) most relevant finding for our model is that members of groups marked by equal-ized power, high-quality exchange, affective regard, mutual commitment, and cooperation provided benefits to each other be-yond those necessary to maintain the relationships, such as proactively caring for one another. Social exchange theory(e.g., Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) provide theoretical justification for the ideathat the more a group is characterized by mutual trust, affective regard, social unity, and a common commitment, the more like-ly group members will be willing to reciprocate with proactive caring behaviors.

In summary, we argue that because shared leadership reflects a more equalized power structure, group members form strongerbonds of mutual trust and commitment, and therefore are morewilling to cooperatewith each other and provide fellow groupmem-bers with extra benefits such as proactive caring. Consequently, this creates a context in which caring behavior becomes a normativepattern of behavior in the group. On the strength of these arguments and the supporting evidence presented above, we formallysuggest:

Proposition 2. Group solidarity mediates the positive relationship between shared leadership and group-level caring.

So far we have focused on describing the mediatingmechanisms through which shared leadership facilitates caring. We nowturn our focus to two potential moderators of the relationships between shared leadership and psychological empowerment cli-mate and group solidarity. A moderator is a variable that alters the direction or strength of the effects of another variable on anoutcome. Research investigating moderators of the effects of shared leadership on group and organizational outcomes is rela-tively scarce. In a notable exception, Nicolaides et al. (2014) recently reported that task interdependence, team tenure, andhow performance is measured (objective vs. subjectively) moderated the relationship between shared leadership and team per-formance. More specifically, these findings suggest that the relationship between shared leadership and team performance isstronger when task interdependence is high, when team tenure increases, and when performance is assessed subjectively(Nicolaides et al., 2014). In another recent exception, Fausing, Jeppesen, Jønsson, Lewandowski, and Bligh (2013) found thatteamwork function (manufaring vs. knowledge work) and team autonomymoderated the relationship between shared leader-ship and team performance. Although to our knowledge no prior research has directly examined our proposed moderators ofshared leadership effectiveness, we offer logical arguments and indirect empirical evidence in support of our propositions.

2.3. Collaborative capacity

The first potentialmoderator of shared leadership effectiveness in ourmodel is collaborative capacity, which is themotivation andability of groupmembers to share power and cooperate rather than to competewith each other. Collaborative capacity is comprised ofthe personal characteristics of groupmembers that facilitate the sharing of leadership, power, and influence. In the following sections,we argue that the effects of shared leadership on psychological empowerment climate and group solidarity are enabled, enhanced,and made more effective when the collaborative capacity of the group is higher.

2.3.1. Ability for collaborationIn order for shared leadership processes to operate effectively, individuals need to develop the ability to lead and manage them-

selves. Neck andManz (2013) broadly define self-leadership as “The process of influencing oneself” (p.5). Manz (1986), who original-ly introduced the concept, described self-leadership as “a comprehensive self-influence perspective that concerns leading oneselftoward performance of naturally motivating tasks as well as managing oneself to do work that must be done but is not naturally mo-tivating” (p. 589). He also went on to point out that the self-leadership concept is distinguished from other related concepts such asself-control or self-management, by allowing for addressing higher level standards that govern self-influence, more fully incorporat-ing intrinsic motivation, and providing for a wider range of self-influence strategies. Examples of some specific self-leadership




strategies include building natural rewards into tasks and the self-management of beliefs/assumptions/mental images, self-dialogues,and thought patterns.

We argue that if groupmembers lack the ability to practice individual self-management and self-leadership skills, then the effectsof shared leadership on psychological empowerment climate and group solidarity will be lessened because shared leadership, by itsvery nature, is most effective when there are high levels of self-direction from individual group members (Houghton et al., 2003). AsHoughton et al. (2003) suggest, self-management and self-leadership processes are likely to result in increased self-efficacy beliefs forsharing leadership roles within a team, leading to positive attitudes toward shared leadership and ultimately more shared leadershipprocesses. Consequently, organizations wishing to maximize the impact of shared leadership should provide self-management andself-leadership training, which has been shown to increase groupmembers’ abilities to develop and use self-direction skills and strat-egies (e.g., Stewart, Carson, & Cardy, 1996).

2.3.2. Motivation for collaborationNot only do group members need the ability to self-lead and self-manage in order for shared leadership to be most effective,

they also must possess the motivation to share leadership and power (Solansky, 2008). In this vein, based on McClelland's(1975) work on motivation, House and Howell (1992) draw a distinction between personalized and socialized power orienta-tions that differentiate individuals. The key distinction between these types of power orientations has been characterized as anindividual’s responsibility disposition (Winter, 1991). People high in socialized need for power tend to have a high responsibil-ity disposition, meaning that they desire to use power for the good of the collective rather than for personal gain. On the otherhand, people high in personalized need for power tend to have a low responsibility disposition, meaning that they desire to usepower primarily for personal gain. This notion is similar to research that builds on evolutionary biology, anthropology, and so-ciology to identify two broad behavioral tendencies of human beings (Hogan & Shelton, 1998). These two broad behavioral ten-dencies include communion striving, which represents actions directed toward obtaining acceptance in personal relationshipsand getting along with others, and status striving, which addresses actions directed toward obtaining power and dominancewithin a status hierarchy.

Our basic argument is that the collaborative capacity of a group is enhanced by including employeeswith a high socialized need forpower (vs. personalized need for power) and with associated behavioral tendencies toward communion striving (vs. status striving).Along these lines, Mumford, Helton, Decker, Connelly, and Van Doorn (2003) found that individuals whose values stressed contribu-tions to others, as opposed to personal gain, exhibited greater integrity when confronted with ethical decision making dilemmas. Ac-cordingly, these types of people could be expected to apply restraint in their use of power, and could be more likely to use theirinfluence to achieve goals and objectives for the betterment of the collective entity rather than for personal gain (House & Howell,1992). Mumford et al.’s (2003) study, therefore, supports that notion that people who are high in socialized need for power will belikely to be more effective at sharing leadership.

In addition, communion striving has been linked closelywith the personality trait of agreeableness (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski,2002). Indeed, ameta-analysis byMount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998) found a consistent correlation (ρ= .27) between agreeablenessand performance for team-oriented jobs. Collaborative capacity of a group is thus built by selecting members high on agreeablenessbecause these individuals have behavioral tendencies toward communion striving andhave a high socialized need for power. They aremore agreeable and thereby strive for communion and cooperation. Such individuals help assure that true collaboration and sharingtakes place. In contrast, people high in need for personalized power, and concomitantly low in responsibility disposition, desire powerfor their personal gain, as opposed to the benefit of the larger collective (Hogan, Curphy, &Hogan, 1994). These types of individuals areoften described as narcissistic (Hogan et al., 1994; Kets de Vries, 1993) and are generally quite skilled at impressionmanagement andare distinctively focused on finding ways to enhance their personal image (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Moreover, they persuasivelystress the importance of personal allegiance to themselves, as opposed to loyalty to the larger cause (Hogan et al., 1994). Accordingly,people with low responsibility disposition seem less likely to display collaborative ability. As Hogan et al. (1994) have noted, narcis-sists generally experience great difficulty working in teams.

The concept of social value orientation (SVO; Bogaert, Boone, & Declerck, 2008; Hilbig, Glöckner, & Zettler, 2014; Murphy &Ackermann, 2014) has provided a similar explanation for the dispositionalmotivation for collaboration. Developed on the basis of ear-lierworks examining social orientations (e.g., Kelley & Stahelski, 1970; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997), SVO is generallyregarded as an individual trait reflecting a stable preference for either a self-regarding (pro-self) or an other-regarding (pro-social)orientation (Bogaert et al., 2008). Bogaert et al. (2008) presented a conceptual framework in which SVO predicts individual cooper-ative behavior as moderated by contextual factors including signals of trustworthiness and incentives to cooperate. The SVO disposi-tional preference for prosocial behavior and consequently cooperation is very similar to the concept of communion striving and hasbeen shown to be related to both agreeableness (Hilbig et al., 2014) and the HEXACO model of personality’s (Ashton & Lee, 2007)honesty-humility dimension (Hilbig et al., 2014).

When group members lack either the ability or motivation to collaborate, this deficit in collaborative capacity is likely to at-tenuate the potential positive effects of shared leadership on both psychological empowerment climate and group solidarity.Even if a team proactively attempts to engage in shared leadership processes, if members lack critical abilities to lead and man-age themselves or if keymembers of the team have a pro-self or personalized need for power rather than a prosocial communionstriving orientation, then the effectiveness of the shared leadership will be minimized. In short, we submit that collaborative ca-pacity is a key enabler of shared leadership that moderates the relationships between shared leadership and the two mediators




such that when collaborative capacity is high, shared leadership will have a stronger impact on psychological empowermentculture and group solidarity than when collaborative capacity is low. Accordingly, we formally posit the following:

Proposition 3. Collaborative capacity of the group moderates the positive relationship between shared leadership and psychological em-powerment climate such that when collaborative capacity is high, the relationship is stronger, and when collaborative capacity is low, therelationship is weaker.

Proposition 4. Collaborative capacity of the group moderates the positive relationship between shared leadership and group solidaritysuch thatwhen collaborative capacity is high, the relationship is stronger, andwhen collaborative capacity is low, the relationship is weaker.

2.4. Collaborative context

In addition to the possibility of magnifying the effects of shared leadership by selecting and developing teammembers with col-laborative capacity, certain key contextual characteristics may also moderate the effects of shared leadership on psychological em-powerment climate and group solidarity. Indeed, several broad features of collaborative context are likely to combine to play amoderating role, including the support structures that are in place to encourage collaboration and the cultural values that are presentin the group. These are reviewed, in turn, below, alongwith some additional elements of collaborative context that also seem likely tocontribute to the moderating effect.

2.4.1. Support structuresRecent theory and research has identified organizational support structures as important for the effective operation of shared lead-

ership. Indeed, Carson et al. (2007) found empirical evidence supporting the role of both internal support structures (e.g., shared pur-pose, social support, and voice) and external support structures (e.g., coaching) in enabling shared leadership processes to be mosteffective. Consequently, we argue that when the appropriate support structures are in place, the effects of shared leadership on psy-chological empowerment climate and group solidarity will be intensified. We now review three key examples of organizational sup-port structures.

First, technology has been, is, and will continue to be a foundational enabler of shared leadership in groups (Wassenaa, Pearce,Hoch, &Wegge, 2010). Cordery, Soo, Kirkman, Rosen, andMathieu (2009) articulated that a critical facilitating component for sharedleadership in virtual teams is the support structures, both social and technological, that enable groupmembers to communicatemoreeasily, fluidly transporting information across time and geography. These types of supportmechanismsmay be comprised of the tech-nical infrastructure that is in place supporting communication between members.

Second, training and development represents another important area relative to the effectiveness of shared leadership (Pearce &Conger, 2003) and research focused on coaching, a special form of employee development (Bono, Purvanova, Towler, & Peterson,2009), has been gainingmomentum recently. The use of coaching in organizations has been extolled as critical in leader and team de-velopment, yet very little empirical research has been conducted on this topic, particularly as it relates to groups. Nevertheless, bothCarson et al. (2007) andCordery et al. (2009) have identified positive effects of coaching in enhancing the effectiveness of shared lead-ership processes.

Third, remuneration systems are yet another support structure likely to impact the efficacy of shared leadership. Gainsharing, forexample, has been specifically tied to more collaborative behavior (e.g., Welbourne & Gomez-Mejia, 1995). For instance, Arthur andKim (2005) found gainsharing to be positively associated with knowledge sharing and O’Bannon and Pearce (1999) found a positivelink from gainsharing to teamwork and altruism. Taken together, various support structures, ranging from technology to training anddevelopment to remuneration systems all seem likely to affect the extent to which shared leadership processes will impact keyoutcomes.

2.4.2. Group culture and valuesThe cultural context of leadership, particularly group culture, has been gathering increasing attention in the literature

(e.g., Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). For example, in the same study in which they explored coaching and its contri-bution to sharing leadership effectiveness, Carson et al. (2007) found that the internal team environment, a concept very similar togroup culture, was also enhanced shared leadership processes, thus providing further confirmation for our belief that culture is an im-portant aspect of context and is a contributing influence in increasing the operational effectiveness of shared leadership.Wood (2005)discovered, in a study of members of top management teams in church organizations, that if a team and its members perceive thatthey are in an empowered culture, they are more likely to behave ways that heighten shared leadership effective. Furthermore,Klein et al. (2006) identified group culture, including routines, tradition, and values, as a key enabler of dynamic delegation, a partic-ular application of shared leadership in a study of extreme action medical teams.

2.4.3. Other components of contextWhile there are many other aspects of the context that we could also consider, here we simply focus on three that have received

some empirical support asmagnifiers of shared leadership. The first is relationship longevity. Ropo and Sauer (2003) conducted a lon-gitudinal qualitative study of orchestras, uncovering the fact that the length of relationships between various members, such as or-chestra sponsors, leaders and members is an important consideration in amplifying shared leadership. Next, Hooker andCsikszentmihalyi (2003), in their study of university-based research laboratories, found that the development of a state of flow




(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) is foundational for shared leadership to operate effectively in laboratories. Ourfinal contextual component isphysical proximity, as examined by Balthazard et al. (2004), who found that shared leadership processes are enhanced when teamsoperate face-to-face rather than virtually.

Taken together these dimensions suggest that collaborative context may be an important enabler of shared leadership. More spe-cifically, we suggest that in the absence of an appropriate collaborative context, any attempts at sharing leadership within groupswillhave a less than optimal impact on the outcomes of psychological empowerment climate and group solidarity. Conversely, an appro-priate and effective collaborative context will likely intensify the effects of shared leadership on these outcomes. In brief, we forwardthe propositions that collaborative context moderates the relationships between shared leadership and the two mediators such thatwhen collaborative context is high, shared leadership will have a stronger impact on psychological empowerment culture and groupsolidarity than when collaborative context is low. Consequently, we formally propose:

Proposition 5. Collaborative context of the group moderates the positive relationships between shared leadership and psychological em-powerment climate such that when collaborative context is high, the relationshipwill be stronger, andwhen collaborative context is low, therelationship will be weaker.

Proposition 6. Collaborative context of the groupmoderates the positive relationship between shared leadership and group solidarity suchthat when collaborative context is high, the relationship will be stronger, and when collaborative context is low, the relationship will beweaker.

2.5. Group-level caring and group-level performance

Finally, our model suggests a positive relationship between group-level caring and group-level performance. Theoretical justifica-tion for this linkage is provided by social exchange theory (e.g., Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In particular, the norm of reciprocity(Gouldner, 1960), suggests that people acknowledge and reciprocate the positive behavior of others. Group-level performance canbe conceptualized in terms of two key performance criteria: performance behaviors (i.e., group effort) and performance outcomes(i.e., objective indicators) (Rapp, Bachrach, Rapp, & Mullins, 2014). Based on the norm of reciprocity, it seems reasonable to suggestthat higher levels of group-level caringwill result in a greater effort among groupmembers resulting in higher objective performance.Existing empirical evidence provides some support for this relationship. For example, recent investigations suggest that social supportfrom fellow group members facilitates both process gains and additional effort in groups (e.g., Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011; Hüffmeieret al., 2014). Similarly, De Jong and Elfring (2007), employing a sample of tax consultantsworking in teams at amultinational consult-ing firm in the Netherlands, found evidence suggesting that trust in teams leads to an increased sense of care for others within theteam, resulting in greater effort and effectiveness. Additionally, Bstieler and Hemmert (2010) found evidence in support of a relation-ship between caring behaviors and key performance outcomes in new product development teams. Along similar lines, Amundson(2005) found a relationship between a caring orientation and member-perceived team effectiveness in a sample of health care andhuman services professionals, while Burt, Sepie, and McFadden (2008) showed that having a caring attitude toward teammembersresults in a number of team performance-related outcomes, including personal support and helping behaviors. The relationship be-tween group-level caring and group-level performance is shown in Fig. 1, and is formally represented by the following proposition:

Proposition 7. Group-level caring is positively related to group-level performance.

3. Discussion

In this paper, we have examined shared leadership as a proactive method of facilitating group-level caring. We have argued thatshared leadership involves minimizing power differences between group members, which in turn facilitates caring by increasinggroup perceptions of psychological empowerment climate and group solidarity. We have also argued that the effects of shared lead-ership on thesemediatingmechanismswill be enhancedwhenmembers are selected according to their ability andmotivation to col-laborate with others (collaborative capacity) and when there are social support structures and cultural values that stimulatecollaboration between group members (collaborative context). Finally, we have advanced the idea that group-level caring will posi-tively impact group-level performance in organizations. We next discuss the implications of our theoretical model for future researchand managerial practice.

3.1. Research implications

The model that we propose in this paper is, to our knowledge, the first to theoretically explicate the age-old adage that “sharing iscaring” in terms of shared leadership and proactive caring behavior in groups. Most, if not all, of the propositions contained herein arereadily testable and should be examined in future research. For example, validated measures already exist for many of our core con-structs, including shared leadership, psychological empowerment climate, and group solidarity (e.g., Gockel & Werth, 2010). Mea-sures also exist for various aspects of collaborative capacity, collaborative context, and group-level performance (e.g., Rapp et al.,2014). Although these concepts have been differentiated both conceptually and empirically in the literature as detailed above, futureresearch should further examine the discriminant validity of these constructs and the relationships suggested by our model. In




particular, future research should explore other possiblemediators andmoderators of the relationship between shared leadership andgroup-level caring.

Another important direction for future research involves a more formal operationalization of the construct of group-level caring.For example, the group-level caring conceptualization advanced earlier based on the work of Kroth and Keeler (2009) could serve asframework for developing a measurement scale with items representing the caring dimensions of recursiveness, inviting, advancing,capacitizing, and connecting in groups. In addition, although group-level caring may be related to established constructs such as POS,OCBs, and servant leadership, it may be conceptually and functionally somewhat different. These questions are worth pursuing in fu-ture research if group-level caring is to become a more frequently emphasized construct in organizational research.

In this vein, an important research implication of our model is a shift in focus from caring as a means to other ends, such as in-creased group-level performance or greater firm profitability, to a perspective of caring as an important organizational outcome inand of itself. A broader perspective of organizational outcomes suggests that organizations, even business corporations, have a respon-sibility to look beyond economic concerns (Waddock & Graves, 1997). That said, future research is still likely to be enhanced by ex-ploring potential links between caring and traditional economic outcomes. Do more caring organizations develop synergies thatresult in greater productivity? Or does caring require resources in a way that creates inefficiency and thereby makes organizationswith greater caring less productive?

Although showing a positive link between caring among groupmembers and economic outcomes should not be a requirement forfurther research examining caring within organizational contexts, studies that do explore this link may indeed yield interesting in-sight into how critical economic and social outcomes correspond with one another. Relating this notion back to our theoreticalmodel, we suggest that future research should also assess whether group-level caring resulting from sharing leadership has impactson group and organizational performance beyond the kind of performance effects found for shared leadership in general. Finally, var-ious other outcomes of the shared leadership-caring relationship could be examined, such as reduced turnover, increased satisfaction,and a more robust group culture that creates a competitive advantage.

Up to this point, we have conceptualized the sharing-caring linkage as being a linear positive relationship. However, we shouldnote that there is certainly a potential for theory that specifies a curvilinear relationship between shared leadership and group out-comes. For example, our model might be further developed to look at limits to the positive impact shared leadership has on caringwithin groups due to increased demands on group members or a lack of concrete direction during urgent situations. What, then, isthe optimal level of shared leadership needed to facilitate group-level caring? While curvilinearity was not explicitly discussed inour model, we suggest it as a potential avenue of research worth pursuing.

Another important research implication involves how the relationships portrayed in our model may evolve over time. As Shamir(2011) has noted, although it is largely ignored inmost theories and studies of leadership, the dimension of timemay have importantramifications for understanding leadership phenomena. Time may be especially important to consider in the context of shared lead-ership,where groupmembersmay becomemore effective at sharing leadership roles as they becomemore familiarwith one another,learning how tomore successfully collaborate over time (Wang et al., 2014). For example, Drescher et al. (2014) reported that sharedleadership expanded over a 4-month period of time resulting in an increase in group trust and related performance improvements in alongitudinal study of groups engaged in a strategic simulation game. Given these findings, it seems likely that time could be a key fac-tor in better understanding andmodeling the sharing-caring relationship. Indeed, it may take a significant amount of time for percep-tions of a psychological empowerment climate and a sense of group solidarity to develop in a group that has begun sharing leadership.It may take even long for proactive, group-level caring to develop as a result of these mediating mechanisms. On the other hand,Nicolaides et al. (2014) found that team tenure moderates the relationship between shared leadership and team performance, suchthat as team tenure increases the relationship between shared leadership and team performance decreases. These findings suggestthat the effects of shared leadership and caring on group performance may be difficult to sustain over time. Future researchers arewell advised to examine these relationships over time using longitudinal research designs.

A final and exceedingly important research implication of our model deals with the sharing of leadership and caring relationshipacross levels of analysis. The theoretical model we propose in this paper focuses exclusively at the group level of analysis. Indeed, sub-stantial theory and evidence suggest that shared leadership may facilitate group-level empowerment (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999),which should likewise result in more group-level caring. However, it is also important to explicate the multilevel implications ofshared leadership for caring behavior in groups and organizations.Whereas the aggregation of individual-level caring behavior shouldresult in a more caring organization (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), we believe an organization truly becomes more caring through thecreation of group-level standards, whereby caring becomes normative. In other words, normative expectations for caring at thegroup level are more potent for creating an organization-wide culture of caring than a simple aggregation of individual-level caringbehavior (Manz, Shipper, & Stewart, 2009).

In this vein, shared leadership plays a critical role in developing group norms for caring. This notion is supported in part by mul-tilevel theory suggesting that group-level ambient stimuli, such as shared leadership, are more strongly related to group-level emer-gent states and outcomes than they are to individual-level psychological states and outcomes (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kozlowski &Klein, 2000). As such, shared leadership’s most powerful effects may be exhibited at the group level of analysis. In fact, some studieshave begun to uncover care-related outcomes of shared leadership at the group level. Pearce (1997), for example, found shared lead-ership to be a significant predictor of team citizenship behavior. Balthazard et al. (2004) found that shared leadership in virtual teamsfostered a culture of constructive interaction styles versus destructive interaction styles. Pearce and Ensley (2004) showed that sharedleadership is a significant predictor of teamwork, courtesy, altruism and helping behavior at the group level of analysis. As these typesof behaviors are clearly related to caring, shared leadership is expected to be an important ingredient in establishing caring as norma-tive behavior in groups.




However, it is possible that shared leadership has both group-level effects and cross-level effects. Indeed, an interesting question iswhether group-level shared leadership and caring emerge such that they can be considered organization-level characteristics? If so, isorganization-level shared leadership predictive of corporate citizenship and between-organization caring? Scholars involvedwith thecorporate social responsibility movement seem to think so (Birch, 2001), but this notion has not been empirically tested. Indeed, oneinteresting extension is the degree to which internal cultures of caring might generalize outside the organization. Do organizationswith members and groups who care for one another create an organizational culture whereby the organization as a whole becomesa better corporate citizen? On one hand, caringmay become contagious so that the collective looks for ways to contribute to their sur-rounding communities and society. On the other hand, however, caringmay become so internally focused that members look out forone another at the expense of looking out for the broader community and society (see Hofstede, 1984).

3.2. Practical implications

Perhaps the most important practical implication of this paper concerns the effect on caring created by the leadership approachadopted to influence employees. It seems logical that supportive and considerate leadership behavior from above is a primary wayto create the most actual and perceived caring for followers. However, our model suggests that direct caring behavior is not theonly, nor perhaps even the best, way to introduce high levels of care within a group. Rather, shared leadership, which allows and fa-cilitates group members to be part of the influence system by stepping forward to lead when their experience and expertise fits wellwith immediate situational demands, can foster a sense of caring throughout the group. Indeed, sharing leadership can provide an in-creased sense of meaning, psychological ownership, social support and belonging, and respect and dignity within the work setting(Pearce et al., 2006). In addition, by creating these kinds of desirable effects for workers shared leadership proactively introducesforces that can help avoid the personal difficulties that can sometimes result from hierarchical and bureaucratic systems that causeworkers to feel powerless and alienated.

That said, a basic implication is that sharing leadership influence sometimes resides less in what leaders do directly to care for fol-lowers and more in the empowerment of followers to be part of their own system of influence. Our model specifically indicates thatorganizations wishing to create a sense of caring in work groups would benefit from helping to create a collaborative work contextand by developing the collaborative capacity of the workforce. Organizational leaders can help develop collaborative capacity by en-couraging and supporting individual self-leadership and by selecting organizational members who are high in communion striving,agreeableness, and have a prosocial orientation. Similarly, organizational leaders can help to build and implement support structuresand cultural values that encourage collaboration and shared leadership processes.

Overall, our model suggests that by sharing influence, a more caring organization can be established through the various forcesinherent in psychological empowerment and group solidarity. This is important because recent ethical leadership breaches thathave harmed organizational clients, stockholders, and employees point to the need for more humane, ethical and even virtuousways of running firms. As captured by our model of sharing as caring, shared leadership provides the potential for introducingthese desirable forces in a proactive way that can prevent many of the deleterious outcomes that have become all too common formany firms. In the end, the phrase “sharing is caring” points to some very practical lessons for increasing the sense of care in organi-zations during this time of heightened change, competitive pressure, and ever increasing knowledge that requires more optimal en-gagement of everyone involved.

On the other hand, the notion that sharing is caringmight be prone to somepitfalls and limitations. Despite the substantial numberof potentially positive organizational outcomes outlined above, sharing and caring processes could also lead to some potentially un-desirable outcomes. There has beenmuch recent research on employee engagement (Wegge et al., 2010), someofwhich suggests thatburnout and other dysfunctional outcomes related to work-life balancemight be unfortunate side effects of toomuch sharing. For ex-ample, Dinwiddie (2000) in an in-depth qualitative analysis of high performance teams, found that nearly one third of the sample ex-perienced severe physical health, mental health, or family related problems associated with sharing and caring too much at work.Consequently, if shared leadership activities exceed the capabilities and resources of teammembers, then a psychological empower-ment climate, group solidarity, and ultimately caringmay not be the result. Instead, groupmembers may experience stress, role over-load, and burnout that may attenuate or eliminate the effects of sharing leadership on mediating outcomes such as perceptions ofcompetence and the development ofmutual trust. Accordingly, we caution organizational leaders to be on guard for this potential del-eterious effect.

Finally, our model does not suggest that caring in groups will only result from a psychological empowerment climate and groupsolidarity as facilitated by shared leadership. There may be a number of other important antecedents of psychological empowermentclimate, group solidarity, and group-level caring. Indeed, it is possible that solidarity and caring within a group could result from au-tocratic, cruel or despotic leadership, although such approaches would likely result in a number of other negative ramifications. In ad-dition, it is possible that other influences, such as organizational politics (Ferris et al., 1996), could undermine the potential positiveeffects of shared leadership on group-level caring.

4. Conclusion

In this article, we have attempted to shed theoretical light on themechanics of sharing and caring in groups. Specifically, we iden-tified shared leadership as a primary driver of subsequent group-level caring through two mediating constructs: psychological em-powerment climate and group solidarity. Moreover, we specified two key moderators, collaborative capacity and collaborativecontext, of the relationship between shared leadership and the two mediators. Clearly, these issues deserve more theoretical and




empirical attention. Consequently, we encourage research examining the potential antecedents and outcomes of havingmore caringprocesses in organizations.

References

Amundson, S.J. (2005). The impact of relational norms on the effectiveness of health and human service teams. The Health Care Manager, 24(3), 216–224.Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295.Arthur, J.B., & Kim, D.O. (2005). Gainsharing and knowledge sharing: the effects of labour–management co-operation. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 16(9), 1564–1582.Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACOmodel of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

11(2), 150–166.Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and perfor-

mance. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies on Work Teams, 3, 173–209.Balthazard, P., Waldman, D., Howell, J., & Atwater, L. (2004). Shared leadership and group interaction styles in problem solving virtual teams. Proceedings of Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hill.Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43–51.Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.Bergman, J.Z., Rentsch, J.R., Small, E.E., Davenport, S.W., & Bergman, S.M. (2012). The shared leadership process in decision-making teams. Journal of Social Psychology,

152(1), 17–42.Birch, D. (2001). Corporate citizenship: Rethinking business beyond corporate social responsibility. In M. McIntosh (Ed.), Perspectives on corporate citizenship

(pp. 53–65). Sheffield: Greenleaf.Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 47(3), 453–480.Bono, J.E., Purvanova, R.K., Towler, A.J., & Peterson, D.B. (2009). A survey of executive coaching practices. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 361–404.Boykin, A., & Schoenhofer, S.O. (2001). Nursing as caring: A model for transforming practice. Mississauga, Ontario: Jones and Bartlett.Bstieler, L., & Hemmert, M. (2010). Increasing learning and time efficiency in interorganizational New product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 27(4), 485–499.Burt, C.B., Sepie, B., & McFadden, G. (2008). The development of a considerate and responsible safety attitude in work teams. Safety Science, 46(1), 79–91.Burton, B.K., & Dunn, C.P. (2005). The caring approach and social issues in management education. Journal of Management Education, 29(3), 453–474.Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E., & Marrone, J.A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.Chen, G., Kirkman, B.L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(2), 331–346.Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.Cordery, J., Soo, C., Kirkman, B., Rosen, B., & Mathieu, J. (2009). Leading parallel global and virtual teams: Lessons from Alcoa. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 204–216.Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Daloz, L.A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.Day, D.V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 211–216.De Jong, B.A., & Elfring, T. (2007). Mediated and differential effects of trust on team performance: a study of ongoing work teams. Academy ofmanagement annual meet-

ing proceedings (pp. 1–6).D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2014). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal Of

Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205.Dinwiddie, L.A. (2000). Amindful inquiry into understanding how the individual constructs the experience of high performancewithin a team context (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). The Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.Drescher, M.A., Korsgaard, M.A., Welpe, I.M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R.T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036474 (Advance online publication).Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. (2012). Social identity theory. In P.M. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, & E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 379–398).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.Emerson, R.M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.Erez, A., Lepine, J.A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-

experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 929–948.Fausing, M.S., Jeppesen, H., Jønsson, T.S., Lewandowski, J., & Bligh, M.C. (2013). Moderators of shared leadership:Work function and team autonomy. Team Performance

Management, 19(5/6), 244–262.Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6),

608–622.Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Galang, M., Jing, Z., Kacmar, K., & Howard, J.L. (1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and out-

comes. Human Relations, 49(2), 233–266.Gardner, W.L., & Avolio, B.J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32–58.Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Gockel, C., & Werth, L. (2010). Measuring and modeling shared leadership: Traditional approaches and new ideas. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 172–180.Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 53–62.Greenleaf, R.K., & Spears, L.C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1–28.Hilbig, B.E., Glöckner, A., & Zettler, I. (2014). Personality and prosocial behavior: Linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 107(3), 529–539.Hoch, J.E. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 159–174.Hofstede, G.H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1053-4822(14)00070-9/rf0005









































http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036474





























Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11(2–3), 129–144.Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and shared leadership: Rethinking the motivation and structuring of knowledge work. In C.L. Pearce, & J.A.

Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership, Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 129–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P., & Manz, C.C. (2003). Self-leadership and superleadership: The heart and art of creating shared leadership in teams. In C.L. Pearce, & J.A.

Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 123–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.House, R.J., & Howell, J.M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81–108.Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). Many cheers make light the work: How social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 185–204.Hüffmeier, J., Wessolowski, K., van Randenborgh, A., Bothin, J., Schmid-Lortzer, N., & Hertel, G. (2014). Social support from fellow group members triggers additional

effort in groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 287–296.Joireman, J., Daniels, D., George‐Falvy, J., & Kamdar, D. (2006). Organizational citizenship behaviors as a function of empathy, consideration of future consequences, and

employee time horizon: An initial exploration using an in‐basket simulation of OCBs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2266–2292.Kahn, W.A. (1993). Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of organizational caregiving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 539–563.Kelley, H.H., & Stahelski, A.J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators' and competitors' beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66–91.Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993). Leaders, fools, and imposters: Essays on the psychology of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.Klein, K.J., Ziegert, J.C., Knight, A.P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621.Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein, &

S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Kraimer, M.L., Seibert, S.E., & Liden, R.C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as amultidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 59(1), 127–142.

Kroth, M.S. (2006). The manager as motivator. Westport, CT: Praeger.Kroth, M., & Keeler, C. (2009). Caring as a managerial strategy. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 506–531.Lawler, E.J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 89–108.LePine, J.A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D.E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review andmeta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(1), 52–65.Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship (Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Lewis, T. (2011). Assessing social identity and collective efficacy as theories of group motivation at work. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(4),

963–980.Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D.P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence

processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 371–391.Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695–706.Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J.K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 534–559.Manz, C.C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585–600.Manz, C.C., Anand, V., Joshi, M., & Manz, K.P. (2008). Emerging paradoxes in executive leadership: A theoretical interpretation of the tensions between corruption and

virtuous values. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 385–392.Manz, C.C., Shipper, F., & Stewart, G.L. (2009). Everyone a Team Leader: Shared Influence at WL Gore & Associates. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 239–244.Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3),

361–367.Mathieu, J.E., Gilson, L.L., & Ruddy, T.M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1),

97–108.May, R. (1969). Love and will. New York: Norton.Mayeroff, M. (1971). On caring. New York, NY: Harper and Row.McAllister, D.J., & Bigley, G.A. (2002). Work context and the definition of self: How organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem. Academy of

Management Journal, 45(5), 894–904.McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York, NY: Irvington.Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), 153–180.Molm, L.D., Collett, J.L., & Schaefer, D.R. (2007). Building solidarity through generalized exchange: A theory of reciprocity. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1),

205–242.Moore, T. (1992). Care of the soul: A guide for cultivating depth and sacredness in everyday life. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Stewart, G.L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance,

11(2–3), 145–165.Mumford, M.D., Helton, W.B., Decker, B.P., Connelly, M.S., & Van Doorn, J.R. (2003). Values and beliefs related to ethical decisions. Teaching Business Ethics, 7(2),

139–170.Murphy, R.O., & Ackermann, K.A. (2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 18(1), 13–41.Neck, C.P., & Manz, C.C. (2013). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hill.Nicolaides, V.C., LaPort, K.A., Chen, T.R., Tomassetti, A.J., Weis, E.J., Zaccaro, S.J., et al. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and

moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 923–942.Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.O’Bannon, D.P., & Pearce, C.L. (1999). A quasi-experiment of gainsharing in service organization: Implications of organizational citizenship behavior and pay satisfac-

tion. Journal of Management Issues, 11, 363–378.Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behav-

iors on information technology professionals' turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 326–357.Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., & Wall, T.D. (2004). Integrated manufacturing, empowerment, and company performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5),

641–665.Pearce, C.L. (1997). The determinants of change management team (CMT) effectiveness: A longitudinal investigation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of

Maryland, College Park, MD.Pearce, C.L., & Conger, J.A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Pearce, C.L., & Ensley, M.D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process in-

novation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 259–278.Pearce, C.L., Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (2008). The roles of vertical and shared leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and prac-

tice. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 353–359.Pearce, C.L., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, di-

rective, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.Pearce, C.L., Waldman, D.A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Virtuous leadership: A theoretical model and research agenda. Journal of Management, Spirituality, &

Religion, 3(1–2), 60–77.

















































































Perry, M.L., Pearce, C.L., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership Can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling &Sales Management, 19(3), 35–51.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: American Psychological Association.Rapp, T.L., Bachrach, D.G., Rapp, A.A., & Mullins, R. (2014). The role of team goal monitoring in the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team perfor-

mance. Journal of Applied Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036978 (Advance online publication).Riggio, R.E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Ropo, A., & Sauer, E. (2003). Partnerships of orchestras: Towards shared leadership. International Journal of Arts Management, 5(2), 44–55.Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Margolis, J.D. (2012). Care and compassion through an organizational lens: Opening up new possibilities. Academy of

Management Review, 37(4), 503–523.Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R., & Randolph, W.A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction.

Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349.Seibert, S.E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S.H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.Seligman, M.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.Sewell, G., & Barker, J.R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 934–961.Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 307–315.Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Shared leadership in the management of group boundaries. In C.L. Pearce, & J.A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows

and whys of leadership (pp. 235–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Skovholt, T.M. (2005). The cycle of caring: A model of expertise in the helping professions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27(1), 82–93.Solansky, S.T. (2008). Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 332–341.Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33–35.Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.Steinheider, B., Wuestewald, T., & Bayerl, P. (2006). When Twelve Heads Are Better Than One: Implementing a Shared Leadership Concept in a Police Agency. Academy

of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings (pp. L1–L6).Stewart, G.L., Carson, K.P., & Cardy, R.L. (1996). The joint effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior in a service set-

ting. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 143–164.Swanson, K.M. (1991). Empirical development of a middle range theory of caring. Nursing Research, 40(3), 161–165.Swanson, K.M. (1999). What is known about caring in nursing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psy-

chology, 35(3), 413–424.Thomas, K.W., & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,

15(4), 666–681.Turner, J.C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). London: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 357–371.Van Lange, P.A.M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E.N.M., & Joireman, J.A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary

evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.Waddock, S.A., & Graves, S.B. (1997). The corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.Wallace, J.C., Johnson, P.D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt ac-

countability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 840–850.Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnell, C.A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship be-

havior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529.Wang, D., Waldman, D.A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198.Wassenaa, C., Pearce, C.L., Hoch, J., & Wegge, J. (2010). Shared leadership meets virtual teams: A match made in cyberspace. In P. Yoong (Ed.), Leadership in the digital

enterprise (pp. 15–27). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.Wegge, J., Jeppesen, H.J., Weber, W.G., Pearce, C.L., Silva, S.A., Pundt, A., et al. (2010). Promoting work motivation in organizations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4),

154–171.Welbourne, T.M., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1995). Gainsharing: A critical review and a future research agenda. Journal of Management, 21(3), 559–609.Wiegand, D.M., & Geller, E.S. (2005). Connecting positive psychology and organizational behavior management: Achievement motivation and the power of positive

reinforcement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24(1–2), 3–25.Winter, D.G. (1991). A motivational model of leadership: Predicting long-term management success from TAT measures of power motivation and responsibility. The

Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 67–80.Wood, M.S. (2005). Determinants of shared leadership in management teams. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 64–85.Yukl, G.A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.





http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036978





















































sharing is caring: toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership

Documents