This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 12 November 2014, At: 16:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied CommunicationResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjac20

Shared Leadership in a CommunityTheater Group: Filling the LeadershipRoleMichael W. KramerPublished online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Michael W. Kramer (2006) Shared Leadership in a Community Theater Group:Filling the Leadership Role, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34:2, 141-162, DOI:10.1080/00909880600574039

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880600574039

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Shared Leadership in a CommunityTheater Group: Filling the LeadershipRoleMichael W. Kramer

In contrast to research in which an individual leader is assigned or expected to emerge,

musical theater productions provide an opportunity to explore how leadership is shared

among the director, assistant director, music director, choreographer, and stage manager

in a naturally occurring group. This ethnographic study explores how one community

theater group managed the sharing of leadership roles when the primary director

assumed a passive or ineffective role. The study explores the communication and affective

responses of the secondary leaders and cast members when they perceived that the

primary leadership failed to function and then examines how secondary leaders and cast

members communicated to share the leadership to produce successful theatrical

performances. The results have implications for other groups with shared leadership

structures.

Keywords: Shared Leadership; Community Theater; Ethnography; Small Groups

A large body of research has examined the concept of leadership in organizational

and group settings. Although scholars have learned a great deal about leadership in

both settings, this research has a number of limitations. Most of it assumes that

leaders face unambiguous tasks, have sufficient time and resources to select from

various alternatives, have valid information to enable them to select between

alternatives, and are not influenced by outside forces or concerns (Barge, 1996). Also,

much of the research has occurred in artificial laboratory settings and, thus, may have

limited application to other groups, which has resulted in calls for examining groups

in natural settings (Gouran, 1999). In addition, most research focuses on an

Michael W. Kramer (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin) is Chair and Professor in the Department of

Communication at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Correspondence to: Department of Communication,

115 Switzler Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. E-mail: kramerm@missouri.edu.

A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the National Communication Association Annual

Convention in Miami, November 2003.

ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/00909880600574039

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Vol. 34, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 141�/162

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

individual designated as the leader or an individual who emerges as the leader.

Contemporary conceptualizations of leadership focus more on shared leadership in

which various group members are empowered to participate in leading the group

rather than on individual leaders (Pearce & Conger, 2003). In a variety of settings,

leadership either must be shared due to assigned roles or is shared due to the roles

group members assume. In response to these concerns, this study examined

leadership in a natural setting in which leadership was designed to be shared and

explored how leaders and members communicated to share the leadership and to

accomplish the group goals in a limited, specified time frame. Specifically, this

ethnography examined leadership involved in producing a musical for a community

theater group, a setting in which leadership must be shared among a director and

various secondary leaders, such as the assistant director, the choreographer, the music

director, and the stage manager.

Review of Leadership Literature

Scholars have studied leadership extensively in both organizational and group

settings, although contextual distinctions are not always precise. Since comprehensive

reviews exist elsewhere for organizational (e.g., Fairhurst, 2001; Yukl, 1989) and

group (e.g., Pavitt, 1999; Shaw, 1981) leadership, what follows is only a brief overview

of scholarship that highlights the limited research on shared leadership.

Organizational Leadership

Organizational research has generally examined leadership as the vertical or

hierarchical influence process of a single individual rather than examining settings

in which there is a structure of shared leadership. For example, trait, style, and

contingency approaches to leadership each focus on the individual leaders, not shared

leadership. Trait approaches assume that effective leaders have certain characteristics,

although researchers have difficulty identifying any consistent characteristics across

situations (Stodgill, 1948). Style approaches attempt to identify the relationship

between leaders’ characteristic patterns or styles (e.g., autocratic or collaborative) and

their effectiveness (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964; Lewin, 1951). Contingency

approaches assume that situations change and that leaders must adapt to the

changes in their settings and their followers (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard,

1988). The research frequently distinguishes between the task and relationship

(supportive) roles of the leaders. Since much of this research focuses on leaders as

managers interacting with subordinates, research examining supervisor�/subordinate

communication provides insight into the characteristics of effective leaders as open to

communication and communication-minded (Jablin, 1979). Similarly, Graen and his

associates developed the leader�/member exchange model, which examines the

differential treatment of subordinates by leaders (e.g., Graen & Scandura, 1987).

Much of this research has considered the impact of leadership on various outcomes

142 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

such as satisfaction, commitment, and turnover of subordinates without considering

how leadership is shared among leaders and their subordinates.

The line of research that attempts to identify characteristics of effective leaders of

large organizations or social movements also focuses on individual leaders.

Reminiscent of trait approaches to leadership, this research identifies the character-

istics of charismatic leaders (e.g., Trice & Beyer, 1986), visionary leaders (e.g.,

Larwood, Falbe, Kriger, & Miesing, 1995), and transformational leaders (e.g., Keller,

1992), among others. Implicitly, this research points to the need for individual leaders

to go beyond simply communicating messages to managing meaning for followers

(Smircich & Morgan, 1982) and gaining acceptance of the way the role is enacted

(Biggart & Hamilton, 1984). This research also fails to consider ways in which these

individuals share leadership with others in their organizations to accomplish their

goals.

Group Leadership

A glance at most discussions of group leadership indicates that much of the

organizational leadership literature has been superimposed on group settings and

similarly fails to consider shared leadership. For example, recently Galanes (2003)

examined leadership in bona fide groups and found that the effective leaders establish

an intention for the group; build the group’s culture; manage the group interactions;

keep the group focused; and have personality traits such as confidence, flexibility, and

openness. Although findings from most group leadership studies are similar to those

in the previously cited organizational research, studies in group contexts have made a

number of unique contributions to the understanding of group leadership. However,

for the most part, they do not consider shared leadership.

One unique area of group research focuses on how an individual emerges as the

leader in settings in which no assigned leader exists. This research suggests that the

emergence of group leaders is a competitive struggle during which individuals

attempt to demonstrate that they are best able to assist a group in meeting its task

needs (Watson & Hoffman, 2004). This competition involves a gradual elimination

process in which individuals who are too passive or too domineering are eliminated

from consideration for the leadership role, and then through further elimination

criteria and a need to move on, the group selects a leader (Geier, 1967;

Pavitt, 1999).

Focused on a single leader of the group, much of the research on leadership

emergence explores the characteristics of those individuals who emerge as leaders,

again reminiscent of trait approaches to leadership. For example, studies have

concluded that certain personality characteristics influenced leadership emergence,

specifically cognitive ability, conscientiousness, extroversion, and lack of neuroticism

(Taggar, Hackett, & Saha, 1999), and perceived intellectual competence rather than

actual intelligence (Rubin, Bartels, & Bommer, 2002). Variables such as group size,

members’ age, members’ sex typing, amount of interaction, and the social complexity

of the task also impact leadership emergence (Watson & Hoffman, 2004). Karau

Shared Leadership 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

and Eagly (1999) conclude that, although men and women exhibit few actual

behavioral differences as leaders, men have a moderate tendency to emerge as leaders

more often than women, especially on stereotypically masculine tasks, tasks that

require limited interaction, and tasks of short duration. In a tongue-in-cheek manner,

Fisher (1980) summarizes much of this research by suggesting ways to avoid being

selected as leader, such as by not talking, avoiding responsibility, and missing

meetings.

With the focus on characteristics that result in leadership emergence, there is less

known about communication behaviors that result in leadership emergence. In

summarizing research on communication behaviors, Johnson and Bechler (1998)

conclude that argumentative competence, procedural direction, eliciting commu-

nication from others, delegating and directing action, verbal expressiveness, and

summarizing group activities, along with listening effectiveness, increase the

likelihood of leadership emergence. These findings provide some understanding of

the communication behaviors individuals use to emerge as leaders, but not of how

leadership is actually shared. In addition, since nearly all of this research on leader

emergence is based on zero-history, student groups, it is difficult to surmise if it

describes how leaders emerge in naturally occurring groups with assigned or shared

leadership structures.

Research on Shared Leadership

In examining leadership research, Pearce and Conger (2003) suggest that there has

been a gradual shift from viewing leadership as a primarily vertical process of

influence, the focus of most of the previously cited literature, to viewing leadership

as more participatory where leaders include subordinates in leading and decision

making. Such a view of shared leadership is implicit in some of the previously cited

research. For example, democratic and delegating leaders share more of the

responsibility for decision making with group members than autocratic leaders

(Blake & Mouton, 1964). The open communication of a high leader�/member

exchange indicates that the leader shares more with subordinates than in the

more formal communication of a low leader�/member exchange (Graen &

Scandura, 1987).

Other group research has explicitly examined some of the ways leadership is shared

by exploring the impact of influential people in groups besides the leaders who are

assigned or emerge during group processes. For example, functional approaches to

group leadership examine the behaviors of individuals other than assigned leaders

who fill various group functions (Pavitt, 1999). Examining the importance of other

group members, Ketrow (1999) found that the person who provided procedural

guidance was most often perceived as the leader, but individuals with analytical skills

were often identified as most influential. Geier (1967) reported that lieutenants or

secondary leaders who work with the primary leader often emerge during group

interaction.

144 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The shift toward teamwork in organizations has led to more extensive examina-

tions of shared leadership in groups. Teamwork is conceptualized as leaders working

in relation with group members rather than through vertical influence; accordingly,

leadership involves dialogue in which power differences are minimized (Fletcher &

Kaufer, 2003). Shared leadership is a bottom-up process in which the team values and

structure emerge through the interaction of leaders and members as the leaders

empower team members rather than control them (Graen, 2003). When this sharing

takes place, collaboration occurs between designated leaders and group members as

well as among group members (Hiller & Day, 2003). Such sharing of leadership

should be the trademark of teamwork.

Despite this egalitarian view of shared leadership in teams, a hierarchy of influence

almost always naturally emerges in groups whether they are zero-history, leaderless

groups (Seers, Keller, & Wilkerson, 2003) or self-managed work teams (Barker, 1993).

As a result of this tendency, examinations of shared leadership in teamwork settings

typically evolve into settings with a single designated or emergent leader, rather than

settings where shared leadership structures continue to operate throughout the

history of the group. In addition, despite the gradual shift to viewing leadership as

more participatory and shared, little is known about the communication process by

which this sharing actually occurs (Graen, Hui, & Taylor, 2004). The research

methods involved, often quantitative, do not provide a rich description of the lived

experience of shared leadership (Fairhurst & Hamlett, 2003).

Summary

Overall, although previous research has enhanced our understanding of effective

leaders, it usually has focused on a single leader. Although scholars have begun to

focus attention on how leadership is shared, rather than enacted through vertical

influence, research to date provides only limited understanding of the commu-

nication leaders use to share leadership with others, especially in a situation where

people are assigned to enact different aspects of the leadership role. Musical

productions provide a context for examining a structure of shared leadership in a

natural setting since the assistant director, musical director, choreographer, and

stage manager each have specific leadership responsibilities in addition to those of

the primary director.

Community Theater and Leadership

In community theater, which developed as an alternative to professional theater,

local amateurs provide the artistic and physical resources to produce shows, with

perhaps one or two paid professionals providing guidance (Gard & Burley, 1959).

Focused on vertical leadership rather than shared leadership, scholarship regarding

community theater has a long history of providing advice to its leaders for the

many tasks involved. For example, the scholarship includes suggestions for how to

operate community theater groups; how to produce, direct, and manage aspects of

the production including the actors, make-up, costumes, scenery, and lighting

Shared Leadership 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Dalrymple, 1977; Wise, 1923); and how to develop good public relations and

advertising for the community (Young, 1981).

Management scholars recognized that the leadership structure in theater groups is

designed so that a variety of secondary leaders, such as assistant directors, costumers,

technicians, choreographers, and the like, work together to produce the primary

leader or director’s image or concept of the show (L. P. Goodman & R. A. Goodman,

1972). However, because theater groups are temporary systems that must combine

various talents and resources in short periods of time, often less than six weeks

(R. A. Goodman & L. P. Goodman, 1976), the process actually constrains professional

and human development, as directors rely on the standard ways of working together

rather than promoting creativity and collaboration (R. A. Goodman, 1981). Further,

this research does not provide descriptions of how the various leaders actually

communicate and coordinate their shared leadership roles.

In one recent study, Kramer (2002) included a few observations about leadership

in a community theater group. He noted that the sole director of the drama initiated

most of the task structure throughout the production, from tryouts through

rehearsals and performances. The director established her role as leader by structuring

the rehearsal time, instructing people about how to move and interpret lines, and

providing feedback concerning the quality of their efforts. In another study, Kramer

(2004) found that directors face a number of dialectical tensions, such as tensions

between a need for predictability and creativity, preciseness and flexibility, and

planned and spontaneous leadership. However, neither study offered much insight

into how leadership is shared among the multiple secondary directors needed for a

musical production.

Research Question

The review of the previous research concerning leadership suggests that little is

known about how leadership is accomplished in settings with a shared leadership

structure involving multiple primary and secondary designated leaders. Similarly,

research on community theater provides little information concerning how the

process of sharing leadership operates in that setting. As a result, this study was

designed to address the following question:

RQ1: How does communication function in a shared leadership structure to

create a community theater production?

Methods

Qualitative research methods are particularly appropriate for exploring new areas of

research (Lindlof, 1995). Since this study extended previous research by exploring

shared leadership in a natural group, an ethnographic method seemed particularly

appropriate. Ethnographic research provides a thick, rich description of a group or

culture (Fetterman, 1989). Ethnographers actively participate in a culture to

146 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

understand it by walking about in it rather than examining reports or maps about it

(Rubin, Rubin, & Piele, 2000). Four main processes of ethnography were used in

answering the research question above: (a) gaining entrance; (b) creating a research

trail; (c) analyzing the data to create understanding and theory; and (d) verifying the

findings (Fetterman, 1989).

Gaining Entry

Midwest Community Theater (MCT)1 owns and operates a community theater in a

small, warehouse-type building that includes a theater with seating for about 180

patrons and a small lobby, along with changing and storage rooms. MCT presents

about eight theatrical productions annually. I entered MCT like other community

members; I responded to ads that MCT placed in local newspapers and on its website

announcing auditions for an upcoming presentation of a rock opera musical based

on a Biblical story.

Auditions occurred on two consecutive nights in a local church basement. When

I arrived for auditions on the first evening, I knew only one other person among

50�/60 people present. As we entered the room, we were instructed to complete an

audition sheet asking for contact and demographic information, previous theater

experiences, and any known conflicts we had with the posted rehearsal schedule.

During the auditions, we interacted with the primary director and three of the

secondary leaders.

About 10 minutes after the designated time, the director, Carah, collected the

audition sheets and explained the audition process. First, she called on us one at a

time to sing a song we had prepared. Next, Alan, the music director, taught first the

men and then the women a brief section of one of the show’s songs. We sang in

groups and then in pairs. At that point, Jackie, the assistant director, informed us

that, if we wanted a small singing part but did not want a dancing part, we could

leave. Only one man left. Next, the choreographer, Terri, taught the men and then the

women a brief set of dance movements for a different song. We performed the steps

in small groups. Terri encouraged the men to take roles in the men’s chorus because,

she said, ‘‘They really make the show.’’ Then, Carah thanked us for coming and told

us that results would be posted on the church door and the MCT door the morning

after the second evening of tryouts.

I went to the church door that morning and was initially disappointed because I

was not cast in any of the smaller roles that I thought I might receive, but then was

surprised that I had been selected for a role in the male chorus, the group Terri said

was so important to the show. I had unobtrusively gained entrance into the group.

Creating a Research Trail

Qualitative researchers generally use more than one method of data collection

(Lindlof, 1995). After receiving IRB approval for the study and joining the group, I

asked Carah for permission to collect three types of data: observations of group

activities, artifacts (group documents including e-mails), and interviews with the

Shared Leadership 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

participants. She granted permission contingent on cast members’ agreement. All cast

members consented to participate in the study.

I began writing field notes at auditions and at all subsequent group activities.

I attended 25 of 30 rehearsals, 14 performances, the final cast party, and a number of

social events at local restaurants or group members’ homes. During the more than

120 hours of observations, I consciously made ‘‘headnotes,’’ mental notes of details,

conversations, and impressions of events as they occurred, and then expanded these

into extensive field notes as soon as possible (Lindlof, 1995). This process resulted in

150 pages of field notes.

I collected all the written and electronic communication group members received.

The information generally included schedule updates, invitations to social events,

requests to help with set construction, words of praise and thanks, and a variety of

messages tangential to the group. I accumulated 84 unique messages, although many

messages were sent more than once when they were forwarded with new ones. Their

length ranged from a few lines to 2�/3 pages.

Once we began performing for the public, I asked each group member (cast,

crew, and leaders) to participate in a semi-structured interview. All agreed,

although four missed due to schedule conflicts. I was able to interview 26 of 30

group members including all of the primary and secondary leaders. The interviews,

lasting 25�/50 minutes each, were taped and transcribed, which resulted in 296

pages of transcripts.

Analyzing the Data

Although it is impossible to approach data without prior expectations or

assumptions, ethnographers allow the themes to emerge from the data rather

than attempting to fit preconceived categories (Lindlof, 1995). The process of

identifying the themes occurred in a cyclical, not a linear, pattern. The process was

ongoing. Based on my observations, I tentatively identified some themes which I

then explored in the interviews and additional observations. Because the data

contained information unrelated to group leadership as part of an ongoing research

agenda (e.g., how members balance work, family, and theater), I began my analysis

by separating data that directly or indirectly related to leading and organizing the

production from the rest, a process known as data reduction (Lindlof, 1995). I then

repeatedly read those field notes, artifacts, and interview transcripts to identify

themes, particularly those that occurred in at least two of the data sets. Through

the constant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), I grouped the data into

categories and developed labels for the categories or themes. I provide exemplars of

each theme in the findings.

Verification

In keeping with Creswell’s (1997) recommendation, I used two forms of verification.

First, as a type of face validity, I included quotations from field notes and interviews

to allow readers to make their own assessments of the findings reported here. Second,

148 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

I conducted member checking in which participants responded to the manuscript.

One secondary leader and two other group members read a draft of the manuscript

and commented on the analysis and conclusions. Because they agreed that the

analysis was very accurate, the manuscript was not changed.

Findings

The original intent of this study was to examine shared leadership as it typically

occurs in musical theater with various secondary leaders serving under a primary

leader, the director. Leadership in this production did not function as expected. The

stage manager, Martha, described the breakdown of this typically hierarchical pattern

when she noted, ‘‘Usually, the director is really the main one in charge. Um, in this

one it was different.’’ It was apparent immediately that Carah was taking a passive role

that provided little leadership to the group. This created a leadership void at the top

since the secondary leaders were sharing leadership with little direction from Carah.

The data analysis provided evidence of this leadership void and group members’

reaction to it, as well as evidence of how secondary leaders and group members

communicated to share leadership and enable the group to achieve a successful

production despite the leadership void at the top.

Problems with Leadership

Indicative of leadership problems, 12 of 21 cast and crew members mentioned

leadership problems when they were asked what they liked the least about this

particular production. None of the five formal leaders responded this way, although

each mentioned leadership issues when subsequently asked about the leadership. The

data analysis suggested four themes relating to leadership problems: Carah’s

recognition of her own limited leadership role, a lack of specific direction, a lack

of vision, and a lack of coordination among directors.

Limited leadership. Carah readily admitted to her limited leadership as director. In

her interview, she described why she chose to direct a musical instead of a drama and

why she expected to rely on the assistant director to take on much of the directing

role:

In straight plays, it’s the director, I mean for everything as far as giving the actors,um, tips which I don’t feel like I’m capable of because I haven’t been an actor. . . . SoJackie was my helper as far as, she knows, she’s an actress and I relied on her a lotfor the direction of telling people what they needed to do . . . because I am just not,um, I start to look at everything and I don’t focus in as much and that’s why I needsomebody like Jackie. . . . ’Cause I’m, I have a tendency to, oh, it’ll be fine [laughs].She’s more of the [laughs], it needs to be this way [laughs]. . . . I’m detail orientedas far as making sure the set, making sure everything gets done.

Here Carah stated that she was not capable of providing much direction to the actors

and relied on Jackie. She blamed this on her inexperience and inability to focus on

what happens on stage except in general terms. She saw her strength as her ability to

Shared Leadership 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

take care of other production details, such as organizing the group and taking care of

the sets. Along these lines, Carah kept us informed about rehearsal schedule changes

and coordinated the work days for costumes and scenery. Given her own admission

of lack of directing cast members, it is not surprising that cast members consistently

mentioned problems with a lack of direction and vision from her, as well as a lack of

coordination among the leaders.

Lack of direction. Cast members voiced numerous complaints about the lack of

direction, in general, and from Carah, in particular. In a typical complaint, Kevin, a

soloist, commented:

And the director, the director didn’t do anything for the most part. And that, that,

and with a show like this, I would think with any show . . . it seems obvious that

you need to have a very strong-willed head on the snake. It’s to tell everyone what

to do. And this show didn’t have it.

In this excerpt, Kevin complained specifically about Carah not providing leadership,

although others complained about the entire leadership group. These complaints

varied from criticisms about wasting people’s time to failing to give direction. During

one rehearsal, Rachel, a featured dancer, complained she had aged 15 years in the last

20 minutes. When I asked her why, she responded, ‘‘You mean the delays and wasted

time? If somebody would take the initiative and make some decisions and provide

direction, it wouldn’t take so long.’’ Here she complained about time wasted due to a

lack of direction from all the leaders. Most cast members felt that the leaders failed to

provide the right amount of direction.

Lack of vision. In addition to failing to give specific directions, group members

reported that Carah failed to communicate any vision for the production. Although

a few members suggested that Carah had a vision but was unable to communicate

it to the group, others simply emphasized that she did not communicate any vision

to the secondary leaders or the cast. Pat, the lighting technician, said this in her

interview:

It’s the director’s job to create the vision for the show, and it’s the director’s staff ’s

job to create that vision. And there were lots of times when, um, that didn’t happen

and the individual staff person had to guess at what the vision, what the overall

vision was, and then create that.

Like others, Pat felt that the secondary leaders were unable to lead effectively because

Carah had not communicated to them or the cast her vision of the show. Given the

lack of a shared vision by the leaders, it is not surprising that they had difficulty

working together.

Lack of coordination. The other common leadership complaint concerned the lack

of coordination among the various leaders. The lack of coordination was particularly

evident when Alan taught us one version of a song and then Terri would have us

dance to a different version of it, leaving us confused. Brian, a leading character

complained:

150 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

This has been the most dysfunctional group of five people I have ever worked

with. . . . The problem is those people never communicated with each other, and

still don’t. . . . And if they do communicate with each other, they’re pulling each

other aside and arguing about something. . . . Those five people just never

have communicated with each other, and you can tell when you’re at rehearsals.

I mean they’re all sitting apart from each other; they just don’t get along

very well.

Brian voiced the common complaint that the five leaders were not working together

in a coordinated manner. He felt that, since they did not communicate effectively

with each other before, during, or after rehearsals, they often provided contradictory

leadership. Many of the cast members commented on this lack of coordination

among the leaders.

Reactions to Leadership Problems

In addition to describing the problems with a lack of leadership, group members

communicated their reactions to the problems during group activities and in the

interviews. Three responses were apparent. The leaders tended to minimize the

leadership problems. Cast members tended either to vent their frustrations or to

resign themselves to the problems.

Minimizing problems by leaders. The leaders either denied there were problems or

recognized them, but minimized their impact. Alan stated this concerning the

leadership:

I think it was fine. I think the best thing was all of us tried to keep a good

atmosphere during the rehearsals. I think this is very important . . . especially in

community theater where nobody’s earning a dime . . . so let’s just try to enjoy

ourselves. I think it’s been very, very fine.

Alan suggested that everything about the leadership was fine, particularly given that

this was community theater. Similarly, Terri commented, ‘‘I think we always got along

very well.’’

Although these two denied that problems existed, others minimized them. Martha

remarked, ‘‘I think it worked once we figured it out, but I think it was kind of

confusing at first because not everybody knew who necessarily to check with.’’ Carah

recognized some issues but also minimized the problems:

We thought we were all on the same page when we met before we had rehearsal. But

then when we started rehearsals, it got kind of crazy. Then once they started

working together and came to rehearsals at the same time, then it worked out

[laughs]. I was really worried the first couple weeks.

In her comments, Carah subtly recognizes her own lack of leadership by suggesting

that ‘‘they started working together’’ rather than stating that ‘‘we started working

together.’’ She recognized that the various leaders were not working together at first,

but then minimized the problem by saying they worked it out after a few rehearsals

without her assistance.

Shared Leadership 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Venting and complaining by cast members. Cast members communicated their

frustrations with the direction regularly, both during and after rehearsals. A number

of times cast members commented angrily to someone else during a rehearsal,

‘‘Would somebody make a decision?’’ In a more creative form of venting, cast

members sometimes created alternative words to the show’s songs to express

frustration. When a rehearsal continued late because of ineffective leadership, I

overheard one cast member changing the words of one song to ‘‘Some sleep would

do.’’ Although voicing frustration to each other allowed cast members to vent their

frustration and created a common bond for them, it did little to address the

leadership problems.

Resignation. While some members complained about the problems, others simply

resigned themselves to the problems as typical of this show and community theater.

Tom, a member of the male chorus, explained his attitude toward leadership

problems this way:

People were upset about times changing, or you know, things not being set, and tome that’s just like, ‘‘Well that’s how it really works all the time,’’ and it seems likeeveryone’s been in shows before, so, just it seems like it’s the same old thing, youknow. You know it’s going to happen, so you just deal with it.

Tom suggested that people should not be getting upset about the leadership problems

because they should recognize them as a natural part of community theater. He felt

they should resign themselves to these problems and deal with them instead of

complaining.

Filling in the Leadership

The lack of leadership and the resulting negative reactions might suggest that the

performances would be of low quality and unsuccessful. In fact, nearly all

performances were sold out, and the audiences gave strong approval to the show.

Two themes indicated why this success was possible: secondary leaders and cast

members provided necessary leadership.

Secondary leaders. Although an earlier theme suggests there was limited coordina-

tion among the secondary leaders, they did take on leadership roles at various times.

Most cast members recognized that Terri did most of the directing in the early

rehearsals. For example, Sandra, in the women’s chorus, made a typical comment:

‘‘Really, I think the person who really pulled the whole play together was Terri. She

did more than anybody in terms of working on that and giving direction.’’ Given that

the show was a rock opera with continuous music, it was not surprising that cast

members saw the choreographer as filling this responsibility. She taught the cast most

of the blocking (e.g., when to enter and where to stand) and all the dance movements.

In one of the few instances when Carah took the initiative and blocked the curtain

call before Terri arrived, Terri changed it during that same rehearsal. This incident

showed the lack of coordination among the leaders. Carah was ineffective as a leader,

and Terri was filling the leadership role in this instance.

152 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Although Terri provided much of the direction early on, she was absent from a

number of rehearsals, especially near the end, and attended only a few of the 14

performances. With Terri absent, Jackie took on the role of providing most of the

comments and feedback to the cast late in the production. Cast members sometimes

complained about some of her specific suggestions or her delivery style (abrasive or

contradictory) and timing (during performances), but they appreciated her role. One

woman in the chorus commented:

With a group this size, we really needed somebody to say, this, this, this, you’re not

doing this right, we need to fix this, and Jackie kind of took that role on towards

the end. I think maybe she realized that, or maybe that’s just the way that they

prefer to work, you know, with Jackie kind of being the stronger hand.

Like others, she appreciated that Jackie assumed the directing role near the end,

although she was uncertain how Jackie emerged in that role. The role was not

specifically delegated to Jackie; yet, once performances began, Jackie provided the

only feedback to the cast.

Alan provided a consistent, but limited, level of secondary leadership throughout

the production. Some cast members thought that he let the other leaders, especially

Terri, ‘‘walk all over him.’’ Others appreciated his cooperative nature and the way he

consistently supported the cast. For example, another woman in the chorus

commented:

The musical director, he did a good job. He was very supportive. He, um, I think he

kind of learned as he went. I felt like at first he wasn’t sure how to get us to learn the

stuff or how we were. . . . I think he, he got better and better and better.

Like others, she felt that Alan could have done more as the music director, but also

felt that he did provide enough support and direction. During the cast meetings

before performance, he led the warm-ups and often provided general comments that

encouraged the cast.

The secondary leaders provided much of the leadership for the group. However,

the pattern of sharing of leadership seemed to change over time. Terri provided the

most direction initially, but when she was absent late in the production, Jackie

provided the most leadership. Throughout rehearsals and performances, Alan

provided consistent support for the cast. This division of roles suggests some

separation of task and relational leadership roles.

Other cast members as leaders. The other way that individuals filled the leadership

void involved various cast members either directly or indirectly taking on leadership

roles. I recorded in my field notes that Rachel emphasized the leadership of the cast in

response to my comments relating to how the show was finally coming together at

one of the final rehearsals:

I mentioned that there seem to be two ways shows come together. One approach is

where the director is real organized up front and you kind of coast into the final

weeks of the production because everyone is ready earlier. The other is things are

rather disorganized and so forth and then the director pulls it together at the last

Shared Leadership 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

minute. Rachel corrected me, ‘‘You mean the cast.’’ I agreed that it really was the

cast that worked out many of the problems in blocking, costumes, or whatever.

As this conversation suggests, we recognized that the director did not bring this show

together. Instead, we felt that the cast members shared many of the leadership roles in

working out the production’s details.

Sometimes the cast assumed permanent leadership roles. For example, Nathan, a

chorus member, assumed the role of organizing the storage and operation of scene

changes without much direction from the formal leaders, including the stage

manager. He did many scene changes himself and organized people for complicated

ones. No matter when I arrived, he already had everything in place for the first act.

The stage manager normally performs these functions but, instead, she accepted

Nathan’s leadership and primarily opened and closed the stage curtain.

In a variety of other situations, cast members assumed temporary leadership roles.

Cast members assumed temporary leadership by teaching dance steps to others or

structuring the rehearsal. Cast members frequently asked another cast member to

teach or re-teach them the choreography, rather than asking Terri. Brian got

rehearsals started on a number of occasions by leading the group through vocal

warm-ups when Alan was absent or late.

Cast members also assumed temporary leadership roles by making production

decisions in place of the leaders. At one rehearsal when Alan was absent, we were

having difficulty with the music in one place. I recorded the following in my field

notes:

There was a problem with the transitions where there were six or seven repeats in a

row. Brian announced that we would only do three of them. No one questioned his

authority to make this decision, although they asked him why change. He said it

would be easier. Alan was not present to give directions. The first time we tried it, it

didn’t work because we didn’t know when to start. Gary (pianist) and Brian looked

at the music some more and decided on a three beat pause. Brian demonstrated it

and we did it together right. Then we did the whole dance again.

This illustrates how a cast member assumed the responsibility of making decisions for

the production, decisions that would typically be made by the music director in

conjunction with the director. However, since the one was absent and the other said

nothing, Brian led by making a decision for the entire group. The change he made

became permanent.

Another way that cast members helped to lead the group was indirectly by making

suggestions or telling secondary leaders what should be done. Their ideas were often

adopted by working through secondary leaders. For example, at one rehearsal, I

observed Jackie talking to two cast members about what comments she should give to

the cast at the end of rehearsal. My field notes concerning her comments that night

indicate this:

Jackie went next. She repeated a number of the ideas that Jeff and Mitch gave her.

She emphasized that we must spend time outside of rehearsal learning our parts.

She said that even though it’s a musical, it needed to be realistic.

154 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

In another instance, I told Jackie that there was no group cast meeting prior to the

previous performance. She was surprised since Carah had been responsible for that,

but from that time on, she called the cast meetings before performances. To confirm

that this role was not delegated to Jackie, I asked Carah in my interview of her if she

assigned this responsibility to Jackie. She said, ‘‘No, I just, I knew she would take care

of it. She’s has that kind of take charge, kind of [laughs].’’ She was unaware that no

cast meeting occurred at one performance or that my suggestion had encouraged

Jackie to take on that role. In these situations, cast members indirectly provided

leadership to the group. By making suggestions to Jackie who enacted them, cast

members influenced or led the group as their ideas became part of the way things

were done for the group.

This indirect approach even influenced Carah to act as the director in a couple of

instances. During a dress rehearsal, intermission had dragged on much longer than it

should have, but no one was taking charge of starting the second act. I recorded this

interaction in my field notes:

Nathan suggested to Gary that if the orchestra would start playing the entr’acte for

the second act, maybe it would get things going. It seemed to help, because after

they play a little bit of it, Carah yelled out, ‘‘Places everyone,’’ and we get started.

In this case, Nathan provided leadership indirectly to the group by encouraging Gary,

the pianist, to start playing the music for the second act. Once Gary started the music,

it appeared to cause the director to take action that she had previously not taken.

As these various examples illustrate, cast members enacted some of the leadership

roles. They assumed responsibility for some aspects of the show, made decisions

about other aspects, and indirectly influenced the designated leaders to enact their

suggestions.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to provide a rich description of the process by which a

shared leadership structure worked in a community theater group, an applied setting

rather than a laboratory. The analysis indicated that the primary leader, the director,

assumed a passive role and failed to communicate her vision of the show to others.

This resulted in a lack of direction for group members and a lack of coordination

among the secondary leaders. Whereas the various leaders minimized these problems,

cast members tended to be frustrated and either vented to each other or resigned

themselves to such problems. The group accomplished a successful production when,

out of necessity, the secondary leaders gradually developed a pattern of sharing the

leadership role. The choreographer primarily led at first, and the assistant director led

later. The stage manager provided minimal structure during performances. The

music director assumed a supportive role throughout. In addition, cast members

shared in the leadership by taking on responsibilities either temporarily or

permanently, or communicating ideas to secondary leaders who then enacted

Shared Leadership 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

them. These findings contribute to an understanding of shared and emergent

leadership, and have a number of applications in group settings.

Shared Leadership

The shared leadership structure of this musical functioned differently to the shared

leadership of democratic leadership styles or teamwork. First, the primary leader

did not act in relationship with secondary leaders or group members (Fletcher &

Kaufer, 2003). Whereas scholarship on shared leadership implicitly assumes that the

designated leader actively invites the participation needed to create shared

leadership (Graen, 2003), the situation that developed here demonstrated that

shared leadership can or must develop in situations where the leader does not

actively facilitate its development. In this case, the secondary leaders and other

group members were forced to work out shared leadership with little direction from

a primary leader.

Second, although the secondary leaders treated each other in a respectful,

egalitarian manner (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003), there were power differences over

time as they did not take equal roles in leading the group. At any given moment,

the leadership may not have appeared to be shared as one individual took charge of

the group; however, viewed over time, leadership was shared as various individuals

assumed leadership roles. Terri, at first, and Jackie, later on, assumed the role of

primary leaders while Alan and Martha took supportive and minimal roles

throughout. Other cast members assumed leadership roles at different times

in the process. Thus, shared leadership is not an end state to be accomplished,

but rather an ongoing process of balancing leadership roles over time, in which

various secondary leaders and group members assume leadership functions

temporarily.

Viewing shared leadership as a balancing act rather than an end state suggests the

value of examining it from a dialectical perspective. Kramer (2004) found a

dialectical tension between group members’ desire for both ordered and emergent

activities. On the one hand, too little order or structure from the director, as

occurred here, created a leadership void; secondary leaders and cast members

responded negatively to this and had some difficulty, at least initially, determining

how to share the leadership role. On the other hand, too much structure from the

director would likely have inhibited shared leadership as decision making would

have become top down. Individuals involved in shared leadership must balance this

dialectical tension.

Finally, in this case, the existence of a shared leadership structure of primary and

secondary leaders had only a limited influence on how the actual shared leadership

evolved. Secondary leaders seemed to pass important leadership functions between

each other, while at the same time cast members assumed leadership functions or

indirectly led the group. This supports a functional perspective of leadership which

recognizes that various members besides designated leaders fulfill important leader-

ship functions (Gouran, 2003; Pravitt, 1999).

156 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Leadership Emergence

The results suggest that leadership emerges in shared leadership structures in ways

similar to zero-history, leaderless groups. For example, being too passive resulted in

Carah being eliminated from consideration for leadership (Geier, 1967; Pavitt, 1999).

Demonstrating an ability to assist the group best in meeting its needs, as Terri did

during the early rehearsals and Jackie did during later rehearsals and performances,

allowed others to emerge as leaders from a friendly but competitive struggle for

leadership (Watson & Hoffman, 2004). Similarly, Nathan emerged as a leader by

demonstrating contentiousness and the ability to direct action in organizing the scene

changes (Johnson & Bechler, 1998; Taggar et al., 1999). However, these results

demonstrate that, unlike short-term, laboratory groups, leadership emergence is a

fluid process in other group settings. Instead of a single leader emerging, as is

common in laboratory groups, in this setting the leadership shifted as different

individuals emerged as leaders at various times to assist the group in completing a

range of tasks.

Applications

The ethnographic methods enabled the identification of important communication

behaviors in creating shared leadership that have not previously been described. First,

the findings identified some important communication behaviors for primary leaders

who must share leadership with others. As in many settings, the structure for typical

theater groups indicates a hierarchy of influence with the director at the top, but the

director must cooperate with, coordinate, and delegate to secondary leaders. These

results suggest three characteristics of effective primary leaders in similar shared

leadership structures: communicating a vision to the secondary leaders and the

group, providing direction for completing the task, and coordinating the efforts of

the leadership team. In this setting, the absence of these three qualities highlighted

their importance to group members. Other important characteristics that contribute

to shared leadership may have gone unnoticed in this study because they were present

and not problematic.

Next, the findings identified important communication behaviors of the secondary

leaders in shared leadership situations. Initially, a lack of coordination was

problematic; eventually, the secondary leaders developed a pattern of shared

leadership that was effective. In this situation, the task leadership seemed to transfer

from the choreographer to the assistant director over time with the music director

taking more of a supportive or relationship leadership role throughout. Although

other effective patterns of sharing leadership no doubt exist, the results emphasize the

importance of coordinating the sharing of leadership rather than creating

dissatisfaction among group members who become agitated while waiting for

secondary leaders to determine how they would share the leadership. The patterns

may vary depending on whether the assigned leader is active or passive and on

whether the division of responsibilities is negotiated at the beginning or emerges over

time.

Shared Leadership 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The results even suggest that the patterns of communication by secondary leaders

have a significant impact on group outcomes, in this case greater than those of the

primary leader. Although studies have compared communication differences between

successful and unsuccessful group leaders (e.g., Ginnet, 1990), the focus of such

research has been on the communication of the assigned leaders without considera-

tion of informal or assigned secondary leaders. It was fortuitous that the assigned

leader assumed a passive role in this setting. Despite this, the group largely succeeded

as indicated by sold-out performances to enthusiastic audiences. In this case, the

quality of communication and effort by secondary leaders was more influential on

group outcomes than the communication of the primary leader.

In addition, this study identifies important communication behaviors that group

members can use to participate in shared leadership. Group members assumed

leadership roles throughout the production by temporarily or permanently taking on

leadership responsibilities or by making decisions for the group. The results suggest

two specific communication strategies group members can use effectively to share in

the leadership. In a number of situations, group members took on leadership roles by

directly communicating their roles to others. Nathan communicated his role as

coordinator of scene changes and enlisted others to assist him. Brian communicated

his decisions about the music to the group, which accepted them with some

explanation and probably because they solved a problem. These direct forms of

communication by non-leadership members were important for the success of the

group.

In other situations, group members used indirect communication to influence or

lead the group. By making suggestions to secondary leaders or simply starting group

activities, group members influenced leaders who subsequently appeared to initiate

those actions. This finding emphasizes the fact that, in natural groups in which

members interact outside meetings, important leadership activity may be enacted

elsewhere and may not be evident during formal group meetings. A member who is

silent at group meetings may be very influential in leading the group by indirectly

communicating ideas to assigned leaders who appear to be the originators of the

ideas when they present them. Such indirect influence is not often observable like it

was here, especially in laboratory groups.

Future Research

The results raise some theoretical concerns for future group leadership research. An

assumption of most leadership research is that the communication behaviors of the

assigned leader have a significant impact on group outcomes. In the same way that it

has been suggested that we question how much group communication processes

really influence the quality of decision making (e.g., Hewes, 1996), we may need to

question under what circumstances communication from assigned leaders really

matters. This production was successful despite ineffective communication from the

assigned leader. As one cast member commented during a rehearsal, ‘‘The only good

decision Carah made was casting a talented group of people, 90% of whom care.’’

158 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

This suggests that formal leadership communication may be important only in

certain situations. In ambiguous situations or ones with unmotivated secondary

leaders and members, the communication behaviors of the assigned leader probably

have a significant impact. In clear situations, or ones with highly motivated

secondary leaders and members, they may not make much difference. In this study,

the ability of secondary leaders to provide direction and feedback and the ability of

cast members to solve problems or organize group functions mattered more than the

behaviors of the formal, assigned leader.

The passive role of the primary director may appear to limit the application of

these findings to other settings. However, the fact that passive leadership styles are

recognized in style approaches to the study of leadership (laissez-faire in Lewin, 1951;

or impoverished in Blake & Mouton, 1964) indicates that this is a relatively common

situation. In addition, the setting of community theater may have limited

transferability to other settings, although clearly there are many other situations

that involve similar types of shared leadership structures. On product teams, different

group members often have sole responsibility for certain task functions under some

overall leader. In voluntary organizations, different individuals often have sole

responsibility for certain aspects of the organization, and members must work with

multiple leaders. The lack of any significant direction from the primary leader seems

to have led secondary leaders and cast members to emerge as leaders in this

production. Invitations to lead by a primary leader might also cause secondary

leaders and other group members to emerge as leaders. Future research can determine

the implications of these findings for other settings involving shared leadership

structures.

Besides examining shared leadership in other settings, future research should

explore a number of issues. Although in this group of primary and secondary leaders

there did not seem to be any overt negotiation of responsibilities for sharing

leadership, future research could examine how leaders discuss and negotiate sharing

their roles as they begin to work together and then examine how they manage

changes in those relationships over time as their situations change. Research should

also examine other ways that other group members assume or negotiate leadership

functions in groups.

Most group leadership research has focused on the communication and actions of

a designated leader. This examination of shared leadership in a community theater

group emphasizes the importance of examining the communication and behaviors of

secondary leaders and the ways that other group members take on leadership roles in

creating a successful production. Further examination of shared leadership will lead

to a better understanding of leadership in group and organizational settings.

Note

[1] The names of the production company and all the participants have been changed to

maintain anonymity.

Shared Leadership 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

References

Barge, K. J. (1996). Leadership skills and the dialectics of leadership in group decision making. In R.

Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed.,

pp. 301�/342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 , 408�/437.

Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1984). The power of obedience. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 29 , 540�/549.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid . Houston, TX: Gulf.

Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions .

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dalrymple, J. (1977). The complete handbook for community theater: From picking the plays to taking

the bows . New York: Drake.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership research. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The

new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods

(pp. 379�/439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Hamlett, S. R. (2003). The narrative basis of leader�/member exchange. In G. B.

Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity: LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1, pp. 117�/144).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process (2nd ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility. In C. L. Pearce & J.

A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 21�/47).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Galanes, G. J. (2003). In their own words: An exploratory study of bona fide group leaders. Small

Group Research , 34 , 741�/770.

Gard, R. E., & Burley, G. S. (1959). Community theatre: Idea and achievement . New York: Duell,

Sloan, & Pearce.

Geier, J. G. (1967). A trait approach to the study of leadership in small groups. Journal of

Communication , 11 , 316�/323.

Ginnet, R. C. (1990). Airline cockpit crews. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those

that don’t) (pp. 427�/448). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Press.

Goodman, L. P., & Goodman, R. A. (1972). Theater as temporary system. California Management

Review, 15 , 103�/108.

Goodman, R. A. (1981). Temporary systems: Professional development, manpower utilization, task

effectiveness, and innovation . New York: Praeger.

Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: A

study of professional development and manpower*/the theater case. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 21 , 494�/501.

Gouran, D. S. (1999). Communication in groups: The emergence and evolution of the field of

study. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group

communication theory and research (pp. 3�/36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gouran, D. S. (2003). Leadership as the art of counter active influence in decision-making and

problem-solving groups. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman

(Eds.), Small group communication theory and practice: An anthology (8th ed., pp. 172�/183).

Los Angeles: Roxbury.

160 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Graen, G. B. (2003). Role making onto the starting work team using LMX leadership: Diversity as

an asset. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity: LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1,

pp. 1�/28). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Graen, G. B., Hui, C., & Taylor, E. T. (2004). A new approach to team leadership: Upward,

downward, and horizontal differentiation. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), New frontiers of leadership:

LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 2, pp. 33�/66). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. M. Staw &

L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175�/208).

Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human

resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An

amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.),

Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 179�/212). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Hiller, N. J., & Day, D. V. (2003). LMX and teamwork: The challenges and opportunities of diversity.

In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity: LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1, pp. 29�/57).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior�/subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological

Bulletin , 86 , 1201�/1222.

Johnson, S. D., & Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between listening effectiveness and

leadership emergence: Perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small Group Research , 29 , 452�/471.

Karau, S. J., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Invited reaction: Gender, social roles, and the emergence of

leaders. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 , 321�/327.

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development

project groups. Journal of Management , 18 , 489�/501.

Ketrow, S. M. (1999). Nonverbal aspects of group communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M.

S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 251�/287).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kramer, M. W. (2002). Communication in a community theater group: Managing multiple group

roles. Communication Studies , 53 , 151�/170.

Kramer, M. W. (2004). Toward a theory of dialectics in group communication: An ethnographic

study of a community theater group. Communication Monographs , 71 , 311�/332.

Larwood, L., Falbe, C. M., Kriger, M. P., & Miesing, P. (1995). Structure and meaning of

organizational vision. Academy of Management Journal , 38 , 740�/769.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . New York: Harper & Row.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication�/leadership relationship: Input�/

process�/output and functional models. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The

handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 313�/334). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

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

leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and

whys of leadership (pp. 1�/18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., & Piele, L. J. (2000). Communication research: Strategies and sources

(5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.

Rubin, R. S., Bartels, L. K., & Bommer, W. H. (2002). Are leaders smarter or do they just seem that

way? Exploring perceived intellectual competence and leadership emergence. Social Behavior

and Personality, 30 , 105�/118.

Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. M. (2003). Can team members share leadership? Foundations in

research and theory. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the

hows and whys of leadership (pp. 77�/102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shared Leadership 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science , 18 , 257�/273.

Stodgill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal

of Psychology, 25 , 35�/71.

Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams:

Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52 , 899�/926.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8 , 113�/164.

Watson, C., & Hoffman, L. R. (2004). The role of task-related behavior in the emergence of leaders:

The dilemma of the informed woman. Group and Organization Management , 29 , 659�/685.

Wise, C. M. (1923). Dramatics for school and community. Cincinnati, OH: Stewart Kidd.

Young, E. (1981). Theater for the community: Audience development and services . University Park,

PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management ,

15 , 251�/289.

162 M. W. Kramer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014