Multi‐Leader Teams in Review: A Contingent‐Configuration Perspective of Effectiveness

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12073
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Date: 01 October 2016

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18, 518–541 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12073

Multi-Leader Teams in Review:

A Contingent-Configuration Perspective

of Effectiveness

Scott B. Dust1and Jonathan C. Ziegert2

1Department of Management, Farmer School of Business, Miami University, 800 E. High St, Oxford, OH 45056,

USA, and 2Department of Management, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University,3220 Market Street, Ger ri C.

LeBow Hall Suite 638, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Corresponding author email: dustsb@miamioh.edu

Multi-leader teams are characterized by multiple leaders exhibiting mutual influence

on each other while working towards a common team goal. An unexplored assump-

tion in this literature is that increasing the number of leaders is related to heightened

team effectiveness. The authors propose that this notion is oversimplified and suggest

a contingency model of multi-leader team effectiveness. The authors suggest that the

context determines the effectiveness of a particular multi-leader team configuration,

because each formation has unique internal team mechanisms. To investigate this per-

spective, we review the multi-leader team literature (175 articles) by categorizing the

extant theory and research as falling within nine multi-leader configurationsalong two

key dimensions: (1) the proportion of leaders within a team; and (2) the dispersion of

leadership through role co-enactment of team leaders. This framework enables a more

coherentunderstanding as to the benefits and the costs of each specific multi-leader team

configuration and a clearer evaluation of the contexts in which varying configurations

are most effective. Four emerging themes related to configuration–contextualization

are explained and theoretical implications for interpreting leadership effectiveness in

multi-leader team settings are discussed.

Introduction

There is an emerging paradigmatic shift in leadership

theory and research. Replacing the traditional view

of a nominal leader, a growing perspective in the

literature is to consider multiple members within a

team as leaders. These multi-leader teams entail two

or more members of a team engaging in leadership

roles or behaviors whereby multiple member-leaders

exhibit influence on each other, while working

towards a common team goal (Bolden 2011; Denis

et al. 2012; Yammarino et al. 2012). Findings suggest

that multi-leader teams are related to higher levels of

team functioning (Bergman et al. 2012), effectiveness

The authors would like to thank Erika Foster for her assis-

tance with coding.

(Hiller et al. 2006) and organizational success (Ens-

ley et al. 2006), and that these effects can exist above

and beyond traditional forms of nominal leadership

(Pearce and Sims 2002). While the results are promis-

ing, a main concern is that, given the preponderance

of research illustrating that multi-leader teams results

in team effectiveness (D’Innocenzo et al. 2014;

Wan g et al. 2014), there is an assumption that ‘more

is better’. However, we contend that, in actuality,

the situation dictates when having more leaders is

better as well as how manymore leaders is better. For

example, authors have cautioned that, while multi-

leader teams are helpful in novel (Ensley et al. 2003;

Patton and Higgs 2013) and knowledge-intensive

(Pearce 2004; Senge 1993) work environments, they

are redundant and counterproductive in less complex

environments (Fausing et al. 2013; Pearce and Manz

2005).

C2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Multi-Leader Teams in Review 519

Explicating the configuration types of multi-leader

teams is a necessary first step in understanding

the contingency of their usefulness. The general

lack of precision regarding the configuration of the

multi-leader team makes it difficult to predict the

conditions under which it is effective. The literature

includes a variety of configurations ranging from

dyadic leadership, to more than two leaders, to

an entire team enacting leadership (Denis et al.

2012; Yammarino et al. 2012). Additionally, the

manner in which leadership is dispersed among

these multiple leaders differs greatly and is relatively

underdeveloped (and often unclear) in much of

the literature. Articles range from a supplementary

perspective where multiple members participate in all

leadership roles (e.g. Carson et al. 2007; Ensley et al.

2003; Hoch et al. 2010; Pearce and Sims 2002) to

a complementary viewpoint where members divide

up leadership roles (e.g. Crevani et al. 2007; Denis

et al. 2001; O’Toole et al. 2002). Taken together, two

foundational dimensions of multi-leader teams exist

that are quite variant and at times non-explicit in the

extant literature: (1) the proportion of leaders within

a team; and (2) the dispersion of leadership through

role co-enactment among the team leaders.

When the underlying multi-leader team configura-

tion is not explicitly detailed, it can lead to a variety

of difficulties in understanding its situational effec-

tiveness. Researchers may have a mismatch between

the multi-leader team conceptualization and the theo-

retical arguments as to why the configuration is effec-

tive, giventhe situation at hand. For example, perhaps

overcoming complex circumstances that require cre-

ative solutions through the collective coordination of

multi-leader teams is more likely to result from an en-

tire team of members acting as leaders as opposed to

joint leadership among two hierarchical leaders (i.e.

dyadic leaders, co-leaders). Thus, failure to ensure

that conceptualizations match theoretical arguments

will result in investigations of mis-specified explana-

tory mechanisms for why multi-leader teams are ef-

fective in specific contexts (Sutton and Staw 1995;

Weick 1995; Whetten 1989).

Researchers may also havea mismatch between the

multi-leader team conceptualization and the opera-

tionalization of the construct. For example, a common

approach to operationalizing the extent to which

there are multiple leaders within a team entails ag-

gregating the number of leadership roles undertaken

by members of the team (e.g. Acar 2010; Heck and

Hallinger 2010a; Hiller et al. 2006; Wahlstrom and

Louis 2008). If one team has many leadership roles

enacted by a few key members, and another team has

many members enacting a few leadership roles, the

operationalization of the two multi-leader teams pro-

duce similar ratings using the aggregation approach.

However, these two teams have a distinct configu-

ration with unique internal processes that may or

may not be appropriate, given the work environment.

This conceptualization–operationalization mismatch

can result in findings that do not accurately reflect

the relationship between hypothesized constructs,

making it difficult to understand the circumstances

in which multi-leader teams are effective.

To address these roadblocks within the literature,

we offer a review and explication of the various

multi-leader team configurations, thereby enabling

a more accurate understanding of the circumstances

in which varying multi-leader configurations leads

to team effectiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this

manuscript is to offer a contingency-based perspec-

tive to multi-leader team effectiveness. More specif-

ically, this contingency-based perspective employs a

configuration–contextualization approach, where we

explain why varying multi-leader team configura-

tions are likely to be effective (or ineffective) in

varying contexts. First, we provide a framework that

delineates the types of multi-leader team configura-

tions. Then, we offer an extensive review of the lit-

erature that categorizes studies into the multi-leader

team configuration framework. Next, we analyze the

trends and themes related to specific configuration–

contextualization arguments of multi-leader teams.

Finally, we offer suggestions for future research that

build on the findings of the review. As a result, this

review seeks to advance multi-leader team research

by assisting future research in making a priori clari-

fications of multi-leader configurations and giving a

more precise theoretical foundation for the situational

contingencies for multi-leader team effectiveness ar-

guments.

Multi-leader teams

Background

This review encompasses various ‘approaches’ (De-

nis et al. 2012; Yammarino et al. 2012) to inves-

tigating how multiple leaders operate. Across these

approaches, we focus on teams, defined as collective

units consisting of two or more individuals who are

interdependent in their tasks, are part of a social entity,

share responsibility for an outcome, and are embed-

ded within a larger organizational system (Kozlowski

C2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.