The Center for Creative LeadersKLS¶V &&/ VWXG\(Martin et al., 2007), titled WKH³&KDQJLQJQDWXUHof
OHDGHUVKLS ́IRXQGWKDWWKHFKDOOHQJHVIDFLQJOHDGHUVWRGD\DUHEHFRPLQJVR complex and difficult to
solve that collective leadership has become a necessity. Their study surveyed more than 350 middle to
top-level managers across the world to explore the current and future state of leadership. 84% of the
surveyed participants believed that the definition of effective leadership had changed in the five years
preceding the study. And more than 60% agreed that leaders face challenges beyond their individual
capabilities. The Center for Creative Leadership suggests that in order to meet the complex challenges
being faced by organizatiRQVWRGD\DQGLQWRWKHQHDUIXWXUH³FRQQHFWHGOHDGHUVKLS ́(Martin et al.,
2007, p.3) is increasingly important.
A more collective approach to leadership is not only warranted given the pressures from outside the
organization; internal pressures push in the same direction. A more highly educated workforce has
greater knowledge to offer to the organization. Throughout history, leadership has been seen as the
prerogative and dXW\RIWKHSULYLOHJHGDQGPLQRULW\HOLWH)RUWKHOLRQ¶VVKDUHRIKXPDQHYROXWLRQWKH
vast majority was uneducated and explicably disenfranchised. Power and control were vested and
remained in the privileged, who, in the best of times, ruled mercifully, if paternalistically. With
widespread education and a swelling middle-FODVV VXFK JRYHUQDQFH EHFRPHV XQWHQDEOH 7RGD\¶V
employees desire more from work than just a paycheck. They want to make a meaningful contribution
(Lawler & Finegold, 2000), which is increasingly achieved through team-based knowledge work
(Mohrman et al., 1995). With the shift towards team-based knowledge work, the traditional models
and approaches to leadership have become less appropriate. While one typically thinks of leadership
as one person projecting downward influence on followers ± which iVWHUPHG³YHUWLFDOOHDGHUVKLS ́±
an alternative could be that all knowledge workers contribute to the leadership process ± which is
UHIHUUHGWRDV³Vhared leadership ́ (Pearce & Conger, 2003a).
2¶Ueilly at al. (2010) argued that it has become a necessity to view organizational performance as
related to the aggregate effects of leadership at all organizational levels. Organizational members
within the same organization no longer merely operate in parallel; instead their activities must be
well-aligned, well-coordinated, and executed with reference to each other (Henderson & Fredrickson,
2001; O'Reilly et al., 2010). This argument gains in value given that vertical barriers in organizations
are being eliminated, creating flat organizational structures (Czajkiewicz et al., 2008; Lewin &
Stephens, 1993; Schein, 1996). Whereas, in a typical bureaucracy, bigger is better, the current context
shows organizations in terms of smaller units (Czajkiewicz et al., 2008), which are thought to be more
responsive to market requirements and better able to adapt rapidly to external changes. Traditional