includes interdependencies of individuals, teams and organizations (most advanced). The two columns
on the right specify the corresponding theories and the levels of analysis. The most basic level of
analysis is the individual leader; a higher level includes direct interaction with followers (i.e. leader-
follower dyad) and the highest level considers the whole organizational system.
Models of shared leadership (Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Pearce &
Conger, 2003a) reject understandings on leadership that rest solely upon the concept of top-down
(vertical) leadership, and recognize that it will become increasingly important to acknowledge that
leadership need not be tied to a particular individual in authority position (Huxham & Vangen, 2000).
Schneider (2002) put forward that ³$V WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV SULPDULO\ RUJDQL]HG ODWHrally across a
flexible value chain, and the generation of social capital is viewed as critical to knowledge creation
and competitive position, its leaders are involved in a multitude of intra- and inter-organizational
relationships. Accordingly, WKH RQWRORJLFDO EDVLV IRU WKH OHDGHU¶V UROH-set, historically WKH OHDGHU¶V
KLHUDUFKLFDOSRVLWLRQVKRXOGEHFKDQJHG ́(p.211). Attention should be paid to the importance of social
dimensions, i.e. relationships that exist between people. In an organization with complex webs of
interaction, people interact with each other up and down the chain of command, across intra-
organizational boundaries.
Exploring the value of shared leadership does not imply that vertical leadership is the way of the past,
but rather that future thinking on leadership may need to encompass both vertical and shared facets in
order to capture a fuller view of leadership outcomes (Day et al., 2004a; Pearce & Sims, 2002). There
is considerable scrutiny over the evidence favoring the blanket replacement of old for new forms of
organizing. Recent empirical studies indicated that, while innovative forms of organizing are
emerging within organizations, hierarchy and other traditional organizational practices are not easily
discarded (O'Reilly 3rd & Tushman, 2004; Palmer & Dunford, 2002; Raynor & Bower, 2001;
Volberda, 1998). These studies suggest that high-performing organizations are adopting dual forms of
organizing in which the controllability advantages, associated with hierarchical forms of organizing
work, complement and support the responsiveness attributes of new forms of organizing (O'Reilly 3rd
& Tushman, 2004; Pettigrew, 2003). It is argued that the team is the fastest growing organizational
unit today (Pearce & Conger, 2003a, p.xi).
1.5 CONCLUSION
There is a mismatch between the contemporary demand for collective leadership (i.e. the increased
importance of developing and employing knowledge and the increased willingness of organizational