Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams at Work: Practical Strategies and Research Suggestions for Human Resource Development

Abstract

Working in virtual teams has become more prevalent in some industries, especially following the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. To address rapidly developing markets, businesses are implementing changes in leadership structures, work systems, and technology adoption. Human resource development (HRD) and virtual HRD (VHRD) practitioners and researchers must draw on best practices from previous research regarding virtual teams to help meet organizational needs and changes. Shared leadership is one of the emerging approaches showing promise in tackling complex challenges as it responds to problems by drawing on all members’ expertise rather than on the authority of a few. To understand shared leadership in virtual teams, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify how shared leadership is conceptualized and measured in virtual team research. We also synthesized the antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in virtual teams. We presented practical remote work strategies and future research suggestions for HRD and VHRD.

Keywords

shared leadership virtual team shared collaboration virtual leadership

Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been a steady increase in the number of individuals working from home. Most recently, the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a mass transition from on-site work and education to virtual environments. While organizations that transitioned to remote work have been less affected by employees’ potential to transmit COVID-19 than those in which employees have remained in close proximity to others (Béland et al., 2020), the former still faced unique challenges. These challenges are expected to continue as organizations move forward with more virtual work options following the reopening of the global economy. Human resource development (HRD) and virtual HRD (VHRD) researchers and practitioners should continue to address the critical question of how we can cultivate virtual teams that can manage the new “normal” (Bierema, 2020).

One integral issue is how to lead virtual teams so that they are maximally effective for the organization as well as the members of the team. Bierema (2020) has highlighted the need for HRD to help identify virtual team practices that promote productivity, employee engagement, satisfaction, and wellbeing. McWhorter (2010) also called for further research from HRD and VHRD on skills required to operate in virtual environments. Virtual teams are different from face-to-face teams (McWhorter, 2010), and research demonstrates that virtual teams are more difficult to lead and manage (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Mukherjee et al., 2012; Sarker et al., 2009; Zigurs, 2003). Zigurs (2003) found that virtual team members cannot simply transfer their behaviors from traditional face-to-face teams and expect to be successful in virtual environments. Therefore, more researchers are paying attention to identifying ideal behaviors (Han et al., 2017) and practices suited for virtual team environments. For example, HRD researchers and practitioners explored VHRD, which emphasizes a “media rich and culturally relevant webbed environment that strategically improves expertise, performance, innovation, and community-building through formal and informal learning” (Bennett, 2009, p. 364). Building virtual teams represents one of the missions for VHRD and an integral part of the digital workforce (Bennett & McWhorter, 2021).

Though there are many leadership strategies for managing teams to work effectively in a remote environment, shared leadership can be particularly important to virtual teams as it emphasizes an interactive influence process among individuals toward the goal (Pearce et al., 2009). We chose to examine shared leadership for several reasons: (a) its positive effects on face-to-face teams over centuries as a leadership approach (Han et al., 2018; Sally, 2002); (b) its respect for team members’ competencies, increased self-reliance, and sharing of responsibilities (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016), which allows for the flexibility to handle today’s workplace challenges; and (c) its recent application to virtual teams, which requires further consideration. Increased virtual work is one such challenge facing organizations today, especially as it leads to team members’ separation from one another (Sutherland et al., 2020). This separation and need for flexibility and autonomy make the distribution of leadership functions more important. Shared leadership helps team members adapt and find more innovative approaches as a group to address unique and complex challenges in business today by exhibiting collaborative skills and work ethic (Ferrel & Ryan, 2020; Gurses et al., 2020). By distributing responsibilities among team members, individuals working to coordinate the direction of the team can achieve shared group goals (Muethel & Hoegl, 2010). In summary, shared leadership supports team members in developing unique solutions to address common goals of the team; an important ability in today’s virtual work environment.

To expand our understanding of shared leadership, scholars have recommended investigating the structural supports needed for shared leadership to be effective in virtual teams (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). However, there is relatively limited HRD and VHRD research on how shared leadership should be supported in a virtual team context (Hoch & Dulebohn, 2017; Lilian, 2014; Ocker et al., 2011; Thomas & Bostrom, 2008). Although research related to shared leadership has increased over time, studies have primarily examined traditional face-to-face teams instead of virtual teams (Hoch & Dulebohn, 2017). Indeed, researchers have barely scratched the surface in investigating the benefits of this approach for virtual teams (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Ocker et al., 2011; Thomas & Bostrom, 2008). The role of VHRD has increased due to greater geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, and dynamic structure among team members (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). As more knowledge workers are working virtually with greater task interdependence and task complexity, the form of shared leadership might be required so that teams can share knowledge and work toward complex tasks more effectively. Research shows that virtual environments can empower individuals as they can share voice and contents via information communication technology (Shi & Weber, 2018). To understand this phenomenon from HRD and VHRD perspectives, there is a need to understand how shared leadership is conceptualized and measured in virtual team research by identifying definitions, instruments, and theories related to shared leadership.

Barnett and Weidenfeller (2016) compiled prior research documenting the positive effects of shared leadership on team performance (Carson et al., 2007; Ensley et al., 2006; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Mehra et al., 2006; Small & Rentsch, 2010), team effectiveness (Pearce & Sims, 2002), innovation (Hoch, 2013), and team proactivity (Erkutlu, 2012). Likewise, positive effects of shared leadership have been reported on face-to-face teams, however, more research is needed to assess whether shared leadership works well in virtual teams. Most empirical studies have examined a few antecedents or outcomes of shared leadership in virtual teams, such as use of effective communication technology, sharing of expertise, voice, and necessary knowledge to achieve a common goal (Pearce et al., 2009). To understand what facilitate or hinder shared leadership in virtual teams and its outcomes, there is a need to present a holistic model by summarizing previous empirical studies on the antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in virtual teams.

For these reasons, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how shared leadership is conceptualized and measured in virtual team research, as well as what are its antecedents and outcomes based on a systematic literature review. To understand shared leadership in virtual teams holistically, we identified definitions of shared leadership, instruments used to measure shared leadership and virtuality, and theories that scholars used to conceptualize and measure shared leadership in virtual team research. We also attempted to identify the antecedents and the outcomes of shared leadership that generated in a virtual team environment. The following research questions guide our discussion:

1. How is shared leadership conceptualized and measured in virtual team research?

2. What are the antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in virtual teams?

Virtual Teams Defined

Virtual teams are defined as collaborative work units where team members are geographically dispersed, have limited in-person contact, and work interdependently through electronic communication to meet goals (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017). Organizations around the globe benefit from the use of virtual teams as a workplace environment (Han & Beyerlein, 2016). Working across time zones and reducing the amount of travel or relocation are benefits of virtual teams in the global marketplace (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017). Bell and Kozlowski (2002) further note that in virtual teams, the most qualified individuals for the job can be hired regardless of their location.

Shared Leadership Defined

Shared leadership is one of the emerging leadership styles within teams of employees that prepares them to excel in a fast-paced work environment (Pearce et al., 2009). Shared leadership is different from traditional leadership where there is one person in charge, otherwise known as hierarchical leadership (Fausing et al., 2015). With shared leadership, one person is not completely in charge all the time. Instead, leadership responsibilities within the team emerge from a distribution of responsibilities among members.

Although various authors have defined shared leadership differently, a common theme that emerges from the literature is that shared leadership values mutual influence toward a shared goal with all teams. For example, Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) suggest that leadership should be shared or distributed to individual team members instead of resting in a single, hierarchical leader and should work toward a common goal. Further, Pearce et al. (2009) claims, “Shared leadership is a dynamic, unfolding, interactive influence process among individuals, where the objective is to lead one another toward the achievement of collective goals” (p. 234). They elaborate by explaining that the current interest in shared leadership stems from companies’ desire to have organize workers in teams more frequently, whether co-located or virtual, as the most successful companies practice shared leadership within such teams (Pearce et al., 2009).

Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams

Due to environmental factors, scholars have argued that virtual teams can be more difficult to manage than co-located teams as roles for leaders and members are different (Berry, 2011; Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). Additionally, computer-mediated communication is different in many ways from traditional face-to-face communication because the former is often asynchronous (Berry, 2011) and makes observing facial and non-verbal cues difficult or impossible. These differences can create challenges for new and developing virtual teams.

Researchers nonetheless have identified a number of ways in which shared leadership can make virtual teams more effective. For instance, Muethel and Hoegl (2010) noted that virtual teams using shared leadership are likely to be effective and that distributing leadership to team members allows them to oversee and influence the project as well as respond promptly to any problems. This is critical as virtual team members may find themselves responsible for independent decision-making due to the unique temporal and geographical dispersal of virtual teams. Further, the autonomy supported by shared leadership can also create ownership and a sense of independent responsibility among employees in newly formed virtual work environments. Additionally, due to the complexity of most team tasks, this ability to respond to difficulties enhances team members’ adaptability (Muethel & Hoegl, 2010).

Virtual teams have been found to be more effective when implementing shared leadership because team members are considerate of others’ work on the project, which in turn creates an atmosphere of support (Muethel & Hoegl, 2010). Hoch and Dulebohn (2017) propose that shared leadership is advantageous for virtual teams because of its relation to collaboration. They further explain that during this time of collaboration, team members develop trust-building behaviors, share knowledge, and enhance team performance (Hoch & Dulebohn, 2017). Research from Han et al. (2018) supports the idea that shared leadership can help team members transfer knowledge, work towards a common goal, and coordinate activities in the team, thus improving team performance. Hoch and Kozlowski’s (2014) study also found that shared leadership positively impacts team performance for all virtual teams. This same study determined that the impact of this leadership structure was not dependent on the level of virtuality (i.e., the degree to which the team operated in an online format).

We briefly introduced the concepts of virtual teams, shared leadership, and shared leadership in virtual teams to further investigate how shared leadership is conceptualized and measured in virtual team research. We also identified the antecedents and the outcomes of shared leadership in a virtual team environment. Then, we discussed how this topic is relevant for a diverse group of HRD and VHRD practitioners and researchers. To address recent events, we also presented the practical implications of these findings for supporting remote work.

Method

Our primary research method is a systematic literature review. We selected studies encompassing both qualitative and quantitative data. For instance, multiple studies included statistical analysis and analyzed observed behaviors, interviews, or qualitative feedback. Studies also examined virtual teams that were identified as utilizing shared leadership over times ranging from several hours (Siewiorek et al., 2013) to 2 years (Castellano et al., 2021). We systematically reviewed a variety of scholarly journals searching for antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in virtual teams. Articles met the following inclusion criteria: on the topics of virtual teams and shared leadership, published between 1996 (when the term “virtual teams” began being used) and 2019 initially, and involving empirical studies in the group, leadership, and management fields. The key words used for the search in both databases (EBSCO and ProQuest) were ab (“shared leadership” OR “distributed leadership”) AND (virtual team* OR geographically dispersed team OR distributed team OR remote team OR telecommu*) NOT (child* OR k-12).

The EBSCO search included the following databases: Business Source Premier, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, and Communication Source. The ProQuest databases included: ERIC, ABI/INFORM, Psychology Database, and Sociology Database. During the abstract screening, we created four exclusion categories. Papers were excluded if they significantly lacked the subjects on shared leadership, empirical study, or virtual teams, or if they included work with K-12 participants. We selected empirical studies conducted with adult participants because we wanted to provide evidence related to HRD and VHRD in the workplace. Notably, most articles were excluded when they did not fulfill multiple criteria to move forward. In these cases, articles were excluded for their initial, or most predominantly noted, exclusion criterion.

Following the full-text screening for our initial search in 2019, 12 articles fit the search criteria. In 2021, we conducted a secondary search seeking additional articles. Due to changes in database search subscription, this search was completed using the WorldCat, Business Source Complete and Academic Search Complete databases. It is important to note that use of the different database search engines did not impact the journals available to search. The same journals’ articles were reviewed in both searches. We added one more article that fit the pre-established search criteria resulting in 13 total articles. These articles are identified in the reference section by an asterisk. A full preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart can be seen in Figure 1 displaying the literature search process and the exclusions based on the specific identified criteria.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart of literature search and analysis.

The use of the PRISMA flow chart provides a systematic approach for reviewing literature that ensures transparency and complete reporting (McLeroy et al., 2016). It ensures that other researchers can replicate the search process used in this paper. Utilizing systematic review processes, such as PRISMA in Figure 1, decreases the likelihood of bias, which may occur in non-systematic review processes (Moher et al., 2009).

Findings

Conceptualizing Shared Leadership

The literature on shared leadership in virtual settings has defined shared leadership in multiple ways. Table 1 shows some of the more prominent definitions and the authors from which the definition originated.

Table 1.

Shared Leadership Definitions from the Virtual Team Research.

Definition	Authors of Definition
A collection of roles and behaviors that can be split, shared, and rotated among multiple leaders within a team (Carte et al., 2006).	Barry (1991)
A dynamic, interactive influence process with serial emergence of more than one leader taking charge over the life of the group discussion to achieve the group goals (Drescher & Garbers, 2016).	Pearce and Conger (2002); Pearce and Conger (2003)
“An emergent team property where leadership influence is widespread, shared by multiple team members” (Herbert et al., 2014, p. 258).	Carson et al. (2007)
Dynamic, interactive influence processes among all team members to increase team effectiveness (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016).	Hoegl and Muethel (2007)
A leadership approach with mutual influence and all members participate in the decision-making process (Siewiorek et al., 2013).	B. Bass and R. Bass (2008)Bass and Bass (2008); Crevani et al. (2007); Goleman (2000)
“A dynamic, interactive influencing process among peers, with the objective of achieving personal, team and/or organizational goals” (Castellano et al., 2021, p. 579).	Singh et al. (2019)

Based on these definitions, we note commonalities that allow for a broader understanding of shared leadership. One common theme of shared leadership is shared decision-making power. Drescher and Garbers (2016) have discussed how shared leadership is a team design method in which all team members have leading and decision-making power within the team as well as for themselves. This means that members take full responsibility for themselves and for others on the team. Allard-Poesi and Giordano (2015) also have indicated that sharing leadership responsibilities involves shared decision-making among team members, which is reached through negotiation and mutual influence. The idea that shared decision-making requires negotiation and bargaining is further echoed by Muganda and Pillay (2013). Definitions also point to the influencing nature required of team members working together with a shared leadership approach (B. Bass & R. Bass, 2008; Crevani et al., 2007; Goleman, 2000; Hoegl & Muethel, 2007; Pearce & Conger, 2002, Pearce & Conger, 2003; Singh et al., 2019). These definitions contrast with hierarchical (top-down) teams, in which members perform their assigned tasks and may lack opportunities to interact in the processes of meeting team objectives autonomously and holistically.

In shared leadership, both individual members and the team overall have critical roles in fulfilling goals. Hoegl and Muethel (2007) stated that shared leadership “comprises team members’ identification of action needs and the subsequent initiation of action flows to revise and adapt work strategies for team goal achievement” (Muethel et al., 2012, p. 526). This is echoed by Carte et al. (2006), who found the two most important aspects of virtual self-managed teams to be (1) individual specific skills and (2) collective monitoring and participation of members that move the group toward meeting goals. The idea of division of responsibilities is evident throughout the literature, including in Siewiorek et al. (2013), in which a shared leadership team that chose to divide team task responsibilities was the most financially successful team in a simulated game environment in comparison to other virtual teams that attempted shared leadership without proper task distribution.

Measuring Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams

In this section, we summarize research approaches for measuring shared leadership, virtuality, and theories to explain shared leadership in virtual teams. Similar to the other variations seen thus far, the literature varies in terms of how researchers have measured shared leadership’s existence and influence within the team.

Measuring shared leadership

The selected articles’ authors mainly used questionnaires and observational methods when measuring shared leadership. Four studies used observation of interactions between study participants (Allard-Poesi & Giordano, 2015; Carte et al., 2006; Chen & Rau, 2017; Eubanks et al., 2016). Chen and Rau (2017) and Eubanks et al. (2016) observed interactions between participants through WeChat, a communication platform, and wikis, respectively. Carte et al. (2006) used data retrieved from participants’ e-mail interactions while Allard-Poesi and Giordano (2015) observed emails and phone conversations and received feedback from participants on their interactions throughout the study. Eight studies collected data using questionnaires. Questions varied in format between studies, however, four did have the commonality of using Likert scales (Castellano et al., 2021; Drescher & Garbers, 2016; Herbert et al., 2014; Muethel et al., 2012; Robert & You, 2018). Other formats included multiple-choice, open-ended, and direct-response questions. These methods varied slightly from those used in studies measuring shared leadership in traditional co-located teams as researchers observed and requested feedback about virtual interactions via phone, email, and messaging software.

The selected articles’ authors measured shared leadership in diverse ways. Allard-Poesi and Giordano (2015) measured discursive acts (speech acts) between study participants that revealed how multiple parties used communication to share leadership responsibilities in a single mountain summit mission. Carte et al. (2006) utilized definitions and examples of leadership behavior adapted from Denison et al.’s (1995) study that explored eight different leadership roles: innovator, broker, producer, director, coordinator, monitor, facilitator and mentor. The researchers observed and coded these roles through email exchanges between participants, showing how often group members assumed these different leadership roles. Chen and Rau (2017) adopted the shared leadership behaviors observed in their study from the four-dimensional classification of shared leadership behaviors used by Zhu et al. (2012), which were initially adapted from Pearce and Conger’s (2002) theoretical model. The four dimensions, as presented by Chen and Rau (2017), include directive behavior, social behavior, positive feedback, and negative feedback.

Measuring virtuality

The shared leadership studies had variance when measuring virtuality. Some virtual teams had only fully virtual participants (Carte et al., 2006; Chen & Rau, 2017; Robert & You, 2018). Other studies observed hybrid teams including both co-located and geographically dispersed team members. For example, Eubanks et al. (2016) studied partially distributed virtual teams, and these teams had at least one co-located subgroup and two geographically dispersed subgroups. Iorio and Taylor (2015), team members were located at two large research universities in the U.S., meaning that certain team members were co-located while others interacted virtually. Amount of time working with the team, degree to which shared leadership was used or responsibilities were distributed, team size, and context of work performed also varied among the virtual teams reviewed.

Theories used to measure shared leadership in virtual teams

Shared leadership was at sometimes combined with other leadership practices or theories in the literature. In researching shared leadership in virtual teams, several theories were present throughout the literature that supported how shared leadership was conceptualized and measured. As explaining each theory’s application in the literature would exceed the scope of this paper, a condensed list of the theories used are presented Table 2 along with the studies in which they were utilized. We further provide the following examples as a highlight of how certain authors applied different theories in their study of shared leadership. Carte et al. (2006) used transformational, directive, and participative leadership theories to categorize actions taken by virtual team members sharing leadership responsibilities. Allard-Poesi and Giordano (2015) analyzed virtual team member data by applying Searle’s (1976) speech acts theory to measure shared leadership through team member communication. In these instances, the authors utilized theories to pinpoint when, as well as how often, shared leadership took place within a virtual team by determining when a specific behavior occurred (i.e., speech act or leadership behavior). While these authors used theories to measure shared leadership in virtual teams, Muethel et al. (2012) utilized behavioral leadership theory in their discussion on how women were successful in virtual teams.

Table 2.

Theories Used in the Literature to Identify Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams.

Studies Using Theories	Theories Utilized	Definitions
Allard-Poesi and Giordano (2015)	Speech acts theory	Linguistic expressions can be explained through rules used in performing various speech acts (Britannica, n.d.).
Carte et al. (2006)	Transformational leadership theory	A leadership approach in which leaders encourage, inspire and motivate employees to innovate and create change (White, 2018).
	Directive leadership theory	A leadership style where leaders guide participation and seek compliance with directions (Carte et al., 2006).
	Participative leadership theory	Leadership approach where there is an equalization of power and shared problem solving between leaders (Carte et al., 2006).
Muethel et al. (2012)	Behavioral leadership theory^a	Theory focused on how leaders behave and the ability to transfer these behaviors to others (Western Governors University, 2020).
Robert and You (2018)	Social exchange theory	The feeling of obligation felt when people receive a service or favor to repay in kind (Robert & You, 2018).

Used to study women specifically in shared leadership roles.

The use of various theories indicates how shared leadership is presented and measured in virtual team research. In part, due to the diversity in approaches taken to observe and describe shared leadership, several antecedents emerged as facilitating shared leadership in virtual teams. These antecedents cover a range of categories, appearing in contrast to one another in some cases.

Antecedents of Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams

Antecedents and circumstances facilitating shared leadership in virtual teams within the literature can be divided into four major categories: individual, dyadic, social structure, and external (Table 3). Kozlowski and Klein (2000) discuss how team-level phenomena can emerge from individuals within the team. Therefore, it is important to observe how individual behaviors may influence shared leadership within a team. Dyadic factors are created by interactions of two or more team members. A team’s social structure is the internal, institutionalized relationships within a group. Antecedents in this category include gender, age, level of diversity, and social similarities of a group, as well as the environment in which members operate. External factors exist outside of the team, but impact the relational collaborative leadership process or phenomenon involving teams that mutually influence one another. For example, in Hoegl and Muethel (2016), the virtual team’s managers influenced the existence and extent of shared leadership.

Table 3.

Antecedents Facilitating Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams.

Antecedents	Authors
Individual
Provision of accurate and up-to-date communication during critical phases of teamwork.	Allard-Poesi and Giordano (2015)
Respect for team members’ competencies.	Hoegl and Muethel (2016)
Prior experience working in a dispersed team setting.	Iorio and Taylor (2015)
Having a congruent and positive perception of shared leadership.	Herbert et al. (2014)
Self-leadership performed by individual team members.	Castellano et al. (2021)
Dyadic
Team’s recognition of necessary roles of mutual reliance and self-reliance.	Hoegl and Muethel (2016)
Greater autonomy in task accomplishment method and process.	Hoegl and Muethel (2016)
Frequent encouragement of leadership behaviors.	Hoegl and Muethel (2016)
Adjusting leadership behaviors to team’s particular challenges.	Hoegl and Muethel (2016)
Adjusting leadership behaviors to the interpersonal relationships among team members.	Chen and Rau (2017)
Clear division of responsibilities, roles and work among team members.	Siewiorek et al. (2013)
Team members willing to both lead and follow.	Herbert et al. (2014)
Trust between team members.	Castellano et al. (2021)
Social structure
Higher commonality of demographic characteristics increases the positive effects of shared leadership.^a	Drescher and Garbers (2016)
Teams consisting of individuals holding horizontal collectivistic and/or horizontal individualistic values.	Herbert et al. (2014)
Higher female-to-male ratio of team members.	Muethel et al. (2012)
Higher national diversity of team members.	Muethel et al. (2012)
Greater team isolation from the rest of the organization.	Muethel et al. (2012)
External
Project leaders who realize their team members’ leadership potential and are willing and able to share leadership duties.	Hoegl and Muethel (2016)
Avoidance of responsibility trap in which teams are given superficial decision-making power in lieu of authentic power to make decisions related to work.	Hoegl and Muethel (2016)

High commonality tends to be more important in face-to-face teams than in dispersed teams.

There are potential variations in antecedents of shared leadership. For instance, Drescher and Garbers (2016) found high commonality between team members to facilitate shared leadership, while Muethel et al. (2012) found high national diversity between members to do so. Some antecedents were also situational. Chen and Rau (2017) found that adjusting one’s leadership behaviors that are dependent on the interdependent relationships among team members was important. Hoegl and Muethel (2016) also found adjustments in leadership practices within the team to be important based on the challenges faced. Considering these findings, it is essential to note that certain facilitating antecedents which may support shared leadership in one team or circumstance may fail to do so in others. For example, Herbert et al. (2014) found that specifically in Asian cultures where either horizontal individualism or horizontal collectivism is common, groupings can be critical for shared team leadership in multicultural virtual teams where cultural values differ.

Outcomes of Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams

Figure 2 shows antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in virtual team settings. These antecedents were also discussed in Table 3. Given these outcomes and their desirability, we will further explore practical suggestions for facilitating shared leadership in the discussions section.

Figure 2.

Antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in virtual teams.

As shown in Figure 2, shared leadership can positively impact several business metrics. Drescher and Garbers (2016) found that use of shared leadership in virtual teams positively relates to predicted satisfaction and intended performance at work. They also found that participants’ predicted satisfaction and intended performance significantly increased with the implementation of shared leadership within a virtual team. Further, when compared to hierarchical leadership in virtual teams, predicted satisfaction and intended performance were both found to be higher under shared leadership conditions (Drescher & Garbers, 2016). Scholars have demonstrated that shared leadership may not only help overcome the difficulties of virtual teams, but also directly benefit virtual teams (Drescher & Garbers, 2016).

In addition to increasing predicted satisfaction and intended performance, Herbert et al., (2014), found that shared leadership increased team members’ confidence, satisfaction, ownership, and investment in the virtual teams observed. Robert and You (2018) used a multi-level approach, finding that shared leadership in virtual teams facilitates team members’ satisfaction directly, as well as indirectly through improved trust and autonomy. This research highlights how the positive impact of shared leadership on virtual team satisfaction may be greater than initially suspected as shared leadership leads to additional positive emotions among team members that could produce further satisfaction. For instance, research also has shown shared leadership to determine whether trust will translate into more satisfaction within virtual teams (Robert & You, 2018).

Increased satisfaction, performance, and trust can be important to virtual teams as Hoegl and Muethel (2016) found that virtual teams have different structures that require different roles for both team leaders and members. Given the evidence, shared leadership may be what virtual teams need. As stated previously, Muganda and Pillay (2013) found that behaviors, such as bargaining and negotiating for position among team members, found in shared leadership, were useful for project organization success. Muethel et al. (2012) found that shared leadership behaviors have positive effects on dispersed team performance. Virtual teams that showed shared leadership behaviors such as providing constructive suggestions for improving team operations, initiating actions, asking other team members for advice, and proactively instituting new work methods to improve team performance had better performance outcomes (Muethel et al., 2012).

Shared leadership has the potential to provide employees with the autonomy and flexibility necessary to meet organizations’ financial expectations during the ongoing pandemic. In Siewiorek et al. (2013), the top-performing virtual team in terms of financial performance in a simulated gaming environment displayed shared leadership behaviors. During this simulation, a second team that exhibited significant shared leadership behaviors also produced favorable business outcomes. These outcomes highlight the positive financial and business implications of shared leadership. As many organizations aim to maintain steady revenue during the pandemic, understanding employees’ ability to influence financial outcomes is critical.

Discussion

The growth of virtual self-managing teams has emphasized the value of shared leadership (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). Currently, only a few scholars explored the connection between shared leadership and virtual teams. By using a literature review approach, this study attempts to maximize the findings of the available research and highlight how shared leadership should be understood and applied in virtual teams.

Implications for Research

Aligned with pervious work (Zhu et al., 2018), we have summarized how shared leadership has previously been conceptualized and measured in virtual team research. Despite existing variance, it is essential to establish the definitions provided for shared leadership so that scholars can holistically understand the concept of shared leadership within virtual teams as a leadership approach. We also found that researchers measure shared leadership by examining diverse components, such as communication style (Allard-Poesi & Giordano, 2015) and sharing of leadership behaviors (Carte et al., 2006; Chen & Rau, 2017). These components affected data collection methods as well as its findings. Considering the diverse components, we found that a consensus in how to measure shared leadership was absent. One interpretation of this phenomenon might be because researchers measured shared leadership in a diverse context. Zhu et al. (2018) discussed that it is important to contextualize our understanding of shared leadership because shared leadership might be different depending on cases, industries, or team composition. For instance, there was substantial variance in the literature in terms of team composition. An example of this was the wide range of expertise among individual members of the different virtual teams researched. In some cases, participants were considered experts within their fields (Allard-Poesi & Giordano, 2015; Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). In others, those participating were students and were relatively new to shared leadership (Siewiorek et al., 2013).

More researchers have been addressing the importance of coming up with new measures to capture important aspects of shared leadership more precisely (Zhu et al., 2018). Throughout the literature, displays of leadership behaviors, verbal cues, team member perception, and other factors were applied in an attempt to measure shared leadership’s influence. In addition, we noted that there appears to be little consensus on a unifying theory of shared leadership. For instance, Robert and You (2018) used Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory to explain the effects of shared leadership. Eubanks et al. (2016) used team role composition theory as a framework for their work. Drescher and Garbers (2016) utilize transformative, directive, and participative leadership theories as a model for evaluating shared leadership. Future HRD research could further explore these theories and their relationship to shared leadership. Future VHRD researchers can continue to learn how to promote shared leadership in virtual teams. For instance, by utilizing social presence theory (Bickle et al., 2019), researchers could examine the effectiveness of social presence in development of shared leadership in virtual teams to enhance team performance and engagement.

Our finding also suggests implications for VHRD due to the importance of the effective use of communication channels, which can be related to media richness theory (Trevino et al., 1987). Virtual teams need to allocate time to arrange appropriate tools for the communication channel, especially if the task is ambiguous. Researchers reported that greater synchronicity is more effective in planning, goal setting, and coordination processes (Brown et al., 2020). Ishii et al. (2019) noted that “well-coordinated teams were more likely to use richer channels that allowed immediate feedback, such as web conferencing and phone than poorly-coordinated teams” (p. 127). Likewise, media richness can support interpersonal process effectiveness and coordination in virtual teams (Ishii et al., 2019). Researchers in HRD also suggest that highly supportive climates for employees to engage in personal technology use are more likely to increase motivation (Kim & Christensen, 2017). Therefore, we urge VHRD researchers to investigate the relationship between the use of technology and how it can facilitate shared leadership behaviors.

We also found that ideal shared leadership behaviors might be different depending on the hierarchical structure, size, culture, or decision-making system of digital workplaces (Bennett & McWhorter, 2021). Further empirical investigations in different organizational settings or industries are recommended. For example, IT industry project managers tend to view shared leadership positively as it supports team members’ autonomy, empowerment, and intergroup relations (Stagnaro & Piotrowski, 2013). Also, Hambley et al. (2007) recommend that further studies explore leadership in virtual teams in various cultures. Concerning the COVID-19 crisis, some organizations are more heavily affected than others depending on size and industry (Bartik et al., 2020). Future researchers should account for COVID-19’s impact on organizations considering shared leadership as an option.

Implications for HRD and VHRD Practice

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many changes to the workplace and accelerated transformation, which requires HRD and VHRD’s roles. Changes in the nature of work challenges leaders to prepare and practice different leadership competencies, work strategies, and business norms (Bennett & McWhorter, 2021). As leadership greatly impacts the teams and their performance, practitioners can analyze current states and needs in their organizations to develop the appropriate leadership model for their virtual teams to succeed.

Aligned with VHRD, practitioners should develop digital workers to be innovative, agile, and flexible to address business uncertainty in the COVID world (Bennett & McWhorter, 2021). Employers today demand both technical and generic soft skills because the digital workforce demands collaboration and co-creation of knowledge (Thite, 2020). Practitioners at every level need to accept the new rules by being open to change (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). For instance, one research team has made a point of emphasizing that team members are currently practicing physical distancing, not social distancing (Sutherland et al., 2020). Indeed, they have sought new ways to come together (e.g., via the business communication platform Slack) during this time of crisis to build better team relations.

According to the media richness in VHRD ecosystems, technology should be developed, and media should be sufficiently rich to improve HRD outcomes (Bennett, 2014b). Providing a rich intranet with visuals and multiple media can facilitate active communication. In addition, practitioners should emphasize skills development for virtual teams (e.g., using project management tools and virtual communication training) by considering diverse users (e.g., different levels of technology knowledge or accessibility). By developing appropriate interventions in the virtual environment that address unique user populations, organizational teams will self-manage work and feel empowered to share leadership responsibilities.

Interventions for Supporting Shared Leadership in Virtual Teams

We have utilized findings from the literature, especially on antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in virtual teams, to discuss HRD and VHRD implications that apply to virtual teams. Shared leadership in virtual teams provides positive impacts to both business outcomes and individuals. Based on previous findings, we provide insights and recommendations toward the use of shared leadership in virtual teams. To discuss our findings by applying VHRD contexts, we used the Individual, Group, and Organizational-Time Model under VHRD (Bennett, 2014a). We thus have provided ideas and suggested interventions for HRD by grouping the ideas into three categories: interventions for individuals, groups, and organizations, applying shared leadership in both virtual dispersed workplaces and virtual educational teams.

Interventions for individuals

Individual team member contributions impact virtual teams’ capacity to implement shared leadership successfully. Developing individuals is an essential concern for those newly transitioning to a virtual work setting. To emphasize individuals’ contributions and inclusion, it is necessary to build awareness and respect toward others (Carte et al., 2006). Hoegl and Muethel (2016) claim that leaders need to respect team members’ competencies by valuing team members as intrinsic sources of leadership. This aligns with Tafvelin et al.’s (2019) study, which suggests that investing in leadership training for workers, sends the message that employees are also responsible for leading the organization toward desired outcomes. As discussed by Carte et al. (2006), one component of shared leadership is individual team members’ responsibility for development of individualized consideration, or the degree to which one considers another’s needs. All teams need to build empathy, trust, compassion, and understanding for others’ challenges to create a virtual environment that supports each other’s work, ideas, and concerns.

In virtual teams, reskilling and upskilling is important for a VHRD’s role in crisis, especially as relates to Covid-19 and the accelerated transformation businesses have experienced (Bennett & McWhorter, 2021). For example, managers have faced challenges connecting with employees transitioning to a virtual environment. One manager explained, it can be “hard to motivate and inspire from a long distance” (Malhotra et al., 2007, p. 68). To facilitate shared leadership in a virtual setting, it is essential for team members to develop practices that will lead to accurate and relevant communication, especially during critical phases of teamwork (Allard-Poesi & Giordano, 2015). This can decrease misunderstandings, increase team bonding, and enhance effectiveness in virtual settings.

Interventions for groups

To build effective shared leadership when working remotely, group expectations first need to be established. Following this, a clear project scope, task assignments, and team processes should be agreed upon. Inadequate shared situational awareness and miscommunication can lead to major accidents and lower job performance (Gurses et al., 2020). In virtual teams, specific leadership roles are less recognized by team members; rather, leaders need to play multiple leadership roles depending on the situations or context to increase team performance (Han et al., 2020).

In addition, providing autonomy and empowering team members’ initiatives are crucial for teams’ success. Building a psychologically safe environment is helpful for all teams to excel in shared leadership (Han et al., 2019) and creativity in virtual teams (Han et al., 2017). Fostering open dialogue and building meaningful relationships can create a positive environment in which group members feel free to voice their opinions without risk or humiliation. Researchers have found that leadership training can increase leadership role effectiveness and virtual team performance (Han et al., 2020). HRD practitioners can support virtual mentoring and coaching, informal learning, on-the-job online training sessions, and virtual scenario planning (Bennett & McWhorter, 2021) to effectively help create a psychologically safe virtual team environment.

Interventions for organizations

Shared leadership development requires integrated interventions based on an organizational level approach that considers the systematic process, individual capability-building, and organizational actions. Scholars have indicated that structural support mechanisms (e.g., reward systems) benefit team performance with increasing levels of team virtuality (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). Performance suffers when team leaders underestimate their virtual teams’ shared leadership (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). Team leaders need to take responsibility to build a positive organizational culture as studies show that team leaders who underestimate the level of shared leadership tend to provide insufficient autonomy. Changing organizational culture takes time, therefore, HRD professionals should implement the 4-R Crisis-Normalcy Model of HRD to make systematic change and be more prepared and agile for future crises (Arora & Suri, 2020). The model includes phases of redefining, relooking, redesigning, and reincorporating HRD in the new context so that people can be prepared for change during a crisis.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions for HRD and VHRD

This study has several limitations, but with those in mind, we suggest implications for future research in HRD and VHRD. First, as this was literature review, we acknowledge that different keyword searches could yield different results. However, we made sure to collect relevant articles that fit the search parameters. We conducted additional searches by using alternative keywords, such as “working from home,” but did not find additional papers. However, other keywords might have produced different outcomes. Future researchers can utilize various keywords when searching papers using the PRISMA flowchart.

Second, we were not able to come up with one single answer to the first research question as there was a distinct lack of consensus on the definitions and measurement of shared leadership in virtual teams. However, our research findings suggest that shared leadership can be measured in different ways. Researchers can use a range of methods, including case studies, social network analysis, and longitudinal approaches, to examine the phenomenon more holistically, especially considering COVID-19 effects. Future researchers have the potential to expand on current research, allowing for further analysis of shared leadership in hybrid and fully virtual teams. We urge future researchers to further develop definitions of virtual team shared leadership by examining critical factors that are different from face-to-face settings and incorporating the features of virtuality. Future researchers can view shared leadership behaviors in virtual teams with multi-level insights by examining individual (e.g., motivation, engagement, expertise), group (e.g., shared goal, knowledge sharing, cohesion), and organizational or system-level (learning organization, level of hierarchy) variables that can impact shared leadership behaviors in virtual teams.

Third, the purpose of this study was to explore shared leadership in virtual team contexts, not both face-to-face and virtual teams. Therefore, we cannot be certain if shared leadership in virtual teams is significantly different from shared leadership in face-to-face teams as the fundamental principles of teaming may apply to both contexts (Berry, 2011). Additionally, we are not certain if the COVID-19 situation is contributing to a different format of shared leadership in virtual teams. Factors like swift trust in virtual teams, shared goals, or psychological safety were not studied in the selected articles, but those factors may have critical impacts on virtual teams when conducting shared leadership under COVID-19 situations. For example, scholars have emphasized the role of swift trust in virtual teams (Germain & McGuire, 2014). Future research could examine the factors facilitating shared leadership during COVID-19 and discuss whether there are any significant differences between face-to-face and virtual team settings.

Given the limitations of this paper and the relatively scarce amount of research that addresses shared leadership in virtual teams, we have brainstormed several questions that future researchers can think about and study further. These questions can help connect practical thoughts to the current research. They can also serve to expand on the topic of shared leadership in virtual teams.

1. What are the ways to implement shared leadership? How can we design and utilize technology in order for team members to share leadership more effectively?

2. Does shared leadership in virtual teams lead to any dysfunction? If so, how and when? Using qualitative research methods might be helpful.

3. Does a virtual environment facilitate shared leadership more or less than a grounded environment?

4. What is the effect of organizational adoption and dissemination of communication technologies to increase the efficiency of virtual teams?

5. Does shared leadership work better than other types of leadership in certain contexts or industries?

6. How can HRD practitioners intervene in cases where shared leadership fails?

Conclusion

With the continuing increase of virtual teams in organizations, especially due to COVID-19, it is necessary to determine the appropriate leadership model for virtual teams to succeed. Therefore, determining the best ways to lead these teams is worthwhile research in HRD and VHRD. Gaining a better understanding of how shared leadership functions in the workplace and educational environment would benefit many organizations. We hope to inform HRD and VHRD practitioners and organizations about the benefits of managing virtual teams using a shared leadership model.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Soo Jeoung Han

Author Biographies

Soo Jeoung Han is an Assistant Professor in Organizational Performance and Workplace Learning (OPWL) program at Boise State University in the U.S. She received her Ph.D. and M.S. in Educational Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University. She teaches the Foundation of OPWL and Principles of Adult Learning. Her research interests include the field of a virtual team, growth mindset in teams, career development of women leaders, and shared leadership development. She has published several SSCI journals and book chapters in the field of virtual team, shared leadership, and women leadership.

Nani Hazard is an Instructional Systems Designer for a learning solutions company. Nani has a M.S. in Organizational Performance and Workplace Learning from Boise State University and a B.A. in Business Administration with a focus in Human Resources from Washington State University. During her time at Boise State University, she worked with Dr. Soo Jeoung “Crystal” Han as a Graduate Assistant researching and presenting on the concepts of shared leadership and growth mindset.

References

*Allard-Poesi

Giordano

(2015). Performing leadership “in-between” earth and sky. M@n@gement, 18(2), 102–131. https://management-aims.com/index.php/mgmt/article/view/3991.

Arora

Suri

(2020). Redefining, relooking, redesigning, and reincorporating HRD in the post Covid 19 context and thereafter. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1780077.

Barnett

R. C.

Weidenfeller

N. K.

(2016). Shared leadership and team performance. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 334–351. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422316645885.

Barry

(1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(91)90081-J.

Bartik

A. W.

Bertrand

Cullen Zoë

Glaeser

E. L.

Luca

Stanton

C. T.

(2020). How are small businesses adjusting to COVID-19?: Early evidence from a survey. (Ser. Nber working paper series, 26989). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w26989.

Bass

B. M.

Bass

(2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). Free Press.

Béland

L. P.

Brodeur

Wright

(2020, April). The short-term economic consequences of COVID-19: Exposure to disease, remote work and government response. (IZA Discussion Working Paper No. 13159). SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3584922

Bell

B. S.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1059601102027001003.

Bennett

E. E.

(2009). Virtual HRD: The intersection of knowledge management, culture and untranets. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422309339724.

10.

Bennett

E. E.

(2014a). How an intranet provides opportunities for learning organizational culture: Implications for virtual HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(3), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422314532093.

11.

Bennett

E. E.

(2014b). Introducing new perspectives on virtual human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422314532091.

12.

Bennett

E. E.

McWhorter

R. R.

(2021). Virtual HRD’s role in crisis and the post Covid-19 professional lifeworld: Accelerating skills for digital transformation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422320973288.

13.

Berry

G. R.

(2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. The Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021943610397270.

14.

Bickle

J. T.

Hirudayaraj

Doyle

(2019). Social presence theory: Relevance for HRD/VHRD research and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21(3), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422319851477.

15.

Bierema

L. L.

(2020). HRD research and practice after ‘The Great COVID-19 Pause’: The time is now for bold, critical, research. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1779912.

16.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers. https://books.google.com/books?hl5en&lr5&id5qhOMLscX-ZYC&oi5fnd&pg5PA2&dq5blau1michael1exchange1and1power1in1social1life&ots5zzdRyp8rvR&sig5yjQeaJovCtyHW-KHphL5QETgiI

17.

Britannica. (n.d.). Speech act theory. In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/speech-act-theory

18.

Brown

M. I.

Prewett

M. S.

Grossenbacher

M. A.

(2020). Distancing ourselves from geographic dispersion: An examination of perceived virtuality in teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24(3), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000120.

19.

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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921.

20.

*Carte

T. A.

Chidambaram

Becker

(2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 323–343. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10726-006-9045-7.

21.

*Castellano

Chandavimol

Khelladi

Orhan

M. A.

(2021). Impact of self-leadership and shared leadership on the performance of virtual R&D teams. Journal of Business Research, 128(2021), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.030.

22.

*Chen

Rau

P. P.

(2017). Cooperation with friends or new encounters: Tie strength and shared leadership behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(4), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5868.

23.

Crevani

Lindgren

Packendorff

(2007). Shared leadership: A post-heroic perspective on leadership as a collective construction. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 40–67. https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol3iss1/Crevani/CrevaniLingrenPackendorff_IJLS_V3Is1.pdf.

24.

Denison

D. R.

Hooijberg

Quinn

R. E.

(1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science 6(5), 524–540.

25.

*Drescher

Garbers

(2016). Shared leadership and commonality: A policy-capturing study. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.002.

26.

Dulebohn

J. H.

Hoch

J. E.

(2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.004.

27.

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. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002

28.

Erkutlu

(2012). The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadership and team proactivity. Team Performance Management, 18, 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591211207734

29.

*Eubanks

D. L.

Palanski

Olabisi

Joinson

Dove

(2016). Team dynamics in virtual, partially distributed teams: Optimal role fulfillment. Computers in Human Behavior, 61(2016), 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.035.

30.

Fausing

M. S.

Joensson

T. S.

Lewandowski

Bligh

(2015). Antecedents of shared leadership: Empowering leadership and interdependence. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0075.

31.

Ferrel

M. N.

Ryan

J. J.

(2020). The impact of COVID-19 on medical education. Cureus, 12(3), 7492. https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/editorial/pdf/29902/1588317128-20200501-14935-1guynf5.pdf.

32.

Germain

M. L.

McGuire

(2014). The role of swift trust in virtual teams and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(3), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422314532097.

33.

Goleman

(2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90. https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results.

34.

Gurses

A. P.

Tschudy

M. M.

McGrath-Morrow

Husain

Solomon

B. S.

Gerohristodoulos

K. A.

Kim

J. M.

(2020). Overcoming COVID-19: What can human factors and ergonomics offer? Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management, 25(2), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2516043520917764.

35.

Hambley

L. A.

O’Neill

T. A.

Kline

T. J. B.

(2007). Virtual team leadership: Perspectives from the field. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 3(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.4018/jec.2007010103.

36.

Han

S. J.

Beyerlein

(2016). Framing the effects of multinational cultural diversity on virtual team processes. Small Group Research, 47(4), 351–383. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496416653480.

37.

Han

S. J.

Chae

Macko

Park

Beyerlein

(2017). How virtual team leaders cope with creativity challenges. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2016-0073.

38.

Han

S. J.

Kim

Beyerlein

DeRosa

(2020). Leadership role effectiveness as a mediator of team performance in new product development virtual teams. Journal of Leadership Studies, 13(4), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21677.

39.

Han

S. J.

Lee

Beyerlein

(2019). Developing team creativity: The influence of psychological safety and relation-oriented shared leadership. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 32(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21293.

40.

Han

S. J.

Lee

Beyerlein

Kolb

(2018). Shared leadership in teams: The role of coordination, goal commitment, and knowledge sharing on perceived team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 24(3/4), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2016-0050.

41.

*Herbert

Mockaitis

A. I.

Zander

(2014). An opportunity for east and west to share leadership: A multicultural analysis of shared leadership preferences in global teams. Asian Business & Management, 13(3), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2014.10.

42.

Hoch

J. E.

(2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Business Psychology, 28(2), 159–174. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10869-012-9273-6

43.

Hoch

J. E.

Dulebohn

J. H.

(2017). Team personality composition, emergent leadership and shared leadership in virtual teams: A theoretical framework. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 678–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012.

44.

Hoch

J. E.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0030264.

45.

Hoegl

Muethel

(2007). Shared leadership in dispersed innovation teams: Mutual influence and proactive followership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2007(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2007.26530412.

46.

*Hoegl

Muethel

(2016). Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: A practitioners’ guide. Project Management Journal, 47(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21564.

47.

*Iorio

Taylor

J. E.

(2015). Precursors to engaged leaders in virtual project teams. Inter-national Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 395. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fpmj.21564.

48.

Ishii

Lyons

M. M.

Carr

S. A.

(2019). Revisiting media richness theory for today and future. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.138.

49.

Kim

Christensen

A. L.

(2017). The dark and bright sides of personal use of technology at work: A job demands–resources model. Human Resource Development Review, 16(4), 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534484317725438.

50.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F109442810033001

51.

Lilian

S. C.

(2014). Virtual teams: Opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.972.

52.

Malhotra

Majchrzak

Rosen

(2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.24286164.

53.

Mehra

Smith

B. R.

Dixon

A. L.

(2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003

54.

McLeroy

K. R.

Garney

Mayo-Wilson

Grant

(2016). Scientific reporting: Raising the standards. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 43(5), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1090198116668522.

55.

McWhorter

R. R.

(2010). Exploring the emergence of virtual human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(6), 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422310395367.

56.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

, PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.

57.

Muethel

Hoegl

(2010). Cultural and societal influences on shared leadership in globally dispersed teams. Journal of International Management, 16(3), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2010.06.003.

58.

*Muethel

Gehrlein

Hoegl

(2012). Socio-demographic factors and shared leadership behaviors in dispersed teams: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21488.

59.

*Muganda

Pillay

(2013). Forms of power, politics and leadership in asynchronous virtual project environment: An exploratory analysis in south Africa. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(3), 457–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-11-2011-0075.

60.

Mukherjee

Lahiri

Mukherjee

Billing

T. K.

(2012). Leading virtual teams: How do social, cognitive, and behavioral capabilities matter? Management Decision, 50(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211203560.

61.

Ocker

Huang

Benbunan-Fich

Hiltz

(2011). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group Decision & Negotiation, 20(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9180-z.

62.

Pearce

C. L.

Conger

J. A.

(2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage.

63.

Pearce

C. L.

Sims

H. P.

(2002). Vertical versus shared leadership predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172

64.

Pearce

C. L.

Conger

J. A.

(2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In Pearce

C. L.

Conger

J. A.

(Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1–18). Sage.

65.

Pearce

C. L.

Manz

C. C.

Sims

H. P.

Jr (2009). Where do we go from here?: Is shared leadership the key to team success? Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 234–238. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.008.

66.

*Robert

L. P.

You

(2018). Are you satisfied yet?: Shared leadership, individual trust, autonomy, and satisfaction in virtual teams. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23983.

67.

Sally

(2002). Co-leadership: Lessons from Republican Rome. California Management Review 44(4), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F41166144

68.

Sarker

Schneider

(2009). Seeing remote team members as leaders: A study of US-Scandinavian teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2008.2007871.

69.

Searle

J. R.

(1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

70.

Shi

Weber

M. S.

(2018). Rethinking the complexity of virtual work and knowledge sharing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(11), 1318–1329. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24055.

71.

*Siewiorek

Gegenfurtner

Lainema

Saarinen

Lehtinen

(2013). The effects of computer-simulation game training on participants’ opinions on leadership styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1012–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12084.

72.

Singh

S. K.

Giudice

M. D.

Tarba

S. Y.

Bernardi

P. D.

(2019). Top management team shared leadership, market-oriented culture, innovation capability, and firm performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://ieeexplore-ieee-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/document/8884097

73.

Small

E. E.

Rentsch

J. R.

(2010). Shared leadership in teams: A matter of distribution. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 203–211. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1866-5888/a000017

74.

Stagnaro

Piotrowski

(2013). Shared leadership in IT project management: A practice survey. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 17(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v17i4.8098.

75.

Sutherland

D. M.

Taylor

G. M.

Dermody

T. S.

(2020). Coping with COVID: How a research team learned to stay engaged in this time of physical distancing. Mbio, 11(2), Article e00850. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00850-20.

76.

Tafvelin

Hasson

Holmstrom

Schwarz

U. V. T.

(2019). Are formal leaders the only ones benefiting from leadership training? A shared leadership perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1548051818774552.

77.

Thite

(2020). Digital human resource development: Where are we? Where should we go and how do we go there? Human Resource Development International, 25(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1842982.

78.

Thomas

Bostrom

(2008). Building trust and cooperation through technology adaptation in virtual teams: Empirical field evidence. Information Systems Management, 25(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2010.537182.

79.

Trevino

L. K.

Lengel

R. H.

Daft

R. L.

(1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research, 14(5), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009365087014005006.

80.

Western Governors University. (2020, April 7). Leadership theories and styles. Western Governors University. https://www.wgu.edu/blog/leadership-theories-styles2004.html

81.

White

S. K.

(2018, February 21). What is transformational leadership? A model for motivating innovation. CIO. https://www.cio.com/article/3257184/what-is-transformational-leadership-a-model-for-motivating-innovation.html

82.

Zhu

Kraut

Kittur

(2012). Effectiveness of shared leadership in online communities. In Grudin

Mark

Riedl

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Association for Computing Machinery.

83.

Zhu

Liao

Yam

K. C.

Johnson

R. E.

(2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2296.

84.

Zigurs

(2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339–351. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00132-8.