The proposal that team creativity is influenced by individual creativity seems uncontroversial.
However, an important question that is far less clear is whether team creativity is completely
determined by individual creativity. That is, is team creativLW\WKHVDPHWKLQJDVWKHWRWDORIWKHWHDP¶V
PHPEHU¶VFUHDWLYLW\"The results showed that team innovation is unrelated to leadership. TDJJDU¶V
(2002) findings that team creativity-relevant processes accounted for additional variance in team
creativity beyond the variance already accounted for by individual creativity suggests that group
creativity is not completely determined by individual creativity; rather, group creativity might emerge
synergistically when members interact in certain ways. This evidence suggests that individual
creativity can provide the raw material of novel and useful ideas, but that team member interactions
and team processes play an important role in determining how this raw material is developed into
group-level creativity. It could be for instance that instead of the averaging function (group creativity
being accounted for by average individual creativity), it could be that a weighted averaging function
(where certain individuDOV¶FUHDWLYHFRQWULEXWLRQVDre PRUHLPSRUWDQWWKDQRWKHUV¶ ZRXOGEHPRUH
appropriate.
It is critical to consider the context within which shared leadership is enacted. Specifically, this
includes elements in the organization and the external environment that can both foster and hinder the
general capacity for shared leadership to emerge. For example, availability of resources and
professionalism of members of the organization (Mumford et al., 2008) can directly impact whether a
team needs, or is able, to selectively distribute elements of the leadership role among multiple
individuals. The development of more sophisticated multivariate models that document the causal
chain from the antecedents of shared leadership to its consequences on team leadership and
effectiveness represents an emerging preoccupation within this stream of research.
For instance, the work by Burke et al. (2003) and Solansky (2008) paid attention to the socio-
cognitive processes involved in the development and consequences of shared leadership. In their
review of work on shared cognition and shared leadership, Burke et al. (2003) examined the cognitive
implications of transferring leadership functions among team members. They developed a model of
the knowledge structure of the team as a predictor of shared leadership and team adaptability. Their
model suggested that shared mental models among team members favor the coordination of their
action. A series of attitudinal variables related to collective self-efficacy, collective orientation, and
open climate act in synergy with the cognitive variables to support shared leadership in the team. The
research by Solansky (2008) consisted of a laboratory study of 20 work teams during a 16-week
period where teams compete with each other in various activities. Team participants were surveyed to