leader-member exchange and shared leadership: a … · leader-member exchange and shared...

Leader-Member Exchange and Shared Leadership: A Blended Model of

IT Leadership

Sylvester Ngoma

Ph.D. Candidate

Information Technology Educator

February 27, 2012

A Blended Model of IT Leadership

1

Introduction

The prominence of Information Technology (IT) resources in leveraging business

effectiveness and organizational performance is widely recognized. Driven by technological

advances, heightened communication, and interdependence (Hebron & Stack, 2009), today’s

global business environment presents a host of unique challenges for IT leaders such as aligning

business strategy with IT strategy, managing cultural change (Hebron & Stack, 2009),

confronting identity issues, leading change and stimulating innovation (Kanter, 2010), handling a

diverse workforce, and adapting to expanded markets. IT systems are affecting modern

businesses in unprecedented ways. Essentially, IT leadership is fundamental to the success of an

organization.

Various IT leadership strategies have been implemented throughout the years to meet the

challenges highlighted above. The present paper examines a number of these strategies including

transformational leadership, transactional leadership, trait theories, shared or distributed

leadership, and Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX) theory. A blended approach—shared

leadership with LMX—is deemed to be the most suitable leadership strategy in today’s ever-

evolving and highly competitive business environment. The argument is that dynamic delegation

of leadership (Klein, Ziegert, Knight &Yan, 2006) along with rich workplace relationships

(Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2010) may be more conducive to enhanced IT organizational

management and employee performance than the traditional bureaucratic and hierarchical

leadership.

Defining IT Leadership

Definitions of leadership abound in the literature. Yet, there is little consensus among

scholars about a universally agreed-upon definition of leadership. Despite a sizeable body of


2

leadership studies, the absence of a clear taxonomy of functions or tasks associated with a leader

accounts partly for the problem (Barker, 2001). Several research studies have attempted to

encapsulate the true essence of leadership, each with its unique perspective.

Leadership has been conceptualized as a change process (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010).

Specifically, it has been defined as a “process of social influence” (Prewitt, Weil, & McClure,

2011, p. 13), that is; as an interpersonal influence directed toward the achievement of a goal.

Barker (2001) believes that it is a continuous change process. Mumford, Campion, and

Morgeson (2007) perceive leadership through a “strataplex” as a layered and complex construct

consisting of four general categories—cognitive skills, interpersonal skills, business skills, and

strategic skills. This view highlights the multidimensional basis of leadership.

Furthermore, leadership is also regarded as the formal power and responsibility that a

leader holds. In this regard, the leader determines a set of practices or tasks that may increase

organizational competitiveness. The leadership of formal, hierarchical leaders is thought to be

based on a set of attributes and behaviors (Printy & Marks, 2003). The centrality of leadership in

effecting change is emphasized here.

In the IT Field, leadership refers to power relationship between leader and follower, both

parties exerting direct and indirect influence on one another. The contexts of today’s IT are

immensely heterogeneous and cross-cultural. Leaders and followers operate without a common

legal or moral compass (Voegtlin, Patzer, & Scherer, 2011). Thus, the role of an effective leader

is to recognize the strategic importance of technology and to exploit situational or contextual

opportunities for organizational growth.

Clearly, strategic leadership plays a key part in infusing change. The leader is viewed as

the principal catalyst of change (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010) or the catalyst of an organization’s


3

shared responsibility (Murrell, 1997). Hitt and Ireland (2002) approach strategic leadership as

“effectuation,” that is; the means for managing critical resources—social, economical, and

human capital—in order to generate value. The ultimate outcomes of strategic leadership are, in

the words of Makri and Scandura (2010), invention, development, and commercialization. In

other words, strategic leadership should result in elevated performance, capital development, and

productivity. Kaiser, Hogan, and Craig (2008) see emergence and effectiveness as metrics for

measuring this leadership.

But measuring leadership effectiveness may be a challenging task. Research has shown

that various approaches have been used to measure leadership effectiveness. As the view of IT

leader has evolved from an isolated diagnostician or a godly decision-maker to a manager

sharing responsibilities with others, leadership effectiveness indicators have also changed.

Scholars have applied subjective measures such as ratings as well as objective measures such as

productivity (Kaiser et al., 2008). Kaiser and Kaiser (2008) suggested two categories of

leadership measures to gauge the effectiveness of a leader. The first category focused on

individual leader measures; the second category focused on groups, teams, and organizations.

Overall, improved organizational management and creative innovation are by-products of

effective leadership.

The abundance of definitions in the literature is indicative of the elusive and complex

nature of leadership. Kaiser et al. (2008) acknowledge the lack of definitional clarity of

leadership. There is more divergence than convergence regarding the content of leadership.

Simply stated, IT leadership is defined in this paper as processes relevant for driving change in

an organization. It can be operationalized through enhanced technical competence, increased

individual and collective performance, and measurable results.


4

Leadership Theories

There is a vast body of literature that supports that researchers are divided over the scope

and content of leadership (Barker, 2001; Nicholson, Sarker, Sarker, & Valacich, 2007).

Historically, leadership theories have been grouped into three primary traditions: trait,

behavioral, and contingency theories (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002). Over the years, there have

been competing theories about leadership. Sanders and Davey (2011) identified five main

categories: trait theories, contingency theories, behavioral theories, transactional theories, and

transformational theories. Each theory approaches leadership differently.

Other approaches have been suggested, especially with the rapidly changing business

landscape. Investigating leadership perspectives in virtual team (VT) and face-to-face (FTF)

contexts, Nicholson et al. (2007) suggested four workable approaches: Power-Influence

Approach, Behavior Approach, Trait Approach, and Situation Approach. Although VT and FTF

teams face similar challenges including technophobia, multiple time zones, cultural diversity,

and communication dynamics among others, as Kayworth and Leidner (2002) maintained,

Nicholson et al. (2007) concluded that different characteristics should apply in VT and FTF

situations.

Uhl-Bien (2006) posits that relational leadership theory (RLT) is another leadership

perspective that has gained preeminence in recent years. Increasingly, there is growing

recognition that social relationships management may lead to the success or failure of a business.

Several research studies have explored a number of relational theories—including Direction,

Alignment, and Commitment (DAC) ontology, and Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX)—that

have garnered attention (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Greguras & Ford, 2006). LMX in particular is thought

to be useful within the IT context.


5

Transformational Leadership

Although some form of transformational leadership may have been around long before,

the term transformational leadership was only first coined in 1978. In his book Leadership,

Burns (1978) used two novel but complementary notions—transactional leadership and

transformational leadership—to portray the ideal leader-follower context. The context was

political but the model was soon adopted in organizational management circles (Humprey &

Einstein, 2003). Later, Bass (1985) proposed a model of transformational leadership based on

four dimensions. The model has been widely used in the United States (Felfe, Tartler, &

Liepmann, 2004). It is being adopted in many other countries including Germany.

Transformational leadership is regarded as an approach which has four key dimensions

(Felfe et al., 2004; Purvanova & Bono, 2009; McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008). The “Four I’s”

include (1) idealized influence or charisma, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual

motivation, and (4) individualized consideration (Felfe et al., 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The

first dimension—idealized influence (II) or charisma—of transformational leadership is

associated with a role model position. The transformational leader provides a clear vision and a

sense of mission (Humprey & Einstein, 2003). To earn the trust and confidence of the followers,

the leader must exert exceptional moral influence and must demonstrate extraordinary

performance. As Bass, Walman, Avolio, and Bebb (1987) note, this is why charismatic

leadership is at the heart of the transformational process.

The second dimension—inspirational motivation (IM)—is closely linked to charisma.

Humprey and Einstein (2003) refer to this dimension “the companion of charisma” (p. 86).

Here, transformational leaders are expected to communicate effectively and convincingly a

vision for the future of the organization. Thus, they must possess heightened communication


6

skills. The third dimension—intellectual stimulation (IS)—is characterized by the ability to move

followers towards creative and innovative thinking. The leader must have a unique set of skills

in order to instill in the followers the drive and the motivation to think outside of the box. The

last dimension—individualized consideration—is linked to mentoring or coaching role (Felfe et

al., 2004). Leaders need to take a personal interest in followers’ inter-individual differences and

accept these differences. They should attend to the followers’ needs (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Purvanova and Bono (2009) contend that the four dimensions of transformational leadership are

believed to be highly interconnected.

With regard to IT, a transformational leader may change the face of a business or an

organization by optimizing the capacity and potential of IT professionals. This can be achieved

through a sound use of IT systems to improve relationships in corporations (Nieto & Fernandez,

2006), and to transform the organizational management of resources and personnel. If

appropriately utilized, transformational leadership may be tied to employee empowerment and

performance enhancement. The IT field in a global business environment demands a leadership

that exerts positive influence on the followers, modeling collective commitment (Kaiser et al.,

2008). To achieve this goal, Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam (2003. 264) argue that

transformational leaders should be proactive. It should be noted that proactive transformational

leaders can anticipate events and devise solutions accordingly.

Subjective and objective metrics can be used to measure the effectiveness of

transformational leadership. However, like LMX, it is hard to predict which aspect of the four

dimensions can best determine the leader’s effectiveness. A leader may excel in one aspect but

may fail to fulfill other roles. All in all, the leader’s effectiveness is often measured by the ability

to develop human and social capital among followers. Both LMX and transformational


7

leadership have this common goal. They encourage greater commitment and performance. These

outcomes are much needed in today’s business environment.

Transactional Leadership

Akin to transformational leadership, transactional leadership is one of the most studied

leadership theories (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). As noted earlier, Burns (1978) identified

transactional leadership along with transformational leadership in the same study of leadership.

Transactional leadership arose from exchange-based theories of the 1980’s (Hargis, Watt, &

Piotrowski, 2011). It is based on rewards and punishments as motivational factors for

subordinates. It is worth pointing out that transactional leadership has been used in many

organizations including the IT field for over three decades.

Bass et al. (1987) describe these two motivational factors as contingent reward, also

known as constructive transactions (Antonakis et al., 2003) and management-by-exception.

Contingent reward leadership places emphasis on rewarding subordinates who meet agreed-upon

performance standards (Bass & Avolio, 1993). With regard to management-by-exception, Hargis

(2011) identified two types: active management by exception and passive management by

exception. Active management by exception is also known as active corrective transactions and

passive management by exception is commonly referred to as passive corrective transactions

(Antonakis et al., 2003). Generally speaking, there is unequal distribution of contingent rewards

and corrective actions. Leaders tend to err on the side of corrective transactions rather than

contingent rewards.

The role of a transactional leader differs from that of a transformational leader. A

transactional leader is expected to identify the followers’ needs and engage in exchange

relationships about certain targeted performance objectives (Bass, 1985). Congruent with the


8

transformational leader, the transactional leader’s job is to define clear goals and objectives, and

communicate them to the followers. Like the transformational leader, the transactional leader

needs to communicate this vision to the followers, enticing acceptance.

The difference lies in the rewards or punishments that the followers will bear for meeting

or failing to meet expected goals. The rewards can be financial or nonfinancial. The leader takes

corrective action to address behavior concerns (Hargis et al., 2011). While contingent rewards

may promote creativity and innovation, it is unclear whether punishments or management by

exception may augment performance. Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) found that

transformational dimensions and transactional contingent reward are closely correlated. Bass

(1995) describes the interplay between the transformational leadership and transactional

leadership, which is often cemented by an augmentation effect.

Research shows that transformational leadership needs the bargaining power of

transactional leadership to communicate a vision. Similarly, transactional leadership leans on

transformational leadership to influence the followers. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ), developed by Bass (1985), has been used to measure certain aspects of the two

leadership approaches (Schriesheim, Wu, & Scandura, 2009; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008),

including laissez-faire. MLQ is closely linked to transformational and transactional leadership.

Transactional leadership is more prevalent in today’s IT environment and in K-12

education. The pressure climate it creates may promote a culture of risk avoidance (Yammarino,

Spangler, & Bass, 1993). IT professionals seem to be forced into compliance. In fact,

transactional leadership has been linked to IT professionals’ turnover intentions. IT professionals

and IT educators seem to blossom in an environment that fosters creativity and freedom. While

incentives—performance-based bonus, for example—may produce positive results, research has


9

shown that negative sanctions, such as punishments, loss of privileges, and demotion, may breed

resentment and demotivation. Lee (2008) argues transactional leadership has a negative impact

on innovativeness. Conversely, transformational leadership impacts positively innovativeness.

Thus, if implemented in IT, this negative aspect of transactional leadership should never be

overlooked.

It is important that IT teams become part of the learning and decision-making

community. IT professionals feel a sense of ownership when they contribute to determining the

technical direction of the IT department. Excluding them from the decision-making processes,

while counting on them to deliver high levels of performance, may seem contradictory.

Essentially, understanding IT professionals is an important element to the success of IT

professionals (Enns, Ferratt, & Prasad, 2006). Ostracizing IT professionals or managing them

with “carrot and stick” strategies can only hurt an organization. Langer (2001) suggested a plan

for integrating the IT personnel into the workplace. The plan advocates integration of IT

professionals into a learning community in which they are asked to play important roles.

Trait Theories

With the changing business environment, the trait perspective of leadership, also known

as the “Great Man” theories, seems to be antiquated. It is increasingly inconceivable that a single

leader—Great Man or Great Woman—decides the destiny of an organization. Social

organizations evolve. Traits that were once useful may not be suitable in today’s modern

environment (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). The notion of a born, mythical IT leader

makes little sense today.

Research has suggested that leadership can be genetic (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009).

Such traits as personality, intelligence, attractiveness, and height can be associated with genes.


10

Leaders who exhibit these traits are thought to have genetic predispositions. To what extent

genetics predisposes one to a leadership position is a debatable question. However, it is

increasingly argued that an effective leader needs more than inherited psychological and physical

characteristics to be able to unlock the hidden potential of all subordinates.

Despite the apparent fall of the trait perspective of leadership, leaders can still draw upon

some of the traits to lead their subordinates. The study of the Big Five traits revealed that traits

can correlate positively or negatively with leadership emergence and effectiveness. Judge et al.

(2009) argue that the “bright” personality traits which include extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, emotional stability, core self-evaluations, intelligence, charisma, and

openness to experience may prove to be extremely useful for a leader to have. These traits are

said to be constructive for leadership. Because leaders must communicate a compelling vision to

subordinates and must infuse meaningful change, these characteristics have an essential part to

play. The author also explored “dark” traits that may be destructive for a leader. These traits—

narcissism, hubris, social dominance, and Machiavellianism—may negatively affect a leader.

Taken together, bright and dark traits cannot account fully for the emergence and exercise of

effective leadership, especially in the IT world.

Many studies have identified other traits related to leadership. Of all the traits found in

the literature, two—integrity (Palanski & Yammarino, 2009) and wakefulness (Marques,

2006)—are worth mentioning. Research has shown that integrity is positively associated with a

leader’s performance. Not only can the integrity of a leader influence job performance of

subordinates, as Palanski and Yammarino (2009) observe, it can also influence a subordinate to

have integrity. On the other hand, wakefulness is said to be an important element of effective


11

leadership (Marques, 2006). Ultimately, the strategic importance of integrity and wakefulness is

unquestionable.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has been mentioned in a burgeoning of studies

of personality traits and leadership. Based on 16 personality types, the MBTI has been used to

analyze personality factors that affect an individual’s performance. For example, Gorla and Lam

(2004) analyzed the performance of software development teams in Hong Kong, using the MBTI

to assess the personality dimensions of individuals involved in the IS projects. The study of 89

(out of 92) IS professionals revealed that intuitive IS team leaders outperformed other team

leaders in the information gathering dimension. Moreover, the feeling (F) leaders outperformed

thinking (T) leaders in the decision-making dimension. The study also revealed that the

introverted (I) IS professionals enjoy solitude in the workplace, and extroverts (E) like to work in

teams.

The above-mentioned considerations as well as others related to personality types (Riso

& Hudson, 2000) must be taken into account in the context of IT. A heightened understanding of

the innate qualities or attributes of team leaders and IT professionals—Extroversion (E) versus

Introversion (I), Sensing (S) versus Intuition (I), Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F), and Judging (J)

versus Perceiving (P)—may make a difference. Therefore, a leader must assume more than one

role. Maccoby (1996) suggested eight roles, four of which stand out including innovator,

facilitator, mentor, and coordinator. These roles are fundamental to the exercise of leadership.

Trait theories are not baseless. Although scholars tend to move away from trait theories

and focus on other leadership theories such as behavioral, contingency, and relational theories,

personality traits should still be examined for what they are worth. Ignoring leaders’ traits and IT

professionals’ traits may have deleterious consequences in the IT field.


12

LMX Theory

The failure of Information Systems projects has been linked to lack of leadership (Shore,

2005). Effective leaders are known to capitalize on personal development, collective effort, and

employee commitment. The salience of LMX theory rests on the premise that the quality of

leader-employee relationships may harness beneficial effects to an organization (Uhl-Bien,

2006). Research shows that LMX, as a dyadic relationship, is tied to performance outcomes.

LMX is reported to influence job performance, job satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and

organizational commitment (Walumbwa et al., 2010). The leader-member exchange (LMX)

theory appears to be a suitable vehicle for enhancing IT leadership, and subsequently, business

effectiveness.

The LMX theory contends that leaders establish different types of relationships with each

of their subordinates (Greguras & Ford, 2006). Leaders form two groups of subordinates: “in-

group” and “out-group.” While the “in-group” comprises protégés who enjoy special treatment—

such as special promotions and assignments, career advancement opportunities, and special

recognitions—the “out-group” is almost ostracized, given less attention and fewer

acknowledgements (Lunenburg, 2010). In doing so, leaders may undermine their own power and

effectiveness.

Rather than engaging in high quality relationships—also referred to as high LMX—with

the “in-group” and low quality relationships—commonly known as low LMX—with the “out-

group,” an IT leader should appropriately utilize LMX as an empowerment and professional

culture building tool for constructing rich rapports with all employees equally. Should leaders

adopt the high and low LMX stance, they must imperatively strike the right balance between

high LMX and low LMX. In their study of the link between ethical leadership and LMX,


13

Walumbwa et al. (2010) noted that the improvement of employee performance can be achieved

through, among other factors, high quality LMX and identification with the organization.

The expected outcomes of leadership, according to McLaurin and Al Amri (2008), are

technical development and higher level of motivation. Indeed, these goals are inherent in the

LMX theory. LMX has similar positive outcomes such as job enrichment, job satisfaction, job

performance, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors (DeConinck, 2008). This is

especially true about the relationships between the leader and the “in-group” characterized by

liking, respect and mutual trust (DeConinck, 2008). Lunenburg (2010) argues that the in-group

members are often given more job responsibility and more favorable performance ratings. The

consequences of differentiated treatments of employees may vary. The stress of in-group

members is believed to originate from added responsibilities, whereas the stress of out-group

members is said to emanate from exclusion.

Conversely, there may also be a link—however weak—between LMX and job turnover

intentions and burnout. Discussing the importance of the dynamics of leader-member exchange

(LMX), Borchgrevink and Boster (1997) observed that low LMX, that is; between the leader and the

“out-group,” may negatively impact employee burnout, job turnover, job satisfaction, job

performance, organizational climate and organizational commitment. Tepper (2000) claims that

leaders’ condescending and unfair attitudes may alienate and demoralize followers. It should be

noted that the quality of LMX relationships theory affects the followers’ attitudes and

performance in different ways.

LMX and transformational leadership, two theories whose effectiveness has been

extensively documented over the last two decades (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Felfe, Tartler, &

Liepmann, 2004; Purvanova & Bono, 2009; Yukl, 1998), share two important characteristics:


14

motivation of subordinates and enhanced performance. While the focus of LMX theory is on

relationships and outcomes (Greguras & Ford, 2006), transformational leadership emphasizes the

vision, ideals, and values of the leader (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008). Both transformational and

transactional leadership comprise some elements of LMX. Low LMX can be more associated

with the management by exception dimension of transactional leadership. High LMX and

transformational leadership seem to work hand in hand.

Studies have shown that both LMX and transformational leadership have four

dimensions. Historically, three dimensions or ‘currencies’ were associated with LMX

relationships: (1) perceived contribution to the exchange, (2) expressions of public support or

loyalty, and (3) mutual affection (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). A fourth dimension--professional

respect—was later added to fully capture the extent of LMX relationships. Liden and Maslyn

(1998) proposed this four-dimension model. All four dimensions have been noted to correlate

with subordinate’s satisfaction with the leader.

Of the four dimensions, only three—affect, loyalty, and professional respect—can be

significantly correlated with satisfaction with supervisor (Greguras & Ford, 2006). Given

individual differences among subordinates, as Yukl and Mahsud (2010) observe, measuring

LMX relationships entails different approaches. LMX can be measured solely from the

perspective of the subordinate (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994) and from the perspective of both

the subordinate and the supervisor (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Knowing which aspect of LMX to

assess is an equally challenging endeavor.

A Model of IT Leadership: A Blend of LMX and Shared Leadership

A number of studies have examined various leadership approaches. Some commonly

mentioned theories include transformational leadership (Felfe et al., 2004), transactional


15

leadership, and laissez-faire leadership (Bass, 1985), servant leadership, ethical leadership,

authentic leadership (Voegtlin, Patzer, & Scherer, 2011), multifactor leadership theory,

awakened leadership (Marques, 2006), strategic leadership, leader-member exchange theory,

relational leadership theory (Uhl-bien, 2006), trait theories (Judge et al., 2009), and direction,

alignment and commitment (DAC) ontology. Each of these theories has benefits and pitfalls. But

today’s business context, which is characterized by globalization, demands a non-traditional

leadership approach.

This paper adopts a model of LMX that focuses on inter-group empowerment along with

shared or distributed leadership. The leader-exchange member (LMX) theory was discussed

earlier. It was stated that LMX may prove to be an efficient relational tool that leaders can use to

empower their employees. It was noted that healthy leader-subordinates relationships may

directly or indirectly influence job performance and job attitudes.

There is considerable research about the value of shared or distributed leadership in

today’s business environment. Combining this approach with a version of LMX which taps into

leader-subordinates relationships may bear significant promise. It has been established that IT

professionals have some unique characteristics (Enns et al., 2006). But it takes creative

leadership for IT professionals to unleash their untapped creative power.

Shared leadership, as Pearce and Ensley (2004) explain, can significantly impact team

dynamics and team performance. It is defined as an influence process (Pearce & Ensley, 2004).

Part of the job of the leader is to motivate employees (Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2008). Klein et

al. (2006) describe shared leadership as a “dynamic delegation” of power. In other words, the

hierarchical leader shares leadership roles and activities with members of a group or teams who,

in turn, assume shared responsibility (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Wood & Field, 2007). With


16

dispersed functions, all—appointed leaders, group or team members and the hierarchical

leader—become active contributors to the process. Team members support and motivate one

another. Such a climate is conducive to improved performance, especially in a learning

organization (Langer, 2001) or a professional learning community.

Essentially, peer influence plays a significant role in shared leadership. This approach

encourages autonomy, independence, trust, mutual respect, and accountability. Team members

are accountable to themselves, to the team, to the team leader, to the group, and to the

hierarchical leader. Wood and Field (2007) identified four ingredients that are fundamental to

team dynamics: influence, direction, coordination, and communication. A nurturing environment

of shared aim and shared responsibility promotes creativity and innovativeness.

The quality of LMX is crucially important in a shared leadership environment in order for

group members and leaders to develop and maintain team cohesiveness, interdependent

relationships, and collaboration (Fletcher & Käufer, 2003). Such an environment promotes self-

leadership, and increases individual performance. Low quality LMX may be a destroyer of

commitment and focus, especially for IT professionals with a low degree of job satisfaction.

High quality LMX can stimulate and motivate team or group members to meet and exceed

assigned goals. Furthermore, it can help reduce the isolation, apprehension, and risk avoidance of

some subordinates. In other words, LMX relationships may affect organizational effectiveness.

One of the benefits of shared leadership is increased empowerment of participating

members (Kennerly, 1996). LMX can play a mediating role in the empowerment process.

Indeed, a link can be established between LMX and shared leadership. Research has shown that

employees’ innovativeness and creativity do not occur in a vacuum. It is incumbent upon the


17

leadership to nurture the right conditions and furnish the needed motivation (Mumford &

Gustafson, 1988).

Shared leadership has been noted to have the merit of bringing IT employees together.

Once they come together, the leader should creatively allow groups to form. Instead of using

such criteria as closeness or likability to select in-group members, the leader should identify

individuals with a strong skillset—technically competent, high-performing, job-centered,

effective communicators—to impart the organizational culture. The in-group members should be

allowed to perform leadership functions, initially, before empowering out-group members.

The LMX-shared leadership framework requires that the leader give up some leadership

responsibilities. Certain powers should be delegated to in-group and out-group members. In-

group and out-group members should contribute substantially to the direction of IT projects.

They should assume leadership functions including (1) formulating an IT strategy, (2)

recommending IT-Business alignment strategies, (3) participating in decision making, (4)

training other IT professionals, and (5) engaging in collaborative team work. In-group members

are expected to lead out-group members. Once empowered, out-group members join the in-group

and take on leadership roles.

Conclusion

This paper reviewed a number of leadership theories and proposed a conceptual

framework for a more effective IT leadership. It provided a critical review of four leadership

theories including the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, transformational leadership,

transactional theory, and trait theories. It suggested a model of IT leadership that integrates LMX

with shared leadership. It was argued that high quality exchanges between team members and


18

leaders enhance innovative and creative behavior in an IT context. Such a context improves

performance and increases accountability.

Lack of effective IT leadership has been found to be one of the causal factors of failed IT

projects and ineffective business practices. Undoubtedly, traditional leadership perspectives have

limited effectiveness in today’s highly competitive, IT-supported business environment. Bligh,

Pearce, and Kohles (2006) contend that shared leadership can drive and enable continuous

innovation and knowledge creation. There are conflicting reports about the link between LMX

and innovativeness (Lee, 2008). However, studies have found that both shared leadership and

LMX can lower the stress levels of leaders and subordinates. Hence, blending the two

approaches appears to be a step in the right direction, especially in the globalization context of

IT.


19

References

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.

Barker, R. A. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54(4), 469—494.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond expectations, New York, Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.

M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and

directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 463-

478.

Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership

and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organizational Studies, 12, 73-87.

Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L., & Kohles, J.C. (2006). The importance of self- and shared leadership

in team based knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 296-318.

Borchgrevink, C.P., & Boster, F.J. (1997). Leader-member exchange development: A hospitality

antecedent investigation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16, 241-259.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

DeConinck, J.B. (2009). The effect of leader-member exchange on turnover among retail buyers.

Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1081-1086.

Dienesch, R.M. & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: a critique

and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-34.

Enns, H. G., Ferratt, T. W., & Prasad, J. (2006). Beyond stereotypes of IT professionals:

implications for IT HR practices. Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 105-109.

Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced research in the field of transformational

leadership. German Journal of Human Resource Research, 18(3), 262-288.

Fletcher, J. & Käufer, K. (2003), “Shared leadership: paradox and possibility”, in Pearce, C.L.

and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of

Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 21-48.


20

Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:

Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

Glynn, M.A. & DeJordy, R. (2010). Leadership through an organizational behavior lens: A

look at the last half century of research. In R. Khurana & N. Nohria (Eds.) The

Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, 119-157. Harvard Business Press.

Gorla, N, & Lam, Y. W. (2004). Who should work with whom? Building effective software

project teams. Communication of the ACM. 47(6), 79-82.

Greguras, G. J. & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor

and subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 79, 433-465.

Hargis, M.B., Watt, J.D., Piotrowski, C. (2011). Developing leaders: Examining the role of

transactional and transformational leadership across business contexts. Organization

Development Journal, 29(3), 51-66.

Hebron, L & Stack, Jr, J. F. (2009). Globalization; Debunking the Myths. New Jersey: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Hinkin, T. R. & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). A theoretical and empirical examination of the

transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the multifactor leadership questionnaire

(MLQ). Leadership Quarterly, 19, 501-513.

Hitt, M. A., & Duane, R. I. (2002). The essence of strategic leadership: Managing human and

social capital. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 3–14.

Hitt, M.A., & Ireland, R.D. (2002). The essence of strategic leadership: Managing human and social

capital. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 3.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic

test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A

review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20,

855-875.

Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S.B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations.

American Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110.

Kanter, R.M. (2010). Leadership in a globalizing world. In Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (Eds.).

(2010). Handbook of leadership theory and practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

Press.


21

Kayworth, T.R. , & Leidner, D.E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7-40.

Kennerly, S.M. (1996). Effects of shared governance on perceptions of work and work

Environment. Nursing Economics, 14, 111-117.

Klein, K., Ziegert, J., Knight, A., & Yan, X. (2006). Dynamic Delegation: Shared, Hierarchical,

and Deindividualized Leadership in Extreme Action Teams. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621.

Lee, J., (2008). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 670-687.

Langer, A. (2001). Fixing bad habits: Integrating technology personnel in the workplace using

reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 2(1), 99-111.

Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7 (3), 385-425.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Leader-member exchange theory: Another perspective on the

leadership process. International Journal of Management, 13(1), 1-5.

Maccoby, M. (1996). Resolving the leadership paradox: The doctor's dialogue. Research

Technology Management, 39, 57–59.

Makri, M., & Scandura, T. (2010). Exploring the effects of creative CEO leadership on

innovation in high-technology firms. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 75–88.

Marques, J. (2006). Awakened leadership: Ancient practice going hip. Performance

Improvement, 45(7), 35-39.

McLaurin, J. & Al-Amri, M. (2008). Developing an understanding of charismatic and

transformational leadership. Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture,

Communications and Conflict, 13(2), 15-19.

Mumford, M. D., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex:

Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18(2),

154–166.

Murrell, K. L. (1997). Emergent theories of leadership for the next century: Towards relational

concepts. Organization Development Journal, 15(3), 35−42.

Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member

exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member

relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108:

256-266.


22

Nicholson, D., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Valacich, J. (2007). Determinants of Effective

Leadership in Information Systems Development Teams: An Exploratory Study of Face-

to-Face and Virtual Contexts. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application

(JITTA), 8(4), 31-48.

Nieto, M.J., & Fernández, Z. (2006). The role of information technology in corporate strategy of

small and medium enterprises. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3 (4), 251–

262.

Palanski, M.E., & Yammarino, F.J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: a multi-level conceptual

framework. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 405-420.

Pearce, C.L. & Conger, J.A. (2003), “All those years ago: the historical underpinnings of shared

leadership”, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the

Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 2-18.

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

innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 259−278.

Pearce, C. L., Conger, J.A & Locke, E.A. (2008) Shared leadership theory. The Leadership

Quarterly, 19: 622-628

Porter ME, Nohria N (2010). ‘What is leadership? The CEO’s role in large, complex

organizations’. In Nohria N, Khurana R (eds), Handbook of Leadership Theory and

Practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Prewitt, J., Weil, R., & Mcclure, A. (2011). Developing leadership in global and multi-cultural

organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13), 13-20.

Printy, S. M. & Marks, H. M. (2003). Shared Leadership for Teacher and Student Learning.

Theory into Practice, 45(2), 125–132.

Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face

and virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357.

Riso, D.R. & Hudson, R. (2000). Understanding the enneagram: The practical guide to

Personality Types. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Sanders, T.J. & Davey, K.S. (2011). Out of the leadership theory jungle: A proposed meta-model

of strategic leadership. Allied Academies International Conference, 10(1), 41-46.

Shore, B. (2005). Failure Rates in Global IS Projects and the Leadership Challenge, Journal of

Global Information Technology Management (8) 3, pp. 1-5.


23

Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader–member exchange and supervisor career

mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management

Journal, 37, 1588–1602.

Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. & Scandura, T. A. (2009). A meso measure? Examination of the

levels of analysis of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). The Leadership

Quarterly, 20, 604-616.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,

43, 178–190.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership

and organizing, The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution:

Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182−196.

Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M. & Scherer, A. G. 2011. Responsible Leadership in Global Business:

A New Approach to Leadership and Its Multi-Level Outcomes, Journal of Business

Ethics, 105, 1–16.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.

(2010). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member

exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes.

Wood, M. S., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management

team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(3), 251-272.

Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., & Bass, B.M. (1993). Transformational leadership and

performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81–102.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Prentice-hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Yukl, G. & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible, adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 62(2), 81-93.

leader-member exchange and shared leadership: a … · leader-member exchange and shared...

Documents