What are the upsides and downsides of dispersed collaboration? Dispersed teams cross several boundaries, such as geographic, temporal, and organizational boundaries [1], primarily employing telecommunication and information technologies to accomplish a common task [2]. Their work and task context can be described along four key characteristics [3]: geographical dispersion [4], technology use [5], diversity [6], and task uncertainty [7]. Geographical dispersion, which is often mentioned as a key characteristic, is, however, a matter of degree (i. e., dispersed team are more or less virtual), rather than a dichotomous distinction between so-called co-located and virtual teams [8]. With today’s business environment being characterized by increasing globalization, a shift from hierarchical to flat or horizontal organizational structures, interorganizational cooperation, and the growing importance of knowledge-intensive products, dispersed collaboration offers fundamental advantages [2]. By creating dispersed teams, firms can leverage superior knowledge residing at different locations (e. g., technical knowledge, local market knowledge) by exploiting the advantages of information technology. Companies are also staffing projects with individuals at different sites to capture favorable labor costs [9] and to save travel costs [10]. However, it may prove highly difficult to capitalize on such potential benefits, as the four characteristics of dispersed teams (geographical dispersion [4], technology use, diversity, and task uncertainty) challenge the project team’s effectiveness (Fig. 1). Although it is generally assumed that dispersion negatively affects team performance, recent research has shown that dispersion does not negatively affect the team’s performance per se. As Hoegl et al. [11] demonstrated, teams being able to realize high levels of teamwork quality (i. e., openness, currency, and accuracy of information sharing, coordination of subtasks, the mutual support between team members, use of all team members’ potential, and effort and cohesion in the team [12]) can even realize higher levels of performance than their face-to-face counterparts. Moreover, Siebdrat et al. [13], drawing on contingency theory, show that dispersion’s negative effect on performance does not apply equally to all teams, but depends on the level of the task and socio-emotional team processes. Thus, the key question is: how can high levels of teamwork quality be achieved in dispersed teams? Will a hero leader solve the problems of dispersed teams? In search of ways to achieve high levels of teamwork quality one automatically considers the project leader’s role. The e-leadership concept (i. e., leadership mediated by information technology) [14] specifically argues that project leaders of dispersed teams can exhibit the same leadership content and style as leaders of face-to-face teams do, if they were to realize high levels of “felt presence” [15]. However, even if the leader does manage “reach, speed, and permanence” in his or her communication style, i. e., successfully dealing with technology 22 l projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 32 WISSEN Miriam Müthel, Martin Högl Tackling the Leadership Challenge in Dispersed Project Teams Leading dispersed teams poses critical challenges in respect of the team members being separated, and the tasks dynamic and complex. “Hands-on” influencing attempts by vertical formal or informal team leaders are largely ineffective in this context, leading to a naturally arising leadership vacuum in dispersed teams. Focusing on this domain, we adapt the concept of shared leadership to the context of dispersed teams. Moreover, we extend this concept by specifying the contributions that vertical leaders could make to the effectiveness of shared leadership in dispersed projects. Fig. 1: Challenging boundary conditions; © WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 32 use as one of the characteristics of dispersed teams, the other elements (geographic dispersion, diversity and task uncertainty) pose additional challenges. The contextual characteristics of geographic dispersion and national diversity are disabling factors, making it difficult for the project leader to exert the necessary social influence across geographic and cultural distances [16]. Simultaneously, complex and uncertain tasks demand that project leaders ensure efficient and effective task processes [17]. Even though advanced use of the latest information and communication technology may partly mitigate this effect (e. g., e-leadership), recent surveys demonstrate that 50 percent of virtual teams fail to meet either strategic or operational objectives due to the inability to manage the distributed workforce [18]. Can team members serve as an additional source of leadership? Since vertical leaders only have limited effectiveness, attention is drawn to the team members as a potential (if not necessary) source of leadership in dispersed project teams. Extant research indicates that team members are being increasingly focused on with regard to leadership in teams [19]. Recent literature offers several concepts of team leadership, including (1) distributed leadership [20], (2) collective leadership [19], (3) team self-leadership [21], and (4) shared leadership [22]. By extending these prior conceptualizations to the context of dispersed project teams, we specifically regard teamlevel leadership as an additional source of leadership instead of conceptualizing it as a substitute [23], arguing that the vertical leaders remain critical to team performance, even if their roles change in this setting. Although the four leadership approaches all hint at leadership enactment by the team, they are either too unspecific or not applicable in the dispersed team context. In his work on distributed leadership, Gronn [20] maintains a general description of when and how the distribution of leadership can be found without offering any advice with regard to team-level leadership behaviors. On the other hand, collective leadership and team self-leadership approaches do offer such advice, mentioning various leadership activities that should be enacted collectively. With regard to collective leadership, Hiller et al. [19] refer to planning and organizing, problem solving, support and consideration, and development and mentoring. Team self-leadership as conceptualized by Neck et al. (1996) encompasses behavioral strategies (e. g., team self-observation, a team’s collective effort, and team goal-setting) and cognitive strategies (e. g., team beliefs and assumptions, team self-talk, and team mental imagery), as well as specific thought patterns (e. g., collective opportunity or obstacle thinking). While providing valuable input for the conceptualization of team-level leadership, these approaches assume that collective action can take place anywhere at any moment. In our context, in which teams are physically dispersed, collective face-to-face action is largely inhibited. Shared leadership, as proposed by Pearce et al. [24], does not directly address this problem of collective face-to-face action in dispersed settings. However, by describing simultaneous, ongoing shared leadership processes within the team (Houghton et al., 2003), which are characterized by the “serial emergence” of informal as well as formal leaders, the authors offer useful general advice that is applicable to our context. Sharing leadership - does this solve the problem? For our theorizing, we take the shared leadership concept as formulated by Pearce and colleagues [24] as our point of departure. Shared leadership has been conceptualized in general [24, 25], emphasizing the relationship of leadership and followership [24], and the relationship of shared leadership and vertical leadership [26]. Empirically, shared leadership has been studied in the context of new venture top management teams [22, 27, 28], sales teams [28], extreme action teams [29], and change management teams [30]. Practitioner-oriented works focus on shared leadership in general [31], on the context of knowledge work [32, 33, 34], and on strategic alliances [35]. Building on this prior work, we aim at adapting shared leadership theory to the context of dispersed project teams with complex and uncertain tasks. Given this context’s specific challenges, the question remains as to how individual team members can contribute to team leadership in dispersed teams and how the (formal, vertical) project leader can support such broad-based team leadership. Hence, we argue that shared leadership in dispersed project teams is enacted by individual team members influencing the team in an effort to support goal-directed team behavior. As such, shared leadership includes team members’ anticipation of other team members’ information needs, consideration of task interdependencies [36], and the initiation and facilitation of information flows [37] to revise and adapt work strategies [38]. Hence, team members not only continuously consider their own sphere of work, but also the way in which the entire project unfolds. They exert efforts to projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 l 33 Für immer mehr Unternehmen wird standortübergreifende Zusammenarbeit zu einer wesentlichen Grundlage ihrer Aktivitäten. Denn durch national und international vernetzte Zusammenarbeit lassen sich erhebliche Wissens- und Kostenvorteile erzielen. Entsprechend hoch sind die Erwartungen an die Zusammenarbeit - die Führung dieser Projekte ist jedoch problematisch und die Ergebnisse bleiben hinter den Zielsetzungen oft weit zurück. Was sind die Gründe? Und wie lässt sich der Erfolg solcher Projekte deutlich steigern? Die bisherige Forschung legt nahe, dass insbesondere die Führung dieser Projekte erfolgskritische Herausforderungen mit sich bringt. Die internationale Verteilung und Diversität der Teammitglieder, die überwiegende Nutzung elektronischer Kommunikationsmittel und der erhöhte Komplexitätsgrad der Aufgabe schränken die Einflussmöglichkeiten des Projektleiters ein. Um den Projekterfolg zu gewährleisten, sind deshalb die Teammitglieder gefragt. Nur, wenn diese Verantwortung für das gesamte Projekt übernehmen und Führungsverhalten zeigen, können die Herausforderungen bewältigt werden. Wie genau aber können Teamleiter und -mitglieder Führungsaufgaben teilen, um den Projekterfolg zu erhöhen? Wie können Teammitglieder überhaupt zur erhöhten Verantwortungsübernahme bewegt werden? Wie muss hierbei der Teamleiter agieren? Nehmen Sie an unserer Studie teil und profitieren Sie von den Antworten, die wir im Rahmen unseres Forschungsprojektes erarbeiten! Auf unserer Homepage erfahren Sie mehr: www.whu.edu/ cms/ index.php? id=2673 +++ Für eilige Leser +++ Für eilige Leser +++ Für eilige Leser +++ PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 33 understand task interrelationships and take initiative to influence the team to ensure that project objectives are met (Fig. 2). This conceptualization is similar to that of Pearce and colleagues [30], in which shared leadership can, in principle, expose the same types of leadership as vertical leadership can: directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership [22]. However, the specific challenges of dispersed projects (e. g., physical dispersion, cultural diversity, and task uncertainty) drive our focus on the team members (rather than just one formal, vertical leader), necessitating a continuously reflection on environmental changes and the interrelationships between tasks [39] in the team, as well as anticipating the team’s information needs and initiating social influence. Shared leadership: the entire team or single team members? Shared leadership entails the individual exerting influence on the team. Individual team members act within their own social networks in the project team and, depending on the personal relations and task interdependence, these may differ [40]. As such, shared leadership as enacted by individual team members can involve only one other team member, multiple team members, or all the team members. Figure 3 provides an example of individuals influencing various other team members (rather than the more extreme cases of only one or all the team members being involved). While analyzing the own project environment, team member A perceives B and D’s action needs and, according, initiates action. Likewise, team member C influences team members A and E. Shared leadership as a team-level property is therefore reflected by the extent to which shared leadership behaviors, i. e., anticipation of information and actions needs, as well as the initiation of relevant action, are enacted by the team (i. e., how many team members are enacting shared leadership components and to what extent? ). Contrary to the extant concept of shared leadership, we do not envision the “serial” emergence’ of leaders [34], but rather the simultaneous and continuous enactment of shared leadership by multiple (ideally all) team members. As such, shared leadership can be assessed by the team, but inherently it remains innately cross level. Does shared leadership affect performance? In contrast to leader-centered influence strategies, shared leadership is likely to be effective in dispersed teams for several reasons. First, monitoring and influencing originate from various (ideally all) team members who reside at different locations and have different information bases. As the team members increase their efforts to keep track of the overall project and team members’ individual contributions, they are able to react quickly to any changes that are thought to alter the appropriateness of the overall project strategy, or individual contributions [41]. This is particularly important given the dispersed nature of the teams (which is, e. g., an obstacle in respect of everyone being aware of current developments). As such, shared leadership leads to the increased flexibility and adaptability of dispersed teams, which in turn affects team performance. Decisions regarding work strategies (or necessary adaptations to it) can be made more quickly and more accurately if a more current and broader information basis is provided by shared leadership [42]. Second, by exerting shared leadership, team members demand actions from one another, which might not necessarily be shared by other team members. Therefore, team members exerting leadership foster a continuous discussion about the appropriateness of task strategies, provoking other reactions (e. g., agreeing or arguing a different direction). Whatever the case, shared leadership fosters information exchange intensity. As prior research shows, such intense task-related discourse [43] is likely to improve the decision quality regarding complex and dynamic matters. Moreover, by challenging team members to argue for or against a proposal, shared leadership results in a higher quality of information exchange and, subsequently, better knowledge integration [44]. 22 l projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 34 WISSEN Fig. 2: Leadership challenges and potential solution; © WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management Fig. 3: Cross-level Character of shared leadership; © WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 34 Third, shared leadership increases task coordination within teams. The continuous monitoring and analyzing of task strategies and interdependencies (e. g., how do current changes in my area affect others? ) enhances efficiency, as it largely preempts the need for later rework. A recent study maintains that under conditions that require speed and are characterized by uncertainty and rapid change, team members can achieve a high degree of coordination by making their work visible to others while simultaneously observing others’ work progress [45]. Moreover, shared leadership will help uncover any gaps or overlaps between individual work packages, with team members seeking out and negotiating technical interfaces between their contributions [46]. Such increased task coordination is also likely to improve the quality of the product developed through a better fit between the individual contributions, which, subsequently, leads to a more integrated product. Fourth, shared leadership behaviors demonstrate consideration for others’ contributions, as well as the entire project. Like proactive followership, shared leadership as such, fosters an atmosphere of mutual support aimed at improving the performance of the entire team, along with every member’s contribution [47]. Team members bring important information to one another’s attention, help refocus everyone on the overall project objectives, and thus create a sense of cohesion within the group [48]. What can the project leader do to foster shared leadership? Although we question the effectiveness of pure leadercentered vertical leadership in the context of physical dispersion, we believe that the project leader plays an important part in initiating and supporting shared team leadership. Following Kayworth and Leidner [49], vertical leadership supports shared leadership by (1) initiating structure, (2) monitoring the project progress and providing feedback with regard to the project accomplishment, (3) empowering the team, and (4) solving team conflicts. Project leaders initiate structure through activities such as participatively assigning tasks [50] and mapping and communicating technical interdependencies between the team members. Team events initiated by the project leader at the start of a project (ideally in a face-to-face kickoff meeting) offer the team the opportunity to share information and to openly discuss goals, processes, and procedures [51, 52]. Content clarification (elucidating projects’ scopes and requirements, gathering supportive background information, and creating work documents) and process information (laying out work plans and associated time tables) enable the team to anticipate the information and action needs of others [53]. Furthermore, the project leader (as well as the team members) can then identify the action needs of the team. However, due to his role, the project leader has a broader overview of the project status than the single project members have. This enables the project leader to identify action needs which are not obvious to the project members. By providing constructive feedback on the project progress, the project leader broadens the team members’ perspective on what needs to be done to complete the project. In turn, the team members can then decide on the concrete actions. The “dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in work groups in which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group goals” (Pearce & Conger, 2003: 286), which describes the shared leadership process, is closely related to equality in power within the project team. To realize equality among team members, the project leader (who is an active part of the project team) needs to empower the team. Empowerment comprises (1) making suggestions about performance improvements and helping the team to be self-reliant, (2) acknowledging team efforts and encouraging team members to solve problems together, (3) informing the team about new developments in organizational policy), (4) taking time to discuss team members’ concerns, and (5) helping to develop good relations between the work group members and suggesting that team members evaluate their own work [54]. projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 l 35 EFFIZIENT, KOMFORTABEL, SICHER: KnownAt®Project steuert jedes Projekt zum Erfolg. — Weltweiter Zugriff auf Projekte und Daten über Internet — Einfache und revisionssichere Verwaltung von Terminen, Protokollen und Aufgaben — Benutzerfreundliche Navigation mit dem Dokumenten- Explorer — Dokumentation und Archivierung mit nur einem Klick — Unkompliziertes Erstellen individueller Vorlagen — Integrierte Controlling-Komponenten und Berichte Besuchen Sie uns auf dem PM Forum 2008, Stand Nr. 14! WWW.PI-INFORMATIK.DE PI Informatik GmbH Tel.: 030 / 91 77 44 10 Anzeige PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 35 To support shared leadership behavior, the project leader furthermore engages in task (content and goals), relational (interpersonal relationships), and procedural (how the work gets done) conflict solving [55]. Thereby, the project leader primarily fosters cooperative team conflict solving [56] by serving as a mediator, i. e. guiding the process but allowing the disputants to control the outcome, helping them engage in perspective taking, guiding them toward a realistic settlement, and helping to improve the relationship between them [57]. Only if a consensus team decision does not seem possible, does the project leader resort to authoritarian decisions. The role of the project leader is, however, twofold. On the one hand, the project leader has to facilitate participative decision making by sharing his decision authority. On the other hand, the project leader’s authority is still required to support conflict resolution and to emphasize the achievement of project results when the team is unable to solve conflicts and reach project goals. Hence, we use the term flexible vertical leadership, indicating the partly contradictory [58] elements of vertical leadership in this context. While the project leader generally engages in team empowerment to foster shared leadership, the leader also adopts an active leadership role when perceiving that the team is unable to fulfill schedule, budget, or product quality expectations on its own. However, according to Denison et al. [58], behavioral complexity is a natural ingredient of leadership, which is why flexible vertical leaders must have the social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility “to react to paradox, contradiction, and complexity in their environments” [58]. What does all of this mean in practice? The concept of shared leadership has practical implications, not only for the project leaders and the team members, but also for management and human resource management. Implications for the project leader: ❑ The project leader should not seize power by making important decisions alone, delegating only minor tasks, and controlling their accomplishment. ❑ The project leader should become a facilitator of team action and continuously empower the team. As such, the project leader should share the decision authority with the team members and support their autonomous task accomplishment whenever possible. ❑ In the beginning of the project, the leader should initiate a joint project kick-off meeting where the project team can meet, discuss, and determine the project goals and how to accomplish them. This implies that the project leader proactively advocates the necessity for a kick-off meeting. ❑ Furthermore, the project leader needs to set clear expectations with regard to the team members’ empowered role. Behavioral expectations have to be formulated as precisely as possible, including rules regarding frequency of communication, reporting systems, and conflict management. ❑ During the project, the project leader should only intervene when identifying action needs that are not obvious to the team members, or when directly asked by the team members (i.e., to solve conflicts). ❑ If conflict occurs, the project leader should rather act as a mediator, facilitating the development of compromises within the team, than simply prescribing a solution. ❑ To prevent the team from feeling that they have abandoned with the responsibility of accomplishing the task, the team leader and the team members should jointly decide when the project leader should be integrated into project-relevant decisions. ❑ However, the project leader should monitor the project progress to identify situations where intervention is needed (i.e., if the team does not meet performance expectations). ❑ Generally, the project leader should secure resources for the team and absorb inside and outside pressures, thus allowing the team to concentrate on the task accomplishment. ❑ In sum, the project leader has to be a “heavy weight project leader,” sharing his authority to develop a “heavy weight project team.” Implications for the team members: ❑ Being part of such a team means that the individual is required to not wait passively for project instructions, but to proactively anticipate actions needs to foster team performance. ❑ Project members should engage in a shared leadership, not only feeling responsible for their own work package, but also for the performance of the team as a whole. As such, they should consciously screen their environment to identify internal and external influences requiring team action. ❑ Team members need to understand the interrelations of the single work packages and realize the effects of their own work on other team members’ work packages. Who is affected by my work? And by whose actions is my work affected? Who needs to be informed about my work package’s progress and by whom should I be informed? ❑ Besides displaying the capability to identify action needs, team members have to be prepared to selfreliantly initiate subsequent action. ❑ Team members should not wait for the team leader’s instruction if they identify actions needs, but should proactively contact other team members or the team as a whole to discuss the matter and jointly decide on actions. Implications for management and human resource management: ❑ For shared leadership to unfold its potential, the team needs to have the power to autonomously determine project goals. Management should therefore ensure that the team has the authority to make projectrelated decisions on its own. ❑ The enactment of shared leadership depends on the leadership capacity in the team. Hence, members of dispersed teams should not only have functional, technological, and project management skills, but also leadership skills. This implies that the human resource development department (or other related departments) should offer personal development targeted at the systematic development of shared leadership skills. ❑ It seems that shared leadership is always a driver of team performance, also in face-to-face teams. How- 22 l projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 36 WISSEN PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 36 ever, team members with shared leadership skills are probably more crucial human resources for companies than team members who have primarily functional skills. Hence, dispersed teams (where the project leader cannot directly intervene and ensure team performance) should be predominantly staffed with employees with shared leadership skills. ❑ As the project leader’s primary task is to empower team members, the choice of project leader and the project leader’s personal development program should therefore be based on the candidate’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. ❑ To foster the team members’ acceptance of responsibility for the entire project team (instead of just focusing on their own sphere of work), a reward system is needed that does not only recognize individual achievement in the own sphere of work, but individual achievements in respect of the team and team-level achievements in general. ❑ As the demands on members of project teams increase, participating in projects has to be made an attractive alternative career path compared to advancing within the line. If project careers (and switches between line and project careers) can be realized, employees with the skills needed for shared leadership will be more interested in working in dispersed teams. ❑ Finally, the organizational environment should support shared leadership behavior. Participative decision making, openness to ideas, fault tolerance, and management support characterize organizational drivers of shared leadership. How can research offer practitioners further insights? Leadership in dispersed teams should differ from leadership in face-to-face teams. Hence, it is not enough to engage an experienced project leader. In fact, leadership capacity has to be distributed among all the team members. In turn, this demands a broader investment in leadership capabilities to develop core competencies in dispersed project teams. The Chair of Leadership and Human Resource Management at the WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management, is engaged in a European Union funded research project that empirically studies shared leadership behaviors in dispersed teams, its drivers, and its effect on team performance. For more information, please visit www.whu.edu/ leadership. 1 ■ Literature [1] Martins, L. L./ Gilson, L. L./ Maynard, M. T.: Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? Journal of Management, vol. 30, p. 805, 2004 [2] Townsend, A. M./ DeMarie, S. M./ Hendrickson, A. R.: Virtual Teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 12, p. 17, 1998 [3] Gibson C. B./ Gibbs, J. L.: Unpacking the Concept of Virtuality: The Effects of Geographic Dispersion, Electronic Dependence, Dynamic Structure and National Diversity on Team Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 51, p. 451, 2006 [4] Pauleen, D. J.: An Inductively Derived Model of Leader- Initiated Relationship Building with Virtual Team Members. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 20, p. 227, Winter 2003 [5] Majchrzak, A./ Rice, R. E./ Malhotra, A./ King, N./ Ba, S.: Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational Virtual Team. MIS Quarterly, vol. 24, p. 569, 2000 [6] Paul, S./ Samarah, I. S./ Seetharaman, P./ Mykytyn P. P. Jr.: An Empirical Investigation of Collaborative Conflict Management Style in Group Support System-Based Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 21, p. 185, 2004 [7] Baba, M. L./ Gluesing, J./ Ratner, H./ Wagner, K. H.: The contexts of knowing: natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 25, p. 547, 2004 [8] Hoegl, M./ Proserpio, L.: Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy, vol. 33, pp. 1153-1165, 2004 [9] Wagner, H.: Internationalization speed and cost efficiency: evidence from Germany. International Business Review, vol. 13, pp. 447-463, 2004 [10] Kankanhalli, A./ Tan, B. C. Y./ Kwok-Kee, W. E. I.: Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 23, p. 237, 2006 [11] Hoegl, M./ Ernst, H./ Proserpio, L.: How Teamwork Matters More as Team Member Dispersion Increases. Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 24, p. 156, 2007 [12] Hoegl, M./ Gemuenden, H. G.: Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, vol. 12, p. 435, 2001 [13] Siebdrat, F./ Hoegl, M./ Ernst, H.: The Bright Side of Virtual Collaboration: How Teams Can Profit from Dispersion. Academy of Management Proceedings, in press [14] Tyran, K. L./ Tyran, C. K./ Shepherd, M.: Exploring Emerging Leadership in Virtual Teams. In: Gibson, C. B/ Cohen, S. G. (Eds.): Virtual teams that work: creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, pp. 183-195, 2003 [15] Avolio, B. J./ Kahai, S. S.: Adding „E“ to E-Leadership: How it may impact your leadership. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 31, pp. 325-338, 2002 [16] Derosa, D. M./ Hantula, D. A./ Kock, N./ D’Arcy, J.: Trust and Leadership in Virtual Teamwork: A Media Naturalness Perspective. Human Resource Management, vol. 43, p. 219, Summer/ Fall 2004 [17] Uhl-Bien, M./ Marion, R./ McKelvey, B.: Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, pp. 298-318, 2007 [18] Kanawattanachai, P./ Yoo, Y.: Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 11, p. 187, 2002 [19] Hiller, N. J./ Day, D. V./ Vance, R. J.: Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study. Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, p. 387, 2006 [20] Gronn, P.: Distributed leadership as unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 423-451, 2002 projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 l 37 1 Financial support from the European Commission (FP6) Project, NEST-2006-PATH-Cul, CID - Cultural and Innovation Dynamics - Explaining the uneven evolution of human knowledge, Contract n.: FP6-043345 is gratefully acknowledged. PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 37 [21] Neck, C. P./ Stewart, G. L./ Manz, C. C.: Self-Leaders within self-leading teams: Toward an optimal equilibrium. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, vol. 3, 1996 [22] Ensley, M. D./ Hmieleski, K. M./ Pearce, C. L.: The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, pp. 217-231, 2006 [23] Howell, J. P./ Bowen, D. E./ Dorfman, P. W./ Kerr, S./ Podsakoff, P. M.: Substitutes for Leadership: Effective Alternatives to Ineffective Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 1990 [24] Pearce, C. L./ Conger, J. A.: Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, Calif. u. a., Sage Publications Inc., 2003 [25] Lowe, K. B.: Shared leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, p. 105, 2006 [26] Houghton, J./ Neck, C. P./ Manz, C. C.: Self-Leadership and Super-Leadership. In: Pearce, C. L./ Conger, J. A. (Eds.): Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Thousand Oaks, Calif. u. a., Sage Publication Inc., pp. 123-140, 2003 [27] Ensley, M. D./ Pearson, A./ Pearce, C. L.: Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: a theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, vol. 13, p. 329, Summer 2003 [28] Perry, M. L./ Pearce, C. L.: Who’s Leading the Selling Teams? Vertical Versus Shared Leadership in Team Selling. AMA Winter Educators Conference Proceedings, vol. 10, p. 169, 1999 [29] Klein, K. J./ Ziegert, J. C./ Knight, A. P./ Yan, X.: Dynamic Delegation: Shared, Hierarchical, and Deindividualized Leadership in Extreme Action Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 51, p. 590, 2006 [30] Pearce, C. L./ Sims, H. P.: Vertical Versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors. Group Dynamics, vol. 6, p. 172, 2002 [31] O’Toole, J./ Galbraith, J./ Lawler Iii, E. E.: When Two (or More) Heads are Better than One: The Promise and Pitfalls of Shared Leadership. California Management Review, vol. 44, p. 65, Summer 2002 [32] Pearce, C. L./ Manz, C. C.: The New Silver Bullets of Leadership: The Importance of Selfand Shared Leadership in Knowledge Work. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 34, p. 130, 2005 [33] Pearce, C. L./ Manz, C. C.: The New Silver Bullets of Leadership: The Importance of Selfand Shared Leadership in Knowledge Work. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 34, p. 130, 2005 [34] Pearce, C. L.: The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 18, pp. 47-57, 2004 [35] Judge, W. Q./ Ryman, J. A.: The shared leadership challenge in strategic alliances: Lessons from the U.S. healthcare industry. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 15, p. 71, 2001 [36] Rico, R. N./ Cohen, S. G.: Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 20, p. 261, 2005 [37] Patnayakuni, R./ Rai, A./ Seth, N.: Relational Antecedents of Information Flow Integration for Supply Chain Coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 23, pp. 13-49, Summer 2006 [38] Watson, W./ Michaelsen, L. K./ Sharp, W.: Member Competence, Group Interaction, and Group Decision Making: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 76, pp. 803-809, 1991 [39] West, M. A.: Reflexivity, Revolution, and Innovation in Work Teams. In: Advances in Interdiciplinary Studies of Work Teams, vol. 5, JAI Press Inc., pp. 1-29, 2000 [40] Balkundi, P./ Harrison, D. A: Ties, Leaders, and Time in Teams: Strong Inference about Network Structure’s Effects on Team Viability and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 49, pp. 49-68, 2006 [41] Iansiti, M.: Shooting the rapids: Managing product development in turbulent environments. California Management Review, vol. 38, pp. 37-58, 1995 [42] Seers, A./ Petty, M. M./ Cashman, J. F.: Team-Member Exchange Under Team and Traditional Management. Group & Organization Management, vol. 20, pp. 18-38, 1995 [43] Amason, A. C.: Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39, pp. 123-148, 1996 [44] Okhuysen, G. A./ Eisenhardt, K. M.: Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, vol. 13, pp. 370-386, 2002 [45] Kellogg, K. C./ Orlikowski, W. J./ Yates, J.: Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, vol. 17, pp. 22-44, 2006 [46] Hoegl, M./ Weinkauf, K./ Gemuenden, H. G.: Interteam Coordination, Project Commitment, and Teamwork in Multiteam R&D Projects: A Longitudinal Study. Organization Science, vol. 15, pp. 38-55, 2004 [47] Tjosvold, D.: Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness: Learning from crisis. In: Guzzo, R. A./ Salas, E. A. A. (Eds.): Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, San Francisco, California, Jossey- Bass, pp. 79-112, 1995 [48] Gully, S. M./ Devine, D. J./ Whitney, D. J.: A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, vol. 26, pp. 497-520, 1995 [49] Kayworth, T. R./ Leidner, D. E.: Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 18, p. 7, 2001 [50] Burke, C. S./ Stagl, K. C./ Klein, C./ Goodwin, G. F./ Salas, E./ Halpin, S. M.: What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, pp. 288-307, 2006 [51] Cohen, S. G./ Bailey, D. E.: What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research From the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, vol. 23, p. 239, Special Issue, 1997 [52] Ericksen, J./ Dyer, L.: Right from the Start: Exploring the Effects of Early Team Events on Subsequent Project Team Development and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 49, p. 438, 2004 [53] West, M. A.: Reflexity and Work Group Effectiveness: a Conceptual Integration. In: West, M. A. (Ed.): Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Wiley, pp. 555-579, London 1996 22 l projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 38 WISSEN PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 38 [54] Arnold, J. A./ Arad, S./ Rhoades, J. A./ Drasgow, F.: The Empowering Leadership Questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 21, p. 249, 2000 [55] Jehn, K. A.: A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 42, pp. 530-557, 1997 [56] Alper, S./ Tjosvold, D./ Law, K. S.: Conflict Management, Efficacy, and Performance in Organizational Teams. Personnel Psychology, vol. 53, pp. 625-642, Autumn 2000 [57] Jameson, J. K.: Employee Perceptions of the Availability and Use of Interest-Based, Right-based, and Power- Based Conflict Management Strategies. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 19, pp. 163-196, Winter 2001 [58] Denison, D. R./ Hooijberg, R./ Quinn, R. E.: Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership. Organization Science, vol. 6, p. 524, 1995 Keywords Internationally dispersed projects (International verteilte Projektarbeit), Leadership challenges for the vertical leader (Herausforderungen für den Projektleiter), Shared leadership (Gemeinsame Führung) Author Dr. Miriam Müthel (Ph.D., Univ. of Lüneburg, Germany) is Assistant Professor at the Chair of Leadership and Human Resource Management at WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management. Dr. Müthel has worked as a project management consultant at Volkswagen Coaching. Her dissertation research involved the study of trust building in German- Chinese project teams. Author Professor Dr. Martin Högl (Ph.D., Univ. of Karlsruhe, Germany; Habilitation, Technical University of Berlin, Germany) holds the Chair of Leadership and Human Resource Management at WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management. Before joining WHU, Professor Högl served on the faculties of Washington State University (USA) and Bocconi University (Milan, Italy). Moreover, Professor Högl held a visiting professorship at the National Sun Yat-Sen University (Taiwan) and has given guest lectures at various international universities. He has conducted research projects with major firms in the US and Europe. He has published in leading international journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Decision Sciences, Human Resource Management, Organization Science, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Research Policy, and others. Address of the authors WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management Chair of Leadership and Human Resource Management Burgplatz 2, D-56179 Vallendar Corresponding author: E-Mail: miriam.muethel@whu.edu projekt MA N A G E M E N T aktuell 5/ 2008 l 39 Anzeige Level-D Projektmanagement-Fachmann/ Projektmanagement-Fachfrau Level-C Projektmanager Level-B Senior-Projektmanager Level-A Projektdirektor www.gca-consulting.de Projektmanagement Zertifizierungslehrgänge nach dem 4-Level-Certification-System der IPMA Seminare - Workshops - Coaching Projektmanagement Kompakttraining Microsoft Project Microsoft Project Programmierung Präsentationstechniken Anzeige PM_5-08_1-2_und_15-80: Inhalt 24.09.2008 11: 52 Uhr Seite 39