Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Board Team Leadership Revisited: A Conceptual Model of Shared Leadership in the Boardroom

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the slipstream of several large-scale corporate scandals, the board of directors has gained a pivotal position in the corporate governance debate. However, due to an overreliance on particular methodological (i.e. input–output studies) and theoretical (i.e. agency theory) research fortresses in past board research, academic knowledge concerning how this important governance mechanism actually operates and functions remains relatively limited. This theoretical paper aims to contribute to the promising stream of research which focuses on behavioural perspectives and processes within the corporate board, by delving into one of the research areas perhaps plagued most by these predominant approaches: board leadership. In adopting a team perspective on the board of directors our study goes beyond traditional board leadership research, which has turned a blind eye on actual leadership dynamics, by examining leadership processes and behaviours inside the board team. Specifically, we develop a conceptual framework addressing a novel and ethical approach to team leadership within the board, i.e. shared leadership, which has previously been demonstrated to result in performance benefits in various other team settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bammens, Y., Voordeckers, W., & Van Gils, A. (2008). Boards of directors in family firms: A generational perspective. Small Business Economics, 31(2), 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bammens, Y., Voordeckers, W., & Van Gils, A. (2011). Boards of directors in family businesses: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 134–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1), 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2), 247–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwen, R., & Taillieu, T. (2004). Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: Developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. D. (1964). T-group theory and laboratory method. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (1986). Leadership and organizations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascio, W. F. (2004). Board governance: A social system perspective. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 97–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development, team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 48–76). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, D. F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 211–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2009). Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and integrity: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 199–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on workgroup performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, D., & Hoffman, W. (1999). Gaining the ethical edge: Procedures for delivering values-driven management. Long Range Planning, 32(2), 179–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31(2), 134–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 329–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2003). Not the usual suspects: how to use board process to make boards better. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York, NY: Longmans Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2004). Context, behavior, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34(2), 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielsson, J., Huse, M., & Minichilli, A. (2007). Understanding the leadership role of the board chairperson through a team production approach. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandz, J., & Bird, F. G. (1996). The ethics of empowerment. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(4), 383–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Walton R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations, In Goodman P. S. et al. (Eds.) Designing effective work groups, pp. 72–119. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A. V., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. (2002). The principals’ other problems: Honest incompetence and the specification of objectives. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. (2005). Beyond self-interest: Agency theory and the board in a satisficing world. British Journal of Management, 16(S1), S55–S64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, D. (2003). Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. London: Department of Trade and Industry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A., Cannella, A., & Paetzold, R. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, D. M. (1988). Organizing, leadership, and skillful process. Journal of Management Studies, 25(2), 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H. (1998). A typology of the theories of the roles of governing boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6(2), 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (1998). Researching the dynamics of board-stakeholders relations. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2005). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioral perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16(S1), S65–S79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2007). Boards, governance and value creation: The human side of corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M., Nielsen, S. T., & Hagen, I. M. (2009). Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 581–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1996). Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(3), 409–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A., & Englander, E. (2005). A team production model of corporate governance. Academy of Management Executive, 19(3), 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organization and Human Performance, 22(3), 374–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrechts, F., Bouwen, R., Grieten, S., Huybrechts, J., & Schein, E. H. (2011). Learning to help through humble inquiry and implications for management research, practice, and education: An interview with Edgar H. Schein. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 131–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrechts, F., Taillieu, T., & Sips, K. (2010). Learning to work with interdependencies effectively: The case of the HRM forum of the suppliers teams at volvo cars gent. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(2), 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, B. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBlanc, R. W. (2005). Assessing board leadership. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(5), 654–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letendre, L. (2004). The dynamics of the boardroom. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorsch, J. W. (2009). Leadership: The key to effective boards. In J. A. Conger (Ed.), Boardroom realities: Building leaders across your board (pp. 25–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognitive-based trust as foundation for interpersonal cooperation on organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development.

  • McIntyre, M. L., Murphy, S. A., & Mitchell, P. (2007). The top team: Examining board composition and firm performance. Corporate Governance, 7(5), 547–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, A., Smith, B., Dixon, A., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minichilli, A., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2007). Board evaluations: Making a fit between the purpose and the system. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(4), 609–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, D. A. (2004). Building better boards. Harvard Business Review, 82, 102–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Corporate Directors. (2004). Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Board Leadership. Washington, DC: NACD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. E. (2009). Business leadership: Three levels of ethical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 525–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G. T., Benson, G. S., & Finegold, D. L. (2009). Corporate board attributes, team effectiveness and financial performance. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 704–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2008). The roles of vertical and shared leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 353–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams, Vol. 7 (pp. 115–139). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership on the longitudinal effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 13–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M., & McNulty, T. (1995). Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human Relations, 48(8), 845–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 5 (pp. 299–357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pick, K. (2009). First among equals: How board leaders lead. Corporate Board, 30, 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1987). Ethics in American companies: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(5), 383–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravasi, D., & Zattoni, A. (2006). Exploring the political side of board involvement in strategy: A study of mixed-ownership institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1673–1703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samra-Fredericks, D. (2000). Doing “boards-in-action” research—An ethnographic approach for the capture and analysis of directors’ and senior managers’ interactive routines. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8(3), 244–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., Dunfee, T. W., & Kline, M. J. (2005). Tone at the top: An ethical code for directors? Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1), 79–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Shared leadership in the management of group boundaries: A study of expulsions from officers’ training courses. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 235–249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2002). What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review, 80, 106–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soutar, G., McNeil, M. M., & Molster, C. (1994). The impact of the work environment on ethical decision making: Some Australian evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(5), 327–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Heuvel, J., Van Gils, A., & Voordeckers, W. (2006). Board roles in small and medium-sized family businesses: Performance and importance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(5), 467–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a behavioural theory of boards and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vansina, L. (1999). Towards a dynamic perspective on trust-building. In S. Schruijer (Ed.), Multi-organizational partnerships and cooperative strategy (pp. 47–52). Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M. S. (2005). Determinants of shared leadership in management teams. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 64–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KIZOK Research Center, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Maarten Vandewaerde, Wim Voordeckers & Frank Lambrechts

  2. School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Yannick Bammens

Authors
  1. Maarten Vandewaerde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim Voordeckers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Lambrechts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yannick Bammens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten Vandewaerde.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vandewaerde, M., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F. et al. Board Team Leadership Revisited: A Conceptual Model of Shared Leadership in the Boardroom. J Bus Ethics 104, 403–420 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0918-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0918-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation