Annurev Orgpsych 041015 062429

OP03CH02-Kozlowski ARI 18 February 2016 21:24
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Click here to view this article's
online features:
• Download ﬁgures as PPT slides
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
• Explore related articles
Team-Centric Leadership:
• Search keywords
An Integrative Review
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:21-54. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Steve W.J. Kozlowski,1 Stanton Mak,1

and Georgia T. Chao2
1
Department of Psychology and 2 Department of Management, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan 48824; email: stevekoz@msu.edu
Access provided by CAPES on 04/13/18. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016. Keywords

3:21–54
transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, shared leadership,
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior is online at functional leadership, multilevel, team processes, teamwork, team
orgpsych.annualreviews.org effectiveness
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062429
Abstract
Copyright c 2016 by Annual Reviews. This integrative review focuses on leadership in the context of work groups
All rights reserved and teams: team-centric leadership. Although the process of leadership
is largely viewed as one of social influence, most theories of leadership
are agnostic about the social units and context within which it occurs.
The review examines recent research on mainstream leadership theories—
transformational leadership and leader-member exchange—that have
contextualized leadership in work teams and also on team-centric leadership
theories—shared and functional leadership—that are explicitly team centric.
For each theory, we examine its conceptualization and evolution, how
well it maps to the input-process-output heuristic of team effectiveness
(including moderators indicative of the context, process dynamics, and
feedback loops), and the quality of research methods that are employed.
The discussion concludes with 14 recommendations designed to advance
each type of team-centric leadership and to promote more integration and
synergy across the approaches in future research.
21
INTRODUCTION
Leadership has been of interest to organizational and management scholars for more than a century
and to philosophers, historians, and observers of the human condition for thousands of years. It
is a topic of widespread and enduring human interest. Even though leadership is often viewed
as a process of social influence, leadership theory has been, for the most part, rather indifferent
(or at least not very specific) about the social context within which leadership is exercised. That
is, although most contemporary leadership theories focus specific attention on behaviors leaders
exercise and the psychological states those behaviors are thought to stimulate in followers, the
theories are remarkably nonchalant regarding the social unit(s) and context within which leadership
is exercised. Indeed, leadership theories are often generic with respect to the social context such
that they are viewed as equally applicable to individual, group, or organizational influence. Such
generality comes at the expense of precision; as Day (2012, p. 698) asserts, “Context matters,
especially with leadership.”
Arguably, the most relevant social context for understanding leadership processes is the small
group or work team. Most contemporary leadership theories assume direct interaction between
leaders and followers, and among followers exchanging perceptions, such that leadership behaviors
are observed directly. Even leadership at the top (top management teams) is exercised in a team
setting. Two decades ago as a focus on team effectiveness began ascendency in organizational
psychology and behavior (OPB), Kozlowski et al. (1996, p. 255) concluded that, “Although there
is a substantial literature on leadership in organizations . . . it is difficult to apply the prescriptions
from this research directly to teams.” As interest in team effectiveness rose, interest in team-centric
leadership also began to rise. After two decades, it is appropriate to re-assess the status of the team
context in OPB leadership research.
The purpose of this review is to examine leadership in the team context, tracing developments in
leadership theory and research that have been explicitly team focused [e.g., functional leadership
(FL) and shared leadership (SL) conceptions] as well as examining research that has contextu-
alized mainstream, generic theories of leadership such as leader-member exchange (LMX) and
transformational leadership (TFL) within the small group and team context. Starting with the
mainstream theories, we examine TFL. Conceptually, TFL is a generic, “average” style approach
that dominates the literature (Day 2012), although there has been a substantial increase in the
team as a context for TFL research since the middle of the past decade. We next consider LMX
theory as another mainstream approach. Conceptually, the theory is dyadic, which strongly im-
plies a small group social context, but it has often not been researched that way. However, there
are emerging lines of work that examine relative LMX (i.e., deviation scores with a unit) and
LMX differentiation (i.e., dispersion or variance) that clearly locate it in a team context. We then
shift our focus to examine the development of theoretical perspectives that are explicitly team
centric (Kozlowski et al. 2009). Unlike the mainstream theories highlighted previously, these
team-centric approaches represent different theoretical exemplars rather than a unitary theory.1
That is, there are several different leadership theories or frameworks within each of the approaches
that are consistent with the overall conceptualization. FL is the oldest approach. It has focused
on the functions that leaders need to ensure are accomplished with respect to team development,
maintenance, and effectiveness: “[T]he primary purpose of leadership is to ensure that the group
fulfills all critical functions necessary to its own maintenance and the accomplishment of its task”
1
We had planned originally to include network approaches as a form of team-centric leadership. However, an in-depth review
was published recently (Carter et al. 2015), and we thus have excluded it from the review. Relevant observations are made as
warranted.
22 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
(McGrath 1962, p. 5). Different theories focus on different leadership functions. SL is another
team-centric approach. It focuses on leadership as a process that is collectively held by the team
and is shared or distributed across its members. Different SL frameworks conceptualize what is
shared and how it is shared across team members differently. The SL approach is explicitly team
centric, but research does not always align with that conceptualization.
The goals of the review are to identify conceptual gaps, highlight areas of potential integration,
and suggest needed advances in research design and methods. To accomplish these goals, it is useful
to evaluate the leadership literature with respect to the Input-Process-Output (IPO) heuristic of
team effectiveness (McGrath 1964). The IPO conceptualizes team performance in systems terms
such that inputs influence team processes, which lead in turn to measurable outcomes. For this
integrative review, we evaluate each leadership area with respect to a contemporary version of the
IPO framework that incorporates multiple levels, feedback loops, and potential moderators (e.g.,
Ilgen et al. 2005, Kozlowski & Ilgen 2006, Mathieu et al. 2008).
For each leadership area, we first trace the primary conceptualization, seminal articles that have
shaped it, and any evolution of the conceptualization over time. We are particularly interested
in characterizing unique views and insightful questions relevant to a specific leadership form or
research approach. Then, we conceptually map the approach to the contemporary IPO frame-
work, considering how well it encompasses all key components. In addition, we consider (a) what
sort of moderators, which are typically indicative of context, are being studied and (b) the extent
to which the research examines change over time, process dynamics, and feedback loops. We ex-
amine methods and research design to determine whether (a) methods match conceptualization,
(b) units of theory and analyses are appropriately aligned, and (c) the degree of rigor that charac-
terizes work in that topic area. We close each section with high-level conclusions that provide the
foundation for our discussion. Finally, we conclude with recommendations designed to advance
theory development and research on team-centric leadership.
Using search engines and databases such as PsychINFO and ProQuest, we identified and
collected hundreds of published articles on each of the four leadership areas. For TFL and LMX,
we focused on work that is explicitly situated in the team context or has focal variables that are
conceptualized and measured at the within-group or group level of analysis. For SL, we collected
published articles of shared, distributed, and collective leadership within the context of teams.
Finally, for FL, we included articles that explicitly adopt a functional perspective, cite an FL
theory as its theoretical framework, or use an existing measure of FL. In total, the entire search
process produced 384 empirical studies, of which 199 were for TFL studies, 81 were LMX studies,
71 were SL studies, and 32 were FL studies.2
CONTEXTUALIZING “MAINSTREAM” LEADERSHIP IN TEAMS
Transformational Leadership
Of the many theories of leadership that populate the OPB literature, TFL is by far the most
researched (Day 2012). Although it has come under recent criticism (van Knippenberg & Sitkin
2013), its core ideas remain relevant, and it has particular potential when contextualized in teams.
Conceptualization. The historian James MacGregor Burns (1978) first formalized the theory
of TFL. Focusing on political leadership, Burns made a distinction between “transactional
2
We excluded qualitative, nonempirical, and case studies in our literature search because their informational value for this
review is limited. However, exceptional qualitative and case studies are acknowledged.
www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 23

leadership,” in which leaders establish reciprocal exchange relationships with their followers,
and “transformational leadership,” in which leaders encourage followers to transcend their own
self-interest for the good of society and raise themselves and followers to “higher levels of
motivation and morality” (Burns 1978, p. 20).
Building on Burns’ work, Bass (1985) proposed a theory of TFL that became of great inter-
est to organizational scholars and practitioners alike. He theorized that transformational leaders
motivate followers through three underlying influence processes: (a) making followers aware of
the importance of their performance and task outcomes; (b) replacing their own self-interest
with the good of the group, team, and organization; and (c) energizing and motivating followers’
higher-order needs. TFL is characterized by four dimensions (Bass 1985). Idealized influence is
the degree to which the leader acts as a role model and causes followers to identify with the leader.
Inspirational motivation includes articulating a vision of the future that is inspiring to followers.
Intellectual stimulation involves encouraging followers to challenge assumptions, take risks, and
be creative. Finally, for individualized consideration, the leader spends time attending to each
follower’s needs and development.
Bass (1985) also developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure the
different TFL dimensions. Subsequent development of the MLQ led to the current version of
the survey, the MLQ5X (Bass & Avolio 1997). It is the most commonly used instrument to assess
TFL. Development of the MLQ helped propel TFL to be one of the most actively studied areas
of leadership over the past 25 years (Diaz-Saenz 2011).
Primary research questions and research foci. TFL theory posits four dimensions of leader-
ship that are proposed to positively influence followers through distinct psychological processes.
We would expect research to articulate conceptual linkages consistent with this multidimensional-
mediational structure, although van Knippenberg & Sitkin (2013) concluded that it is rarely spec-
ified. In taking a multilevel perspective, we expect TFL behaviors to influence individual and
team outcomes, although much of the research has focused on individual outcomes. However, the
theory posits that leaders may apply transformational behaviors consistently across people within
a team. For instance, it suggests that transformational leaders not only inspire each follower to
perform better, but also motivate their followers as a collective to achieve positive group out-
comes ( Jung & Sosik 2002). Alternatively, to the extent that leaders tailor their behavior (e.g.,
individualized consideration), we would expect to see variability within a team. Thus, we expect
a two-level multilevel framework in which leader behaviors and mediation processes operate at
both the individual and team level to influence relevant outcomes at both levels of analyses.
Additionally, one of the fundamental aspects of TFL theory concerns the development of
leadership capacity among followers. That is, a core objective of TFL is to empower followers
to develop their ability to become leaders (Bass 1985, Burns 1978). Thus, there is an inherent
developmental component to TFL theory, and we would expect longitudinal studies to examine
both leadership processes and follower development over time.
Mapping to the input-process-output framework. Table 1 presents the number of studies that
map to the IPO framework, for all four team-centric leadership areas. The basic tenets of TFL have
been shown to hold at the team level. Fitting with the IPO framework, 70 studies examined team
processes and emergent states3 as mediators between team inputs and team outcomes (e.g., Cho &
3
Research has typically characterized perceptual measures of intervening team processes as “processes,” although Marks et al.
(2001) made a point of distinguishing behavioral processes that enable teamwork from perceptual measures of processes that
they characterized as emergent process states. The distinction is not important to this review.
24 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Table 1 Mapping team-centric leadership to the input-process-output framework

I-P-O I-O I-P Miscellaneous notes
TFL 70 44 2 15 have no team-level I-P-O (e.g., Epitropaki
(e.g., Cho & (e.g., Ensley et al. (e.g., Liao & Chuang & Martin 2013)
Dansereau 2010, 2006, Howell 2007, Mannheim & 11 are I-I-O (e.g., Lim & Ployhart 2004)
Chi et al. 2011) et al. 2005) Halamish 2008) 22 with team I and individual O (e.g., Bono &
Judge 2003, Kirkman et al. 2009)
LMX 5 10 10 32 with no team-level I-P-O (8 have cross-
(e.g., Li & Liao (e.g., Stewart & (e.g., Zhou et al. level variables) (e.g., Hu & Liden 2013)
2014, Chen et al. Johnson 2009, 2012, Hsiung 2012, 3 are I-I-O (e.g., Le Blanc & González-Romá
2007) Hoch & Boies & Howell 2012)
Kozlowski 2014, 2006) 8 with team I and individual O (e.g., Erdogan

Naidoo et al. & Bauer 2010, Olsson et al. 2012)
2011)
SL 23 18 5 9 are I-I-O (e.g., Hiller et al. 2006, Carson
(e.g., (e.g., Ensley et al. (e.g., Erkutlu 2012, et al. 2007, Hoch 2013)
Sivasubramaniam 2006, Pearce & Solansky 2008, Acar
et al. 2002) Sims 2002) 2010)

FL 15 6 0 4 are I-I-O (Künzle et al. 2010b, Carson et al.
(e.g., Luciano et al. (e.g., Morgeson 2007)
2014) 2005)
Abbreviations: FL, functional leadership; LMX, leader-member exchange; SL, shared leadership; TFL, transformational leadership.
Dansereau 2010, Chi et al. 2011). Numerous studies do not fit with the IPO framework, however.
Several are input-output studies, examining the effects of team-level TFL on various outcomes,
without addressing any mediating team processes (44 studies; e.g., Ensley et al. 2006, Howell
et al. 2005). Moreover, numerous studies examined inputs at the team level, with process and out-
come variables situated at the subordinate level (22 articles). The majority of these studies specify
models to examine the cross-level main effect of team-level TFL behaviors on subordinate-level
outcomes (e.g., Bono & Judge 2003, Kirkman et al. 2009, Charbonnier-Voirin et al. 2010). There
are also 24 input-process studies that do not examine any performance or attitudinal outcomes at
the team level (e.g., Liao & Chuang 2007, Mannheim & Halamish 2008), and there are 15 studies
with individual level predictors, mediators, and outcomes, although many of these studies have
team-level moderators. Additionally, 11 were input-input-output studies; most of these studies
examine the relation between leader characteristics and team effectiveness, mediated by TFL.
Although many studies have examined mediation processes between TFL and outcomes, the
majority of mediators studied are team process variables, and there have been relatively few studies
that examined TFL mediators. In other words, there are few studies that have examined effects
of TFL in terms of its influence on subordinate attitudes, motivation, and other psychological
processes as proposed by the theory. Moreover, researchers are typically agnostic about the multi-
dimensionality of TFL, and mediation research typically lacks conceptual analyses that link medi-
ation processes to individual dimensions. This is the same criticism that van Knippenberg & Sitkin
(2013) made about general TFL research. Research would be stronger if core influence processes
were specified and used to explain how each dimension of TFL affects unique mediating pathways.
Moderators. Several studies have examined the moderating role of leader characteristics and be-
haviors (15 studies). Team-level TFL is the most often studied moderator (e.g., Kearney & Gebert
2009, Wang & Walumbwa 2007), but others include the leader’s use of humor (Avolio et al. 1999)

and moral inconsistency (Zhang et al. 2015). More structural, strategic group or organizational
attributes have also been studied as moderating variables, including virtuality (e.g., Purvanova &
Bono 2009) and job design (Liu & DeFrank 2013). Other contextual influences include group
and organizational climate-like variables, such as climate for innovation (Charbonnier-Voirin
et al. 2010) and climate for excellence (Eisenbeiss et al. 2008). Team characteristics have also
received ample attention as moderators. They are typically related to collective personality (e.g.,
Schaubroeck et al. 2007) and values (e.g., Kirkman et al. 2009). At the subordinate level, de-
mographic, attitudinal, and personality-related moderating variables have been studied, such as
perceived organizational support (Epitropaki & Martin 2013) and individual creative self-efficacy
(Shin et al. 2012).
In their broad TFL review, van Knippenberg & Sitkin (2013) noted a haphazard proliferation
of moderators with no overarching conceptual framework and little attention to integration. The
picture that emerges from this review of team-centric TFL literature is identical. We see diverse
idiosyncratic microtheories, very little conceptual integration, and no evidence of systematic pro-
gressive development. This is surprising, as one would expect that situating leadership in a team
setting would sharpen the focus on context and would make the selection of moderators more
bounded and systematic.
Methods and research design.
Units of theory and analysis. Although there is the potential to conceptualize team-centric TFL
as multilevel, most research conceptualizes it at the team level only. Followers are assumed to
have similar cognitions, emotions, and behaviors and based on this homogenous assumption the
average influence of formal team leaders on all team members is examined. The vast majority
of general TFL research has examined individual-level perceptions of leadership and outcomes.
Thus, generalizing TFL to the team level is a step forward, because many of the mechanisms
proposed in TFL theory purport explicitly that leaders exert influence through their motivational
effect on the group as a whole.
Some recent theoretical and empirical research has acknowledged the potential multilevel
nature of TFL. Kark & Shamir (2002) proposed a dual-level TFL model that divides TFL be-
haviors into individual level and group level, arguing that two TFL dimensions—individualized
consideration and intellectual stimulation—focus on individual followers’ needs whereas idealized
influence and inspirational motivation are more likely to influence the group as a whole. A few arti-
cles have drawn on this conceptualization, examining individualized consideration and intellectual
stimulation at the individual level (Wang & Howell 2010, 2012; Cho & Dansereau 2010) or as
dispersion variables (Zhang et al. 2015, Wu et al. 2010), while treating influence and motivation at
the team level. For example, Wang & Howell (2010) demonstrated that individual-focused TFL
behaviors, such as follower development and intellectual stimulation, are related to followers’ task
performance and personal initiative. At the group level, group-focused TFL behaviors such as
communicating a group vision and emphasizing group identity are positively related to group
performance and helping behaviors.
As mentioned previously, numerous studies have examined the cross-level main effect of team-
level TFL on individual-level outcomes. Although treating TFL at the team level may be consistent
with theory, it is not clear how an average style of leadership at the team level would lead to variable
outcomes at the individual level. This suggests a conceptual misspecification in the explanatory
model of TFL in terms of the levels of predictors and outcomes. To address this issue, individual-
level moderators need to be studied (e.g., Epitropaki 2013, Kirkman et al. 2009). In the absence
of individual-level moderators, the theoretical rationale is ambiguous.
26 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Table 2 A breakdown of team-centric leadership research by setting

TFL LMX SL FL
Laboratory 18 4 7 14
(all experimental) (all correlational) (2 experimental, (10 experimental,
5 correlational) 4 correlational)
Field 181 77 64 18
(180 correlational, (76 correlational, (all correlational) (17 correlational,
1 field experiment) 1 field experiment) 1 field experiment)
Abbreviations: FL, functional leadership; LMX, leader-member exchange; TFL, transformational leadership; SL, shared
leadership.
Research settings. Table 2 presents a breakdown of laboratory and field studies for all four
team-centric leadership areas. For TFL, the vast majority of empirical research is made up of
correlational field studies (180 studies), with only one field experiment (Brown & May 2012). In
contrast, 18 lab studies have examined team-centric TFL and all are experimental. In general, these
lab studies assigned participants into transformational or transactional leadership conditions and
examined outcomes such as team performance (Purvanova & Bono 2009), group creativity (e.g.,
Sosik et al. 1998, Jung 2001), and task satisfaction (Ruggieri 2009). Moderators related to team
virtuality are typically studied, such as communication medium (e.g., Purvanova & Bono 2009,
Hambley et al. 2007, Balthazard et al. 2009) and anonymity (e.g., Sosik et al. 1997, Kahai et al.
2003). However, only five of these laboratory studies looked at process variables that influence
team-level outcomes, which includes group conflict (e.g., Kotlyar et al. 2011), cohesion (e.g., Jaussi
& Dionne 2003), and cooperation (e.g., Kahai et al. 2003).
Research design. The majority of the field studies are cross-sectional with all study variables
collected at a single point in time (128 studies). To mitigate causal ambiguity and common method
variance, numerous studies temporally separated the measurement of predictors, mediators, and
outcomes (50 studies), although not always in logical ways. We found one field study with two
waves of repeated measurement on some of the variables that tested for potential feedback loops.
For example, Sivasubramaniam et al. (2002) predicted that groups that rated themselves high
on transformational team leadership behaviors would see themselves as being more potent over
time and would achieve greater group performance. They showed that transformational team
leadership is positively related to team potency over time, and potency beliefs are positively related
to subsequent TFL behaviors.
We found no field or lab studies that performed three or more waves of repeated measurement
on focal variables, which is the minimal number needed to allow a reasonable examination of
change over time (Rogosa 1995). This indicates an overwhelming tendency to treat team processes
as static constructs rather than as dynamic processes (Cronin et al. 2011). In addition, as McGrath
et al. (2000, p. 97) note, “Groups are studied as if they were simple systems composed of chain-
like, unidirectional, cause-effect relations.” Because research primarily relies on cross-sectional
or simple time-lagged designs, there is a poor understanding of change over time and process
dynamics in relation to TFL.
Self-report versus multisource data. The majority of studies used multisource data (149 studies),
which suggests reasonable effort toward measurement rigor. Most often, TFL or other predictors
are measured through members’ ratings, whereas performance is measured through team leader
ratings, objective measures, or external raters. We also found 9 studies that reduced potential for

common method variance through a split-sample design, in which half of the group members were
randomly selected to complete different measures so that the measurement of study variables came
from different sources within the same group. In some studies, this was the sole way to reduce
method variance (e.g., Nemanich & Vera 2009, Hur et al. 2011, Jung & Sosik 2002), whereas
other studies combined this technique with measures from other sources (e.g., Bass et al. 2003).
We also found 50 studies in which all data were collected using self-reports, which are vulnerable
to potential measurement and method biases. This is especially the case in 36 studies that are both
self-report and cross-sectional. Such research is methodologically weak and not very informative.
Outcome criteria. Outcomes tend to be studied at the team level (136 findings), although individ-
ual outcomes are also frequently studied (101 findings). The most frequently studied individual-
level outcome is attitudes (34 findings), followed by individual performance (26 findings), and per-
ceived team effectiveness (16 findings). At the team level, team performance is most often studied
(96 findings), followed by group processes and motivational states (14 findings), then attitudes (11
findings). Of the three most commonly researched outcomes at the individual level, as one would
expect, attitudes and perceived team effectiveness are measured through self-ratings only. Individ-
ual performance is most often measured through ratings from the team leader (16 of 26 findings),
followed by self-ratings (7 of 26 findings), then ratings from external raters (3 of 26 findings).
Looking at the three most commonly researched outcomes at the team level, team performance
is most often measured from team leader ratings (30 of 96 findings), followed by external raters (28
of 96 findings), objective measures (23 of 96 findings), and self-ratings (15 of 96 findings). Group
processes and motivational states are most often rated by team members (13 of 14 findings),
followed by ratings from team leaders (1 of 14 findings). Attitudinal outcomes are solely measured
through self-ratings.
Summary and high-level conclusions. Currently, the vast majority of team-centric TFL studies
conceptualize leadership at the team level. As previously mentioned, conceptualizing and demon-
strating that TFL operates at the team level is a step forward because it more accurately reflects
the theoretical assumptions that transformational leaders motivate followers as a collective. Nev-
ertheless, the majority of these studies simply demonstrate that the processes and outcomes that
have historically been examined at the individual level can be generalized appropriately to the
team level. Although this is a methodological advance, it is a modest one as it does not really
extend theory. Research should examine more comprehensive models that better exploit the mul-
tilevel, multidimensional, mediational conceptual structure of the theory to provide new insights
into team-centric TFL processes. As mentioned previously, some recent theoretical and empirical
work has explored the multidimensional and multilevel structure of TFL (e.g., Kark & Shamir
2002, Cho & Dansereau 2010), suggesting that the effects of TFL are dimension-, level-, and
outcome-specific. Such research would address some of the key limitations of general TFL (i.e.,
van Knippenberg & Sitkin 2013) and would better exploit the conceptual advantages of situating
TFL in the team context. In addition, researchers need to be more thoughtful and systematic in
their selection of moderators. Situating leadership in teams should make task interdependence,
goal, and system (i.e., linkages to other teams in the workflow) boundary conditions more salient,
which should enable a more systematic treatment of contextual moderators.
Leader-Member Exchange
Whereas TFL is viewed as an average style approach, in that the leader is assumed to behave
in essentially the same way with all team members, LMX takes a differentiated approach. In
28 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
other words, the operative assumption in LMX theory is that the leader develops relationships of
differing quality across members of the team.
Conceptualization. The conceptualization of LMX theory has its roots in the vertical dyad link-
age (VDL) approach (Dansereau et al. 1975). In contrast to theories that assume that leaders adopt
one consistent leadership style toward all members of their work unit, the central premise of VDL
is that the leader develops differentiated exchange relationships with subordinates. With a select
group of subordinates, known as the in-group, leaders form high-quality relationships, including
social exchanges that transcend contractual obligations. For the remainder of the subordinates,
known as the out-group, leaders form low-quality exchange relationships that are largely based on
the fulfillment of contractual obligations (Liden & Graen 1980). These differences are the result
of the leaders’ need to have trusted assistants to help in the functioning of the unit, but limited
time and resources to develop all subordinates. Thus, VDL theory was ahead of other leadership
theories in contextualizing leadership within a group, although the conceptual focus was on the
leader-member dyad rather than the group as a whole. As research in this area progressed through-
out the 1980s, the model became known as LMX, with the LMX construct most often defined “as
being the quality of the exchange relationship between leader and subordinate” (Schriesheim et al.
1999, p. 77). LMX is typically treated as a unidimensional construct and is most often assessed via
LMX-7 (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995).
Theoretical models of the development of LMX have also been described. Graen & Scandura
(1987) presented a three-phase theory of the role development process: role taking, role making,
and role routinization. The leader-follower relationship progresses from the leader assessing
the follower’s skills (role taking), and then evolving through the negotiation of role definitions,
(role making), and finally stabilizing into either a high-quality or low-quality relationship (role
routinization). Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) further refined thinking of how LMX develops.
Their model included three phases: the stranger phase, in which leader and follower engage in
reciprocal role-making interactions; the acquaintance phase, in which there are increased social
exchanges between partners on both personal and work-related levels; and the mature phase, in
which followers desire to go beyond transactional exchanges to focusing on satisfying collective
interests.
Primary research questions and research foci. Because LMX focuses on differentiated ex-
change relationships in work groups, the theory is multilevel. For example, the process by which
leaders develop dyadic exchange relations with their subordinates can result in within-group vari-
ability in the quality of leader–subordinate relationships (Graen & Scandura 1987). That is, any
one team member’s relative standing on LMX depends on its distribution across the group. Con-
ceptually, this is a so-called frog-pond characteristic that crosses the individual and group levels
(Kozlowski & Klein 2000).4 This within-group variability can shape the experiences of group
members, as they evaluate their own dyadic relations in comparison to other leader-member re-
lations in the group (Schriesheim et al. 2001). At the same time, the degree to which leaders
differentiate in their exchange relationships with subordinates can vary across work groups as
well (Liden et al. 2006). Specifically, in work groups with high LMX differentiation (i.e., vari-
ance), leaders form exchange relationships of varied levels of quality with different subordinates.
4
A frog-pond characteristic is a person’s deviation score from the group mean. Thus, one’s relative standing is a cross-level
combination of the group and oneself, although it varies at the individual level; it is an individual–within-group characteristic.
It is referred to as a frog-pond characteristic because a frog of size X may be a big frog in a small pond, but a small frog in a
large pond. It is not absolute size that matters, but rather one’s size relative to others.

In contrast, in groups with low LMX differentiation, subordinates share exchange relationships of
similar quality with their leader. LMX differentiation treats the pattern of LMX as a team-level,
between-team characteristic.
In sum, conceptual and empirical research has suggested that LMX processes may operate at
the (a) individual level resulting from individual-level perceptions of LMX quality; (b) individual–
within-group level resulting from comparison processes among other dyadic relationships in the
group (i.e., relative LMX; a frog-pond effect); and (c) at the group level, as the variability in the
quality of exchange relationships across group members (i.e., LMX differentiation) may influence
how team members respond to the social exchange dynamics in the team. Although LMX is
conceptually predicated on dyadic relationships, these are not dyadic per se but embedded in the
group context.
At its core, LMX is a developmental theory. As previously discussed, the main premise is that
leaders develop differential relationships through a role-making process that is negotiated between
a leader and follower. Over time, it is thought that relationship quality evolves. Thus, one would
expect that research would examine the processes of LMX formation and evolution as described
by Graen & Scandura (1987) and Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995).
Mapping to the input-process-output framework. At the team level, we found five LMX
studies that examined team processes as mediators between team inputs and team outcomes, thus
fitting the IPO framework (e.g., Li & Liao 2014, Wu et al. 2010, Chen et al. 2007). However, a large
proportion of the studies do not map to the IPO framework at the team level. For instance, 10 are
input-outcome studies only, without examining any mediating team processes or emergent states.
These studies typically examine the relation of group-level LMX or LMX differentiation on team
effectiveness (e.g., Hoch & Kozlowski 2014, Liden et al. 2006, Naidoo et al. 2011), although some
studies examine how group-level LMX or LMX differentiation moderates the relationship between
team characteristics and team effectiveness (e.g., Stewart & Johnson 2009). There are 10 that are
input-process studies that did not examine any performance or attitudinal outcomes at the team
level (e.g., Zhou et al. 2012, Hsiung 2012, Boies & Howell 2006). Oftentimes, these studies examine
the influence of group-level LMX on team processes or emergent states, such as team potency
(Boies & Howell 2006) and climate variables (e.g., Ford & Seers 2006). There are also 8 studies
that examined inputs at the team level, with process and outcome variables at the subordinate
level, and they typically examine the cross-level relationship of LMX or LMX differentiation on
subordinate outcomes. Additionally, 8 studies explored individual-level antecedents or outcomes
of relative LMX (e.g., Vidyarthi et al. 2010, Hu & Liden 2013); in these studies, relative LMX was
calculated by subtracting mean LMX score for each team from each individual team member’s
LMX score. Thus, relative LMX crosses the individual and group levels. However, 24 studies have
predictors, mediators, and outcomes all at the individual level of analysis. Most of these studies
examine how team-level moderators impact relationships between subordinates’ predictors and
outcomes (e.g., Liao et al. 2010, Harris et al. 2014).
The lack of team-level studies that fit the IPO framework is, in large part, a reflection of the
nature of LMX theory. It is team centric as a context, but the theory is predicated on the concept
of a leader behaving differently toward subordinates, thus creating variability across individuals
within the team. In that regard, it is not designed theoretically to inform team-level processes
and outcomes. Nonetheless, the theory is team relevant because it informs us about within-team
process phenomena that are likely to influence team performance and other relevant outcomes.
Moreover, it has the potential to be complementary with other approaches like TFL. This is an
issue we also elaborate on in the summary at the end of this LMX section and in the discussion.
30 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Moderators. Of the 45 studies that have moderation analyses, 13 have examined the moderating
role of LMX differentiation, making it the most frequently studied moderator. This indicates that
leader differentiation is the primary way in which context is defined, that is, the leader as context.
However, research has also looked beyond leadership to try to capture broader indicators of
context. Group and organization climate-like variables have received ample attention (e.g., Hsiung
2012). Other contextual moderators that have been studied include structural characteristics such
as task interdependence (Liden et al. 2006), work unit structure (Pan et al. 2012), and team
virtuality/geographic dispersion (Hoch & Kozlowski 2014, Gajendran & Joshi 2012). In contrast
to leadership as a moderator, such constructs get more directly at key boundary conditions that
influence leadership process and outcome relationships. This suggests a more appropriate and
systematic focus with respect to moderators for LMX relative to TFL.
On the surface, the large number of studies that examine the moderating role of climate and
structural characteristics of the team suggests that research is adequately capturing context. How-
ever, most of these studies have focused on moderators that influence individual-level outcomes;
only 14 studies have devoted attention to examining moderators that have between-team influ-
ences. Even more surprising, only one of those 14 studies examined a moderator that was not
group-level LMX or LMX differentiation; Hoch & Kozlowski (2014) demonstrated that the ex-
tent to which teams were more virtual attenuated relations between group-level LMX and team
performance. This represents an obvious need for future research attention.

Units of theory and analysis. Despite the fact that the LMX model was originally advanced to
explain how differential treatment of subordinates by leaders influences outcomes in the group,
the vast majority of theory and research has historically focused on individual perceptions of the
leader-follower relationship, without acknowledging that each leader-follower relationship exists
in the context of other relationships within the unit (Cogliser & Schriesheim 2000). There are
exceptions, with some early studies examining a within-group phenomenon that is at the core of
LMX by dichotomizing individuals into in-groups and out-groups. However, the in-group/out-
group subgrouping phenomenon became less emphasized over time, and much of the empirical
research on LMX has examined individual-level perceptions of LMX quality and individual-level
outcomes (Schriesheim et al. 2001).
Recently, there has been a growing interest among researchers to address this limitation, and the
in-group/out-group phenomenon is represented more sophisticatedly by differentiation in LMX
processes at the group and the individual–within-group levels. This is evidence of improvement
in terms of being sensitive to the match between conceptualization and the level of constructs,
measurement, and analyses. Nonetheless, LMX theory has between-team implications, yet the
vast majority of LMX team studies do not examine team-level outcomes as well. Encouragingly,
researchers are beginning to examine between-team outcomes of LMX. For example, Li & Liao
(2014) demonstrated that LMX differentiation negatively affects team coordination and is ulti-
mately detrimental to team performance. Nevertheless, our review found that fewer than half of
all team-centric LMX studies have team-level process or outcome variables. Thus, there is a need
to devote more research attention to between-team LMX effects.
Research settings. The vast majority (77 studies) of empirical research on LMX in the team context
are field studies. Most of the field studies are correlational; only one was experimental (Aarons
& Summerfeld 2012). Only four studies were laboratory-based (McClane 1991a,b; Stewart &
Johnson 2009; Dockery & Steiner 1990). Surprisingly, none manipulated variables, making causal

inference murky. It can be challenging to study leadership in the lab, but one would expect better
exploitation of the strengths of the setting.
Research design. The majority of the field studies are static cross-sectional (59 studies), consisting
of single-shot surveys. Several field studies temporally separated the predictors, mediators, and
outcomes (17 studies) across two or three measurement occasions, which suggests an attempt to
mitigate causal ambiguity and concerns with common method variance.
We found no lab studies that had repeated measurements, although we found one longitudinal
field study with three waves of measures. Naidoo et al. (2011) collected longitudinal data consisting
of LMX ratings at multiple points in a product team’s development life cycle and collected team
performance measures at the end. Latent growth curve analysis indicated that early ratings of
LMX were unrelated to eventual team performance. However, the more the average LMX ratings
increased over time, the stronger the team tended to perform.
It is clear that little attention has been paid to examining LMX theory over time. LMX is a
process-oriented theory; thus, research should be process-oriented both in its development and
in its consequences over time. For instance, in one of the few studies that have examined LMX
development, Liden et al. (1993) found that expectations, perceived similarity, liking, demographic
similarity, and performance were determinants of LMX. However, the findings of our review
show that the overwhelming majority of research treats LMX relationships as static. Clearly, to
develop a better understanding of LMX development and evolution of LMX relationships, more
longitudinal studies are needed.
Self-report versus multisource data. We found 21 articles in which all study variables were
measured from members’ self-reports, raising the possibility that the findings may have been
confounded by common method variance. Moreover, 12 of these articles were both single source
and cross-sectional in nature; this is not good. The other 60 studies were multisource. In the
majority of these studies, LMX or other predictors were measured through a self-report measure,
and outcomes are rated by the team leader (e.g., Pan et al. 2012, Ma & Qu 2010). This is
good.
Outcome criteria. Befitting its within-team focus, outcomes tend to be studied at the individual
level (67 findings) as opposed to the team level (36 findings). At the individual level, the most
frequently studied outcome is performance (26 findings), followed by attitudinal constructs (19
findings), and then organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; 9 findings). Other individual
outcomes include well-being and turnover intention. At the team level, the most frequently studied
outcome is team performance (14 findings), followed by attitudinal constructs (6 findings), then
group processes and motivational states (8 findings) without actual effectiveness outcomes. Other
outcomes studied include team-level LMX and well-being.
Of the three most commonly researched outcomes at the individual level, performance is most
often measured through ratings from the team leader (19 of 26 findings), followed by objective
measures (4 of 26 findings), self-ratings (2 of 26 findings), and ratings from an external leader,
customer, or others external to the team (1 of 26 findings). Next, attitudinal constructs were most
solely measured through self-ratings. OCBs are most often measured through ratings from the
team leader (8 out of 9), although in one study they were measured through self-ratings.
Looking at the three most commonly researched outcomes at the team level, we see that team
performance is usually measured through ratings from the team leader (7 of 14 findings), followed
by ratings from managers, customers, or others external to the team (5 of 14 findings), self-ratings
32 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
(1 of 14 findings), and objective measure (1 of 14 findings). Attitudinal constructs are solely

measured through team-member ratings. Group processes and motivational states are mostly
measured through self-ratings, although one study measured team processes and motivational
states from team-leader ratings, which has the potential for misspecification error.
Summary and high-level conclusions. LMX theory is an important part of our understanding
of leadership in teams. Unlike TFL, which tends to focus on leadership behaviors that are applied
consistently across subordinates, LMX sheds light on how leaders develop differential relationships
among the subordinates within a work group. In that sense, it offers a different yet complementary
focus. Historically, much of this research has been conducted at that individual level, which is a
conceptual misspecification. More recently, research has examined the differentiation process at
the group- and the individual–within-group levels. This focus provides complementarity to our
understanding of leadership in teams. However, this research is not capitalizing on the opportunity
to contribute to knowledge about between-team differences because it tends to focus on individual-
level outcomes and it has neglected outcomes at the team level. Thus, there is potential for useful
conceptual integration with aspects of TFL. In particular, there is a need to add a focus on processes
and outcomes that are more team centric. More systematic treatment of contextual moderators
could inform team-centric TFL research as another potential synergy.
TEAM-CENTRIC LEADERSHIP
The leadership areas we reviewed in the previous two sections are mainstream, generic theories
of leadership that have been contextualized to the team as a social unit. In the following two
sections, we examine the literature on SL and FL, two approaches to team leadership that have
been explicitly contextualized to a team setting since inception. Unlike TFL and LMX, SL and
FL are not specific theories of leadership. Rather, they each represent an approach or premise
as to the nature of team leadership, but within each approach there are several distinct theories,
frameworks, and models. As a result, both areas of research have much diversity in terms of
theoretical conceptualization as well as research methods and measurement.
Shared Leadership
The SL approach to team-centric leadership is remarkably diverse, encompassing each of the other
approaches covered in our review—TFL, LMX, and FL—as well as network-based approaches. Its
core idea is that leadership can be distributed across team members rather than being concentrated
in a single person and role.
Conceptualization. Although leadership of teams has traditionally been viewed as the top-down
influence of a single individual on followers, researchers have increasingly acknowledged that
leadership can be exercised by multiple individuals at any given time (Seers 1996, Zaccaro et al.
2001). Although there is no one integrative definition of SL, Avolio et al. (2009) noted that the
most widely cited definition comes from Pearce & Congor (2003a, p. 1), that is, “A dynamic,
interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one
another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both.”
Scholars within the field of SL make reference to numerous early influences that have provided
conceptual grounding, including social exchange theory (Festinger 1954), participative decision
making (Vroom & Yetton 1973), and the concept of empowerment (Blau & Alba 1982, Conger &
Kanungo 1988). This list is not exhaustive but does reflect the diverse contributions to this area

of inquiry. By the mid-1990s, several scholars independently proposed frameworks or constructs

regarding SL (e.g., Avolio et al. 1996; C.L. Pearce, unpublished dissertation).
Researchers have proposed several models to delineate its content and nomological net. Perry
et al. (1999) developed a model of SL that encompasses transactional, transformational, directive,
empowering, and socially supportive behaviors. Hiller et al. (2006) presented a four-dimension ty-
pology: planning/organizing, problem solving, support/consideration, and developing/mentoring.
Other conceptualizations include shared authentic leadership (Hannah et al. 2011), shared vi-
sionary leadership (Pearce & Ensley 2004), and shared FL (Muethel et al. 2012). A promising
social network perspective views SL as the distribution of influence within a team (Carter et al.
2015).
Given this diversity in conceptualization, there is little wonder that it has been operationalized
in many ways. A popular method entails using vertical leadership questionnaires (e.g., TFL) but
framing the leadership behavior ratings to apply to (a) the team as a whole or (b) its members. For
example, in scenario a the referent is to the team as a whole, and responses are aggregated using
a referent-shift model of consensus (Chan 1998), whereas for scenario b the referent is to oneself,
and responses are aggregated using a direct-consensus model (Chan 1998). This approach has been
used to measure transformational, transactional, aversive, directive, and empowering leadership

displayed by the team (Pearce & Sims 2002, Bass & Avolio 1994). In terms of the social network
approach, team members rate other team members according to the degree to which they display
leader-like behaviors (Carson et al. 2007, Mayo et al. 2003). Leadership is rated in a generic
sense, and network indices are computed to assess the team’s SL structure, such as density and
centralization.
Primary research questions and research foci. Many researchers have called attention to the
temporality inherent in SL as an emergent phenomenon that develops over time (Day et al. 2004,
Carson et al. 2007). Similarly, Contractor et al. (2012) highlight time as a core aspect of the
phenomenon and suggested that leadership roles can be assumed by different team members at
various points during the team’s life cycle or during task performance (Klein et al. 2006). Given
its dynamic nature, one would expect that research would therefore examine the process of SL.
For example, research can shed light on questions such as (a) team and contextual characteristics
that enable the emergence of SL; (b) leadership behaviors that can facilitate its development,
propagation across members, and growth; and (c) conditions that influence how the sharing of
leadership can evolve, shift, and change over time.
Mapping to the input-process-output framework. We found 23 SL studies that examined

team processes as mediators between team inputs and team outcomes, thus fitting the IPO frame-
work. All of these studies explore mediating processes between SL and team outcomes. However,
many studies do not map to the IPO framework well. There are 18 input-output articles. They
examine outcomes of SL in comparison to traditional models of hierarchical or vertical leadership
(e.g., Ensley et al. 2006, Pearce & Sims 2002); this is a recurring theme. There are also a handful
of input-input-output articles (9 studies). SL (conceptually, an input) tends to be treated as a me-
diator in these studies, with a focus on identifying antecedents that contribute to SL and how SL,
in turn, relates to team outcomes (e.g., Hiller et al. 2006, Carson et al. 2007, Hoch 2013).
Moderators. SL is a moderator in six studies, making it the most frequently studied moderator.
This is the same observation we made regarding the frequent treatment of LMX as a contextual
factor; leadership is treated as context rather than an input. Team characteristics have received
some attention as moderators, such as organizational tenure diversity and age diversity (Hoch
34 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
2014). More structural, strategic, or organizational attributes have also been studied, including
teamwork encouragement (Wood & Fields 2007), team virtuality (Hoch 2014), team autonomy
(Fausing et al. 2013), organizational culture (Erkutlu 2012), and turbulent versus stable environ-
ment (Resick et al. 2014).
Similar to the TFL literature, moderator research in SL is diverse and broad ranging, largely
revolving around idiosyncratic microtheories used to justify hypotheses. Indeed, the vast majority
of moderators have only been examined once, indicating a weak conceptualization and lack of
systematic development. This may be because the SL literature lacks a theoretical core; as a result,
different researchers are drawing in a piecemeal fashion from different theories to inform potential
moderator effects. Nonetheless, situating SL in a team setting should help researchers to focus on
core contextual characteristics such as task interdependence and complexity, goals, and linkages
to the broader organizational system.
Units of theory and analysis. The majority of research in SL is primarily at the team level of
analysis (51 studies). For instance, Liu et al. (2014) examined whether SL impacts team learning
through team psychological safety. SL was measured through a social network approach, whereas
team psychological safety and team learning were measured through team member perceptions
and aggregated appropriately to the team level. As this type of leadership is viewed as a collective
phenomenon, the levels of theory and hypotheses are aligned with measurement and data analyses
in these studies. However, 16 studies focused on the effects of SL at the individual level of anal-
ysis. For example, studies have examined how individual perceptions of shared leadership impact
individual-level outcomes, such as job stress and job satisfaction (Wood & Fields 2007), as well
as individual-level measures of team cohesion and team effectiveness (Daspit et al. 2013). This
is a misalignment of theory, measurement, and analysis that makes the drawing of meaningful
inferences problematic.
Research settings. Most empirical research is based on correlational field studies (64 studies); seven
studies were conducted in the laboratory (e.g., Künzle et al. 2010a,b; Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum
1971). Two of these laboratory studies are experimental (Kotlyar et al. 2011, Rosenbaum &
Rosenbaum 1971). However, the five other laboratory studies did not manipulate any variables.
We suspect that these studies were conducted in a laboratory setting in order to control for the
team task and to allow for videotaping of SL behaviors. Nevertheless, they do not maximize the
strengths of the laboratory.
Research design. The majority of the field studies are cross-sectional in nature (41 studies). Some
temporally separate the measurements of predictors, mediators and outcomes (17 studies) to
mitigate causal ambiguity and common method variance. There are also five field studies that
measured at least some variables at two time points, and examined potential feedback loops (e.g.,
Gupta et al. 2010, Pearce & Ensley 2004, Mathieu et al. 2015). For example, Gupta et al. (2010)
showed that SL impacts performance, and performance has positive impact on subsequent SL.
Such research aligns better with the conceptual assumptions of SL.
Five longitudinal field studies and one lab study performed three or more waves of repeated
measurement on focal variables (Acar 2010, Carte et al. 2006, Drescher et al. 2014, Bienefeld &
Grote 2014, Hallinger & Heck 2010). For example, Acar (2010) found that surface-level diversity
was negatively linked to emotional conflict in the beginning and the end of groups’ interactions,

whereas deep-level diversity was positively linked to emotional conflict in the middle of groups’
interactions. SL was found to moderate the relationship between diversity and emotional conflict.
Self-report versus multisource data. A moderate number of studies collected all data from self-
report measures (21 studies), 16 of which were cross-sectional as well. These studies are especially
vulnerable to potential measurement biases. The other studies used multisource data (50 articles).
Most frequently, SL or other predictors are measured through members’ ratings, and the outcomes
are rated by the team leader or are objective measures (e.g., Carson et al. 2007, Hannah et al. 2011).
Some of these multisource studies contained self-reported outcomes, but measures of SL were
obtained by peer ratings and calculated by a social network approach (e.g., Solansky 2008, Liu
et al. 2014).
Outcome criteria. Outcomes tend to be studied at the team level (62 findings), as opposed to the
individual level (17 findings). At the individual level, the most frequently studied outcomes are
attitudinal constructs (8 findings), followed by perceived team processes (3 findings), and individual
performance (2 findings). Attitudinal constructs and perceived team processes are solely measured
through self-report, whereas individual performance outcomes are measured by self-report or

objective indicators.
At the team level, the most frequently studied outcomes are team performance (45 findings),
followed by group processes and motivational states (11 findings), and attitudinal constructs (4
findings). Two studies also examined team learning. Team performance is most often measured
through objective indicators (16 findings), followed by external raters (11 findings), leader ratings
(9 findings), and self-ratings (9 findings). Group processes and motivational states are most often
measured through team member ratings (10 findings), although one study measured it through
ratings from team leaders. Attitudinal constructs are solely measured through self-report.
Summary and high-level conclusions. SL offers an alternative to the traditional vertical lead-
ership perspective. Whereas vertical leadership models consider leadership as emanating solely
from the leader, the SL approach considers the role of mutual influence among team members as
another source of leadership for the group. As evidenced by the numerous conceptualizations and
measures of SL, researchers have drawn from many theoretical approaches. Although this diver-
sity is useful for fostering creative thinking about the nature of this construct when the field is at
the formative stage, it results in a loose concept of SL. Without a consensus on the nature of the
construct, SL will lack a core set of theoretical principles, and will be less impactful informing team
effectiveness research. Thus, progress is needed to understand the nature, content, and dimen-
sionality of SL. In examining the many approaches that have been studied, recent meta-analyses
(Wang et al. 2014, Nicolaides et al. 2014, D’Innocenzo et al. 2014) found that the social network
approach to SL is more predictive of team effectiveness relative to other approaches. Thus, the
network perspective of SL should prove fruitful in future research and has the potential to serve
as a conceptual core for theoretical development (see Carter et al. 2015).
Functional Leadership
The origins of FL can be traced to work conducted on leadership training for the US Civil Service
Commission (Kozlowski et al. 1996, 2009; see also McGrath 1962) and is generally regarded as
the oldest team-centric approach to leadership. Rather than a singular theory, it is represented
by a variety of taxonomies intended to identify core team leadership functions and a handful of
theories that endeavor to capture how different functions are contingent on a team’s developmental
sequence and/or cycles of task engagement.
36 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Conceptualization. The FL perspective does not attempt to identify specific leadership behav-
iors, but rather behavioral sets that are needed to get key group functions accomplished (Hackman
& Wageman 2005). In other words, the emphasis switches from “what leaders should do” to “what
needs to be done for effective performance” (Hackman & Walton 1986, p. 77). Similar to aspects of
SL, the FL approach is agnostic as to who accomplishes the functions so long as they are addressed.
Several researchers have identified and offered general categories of leadership functions in
teams. For example, McGrath (1962) developed a typology of critical leadership functions arrayed
in a two-by-two matrix. One axis specifies the type of activity (monitoring or taking executive
action), whereas the other axis describes the orientation of the activity (internal or external to
the group). Hackman & Walton (1986) argued that team leaders need to monitor team con-
ditions and, when necessary, take action to foster five conditions for team effectiveness: a clear
engaging direction, a facilitating group structure, a supportive context, available expert coach-
ing, and sufficient material resources. Fleishman et al. (1991) offered a taxonomy of FL that
summarized activities around four superordinate dimensions: information search and structur-
ing, information use in problem solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material
resources. Kozlowski et al. (2009) organized six classic FL models into an integrative taxon-
omy of leadership functions—plan/organize and monitor/act—that are applied to distinct team

foci—internal/external and task/social. They also argued that the classic functions were static and
proposed a theory of FL, team development, and performance compilation in which the leader-
ship functions shift across task cycles (episodes), developmental phases (linear time), and levels
(individual, dyad, team networks; see also Kozlowski et al. 1996, 1999). Additionally, Hackman
& Wageman (2005) applied the concept of FL to managerial coaching, and they suggested that
team coaching serves motivational, consultative, and educational functions. Finally, Morgeson
et al. (2010) conducted an integrative review of FL and derived a comprehensive set of 15 func-
tions, organized by the phase of team performance cycle within which they occur (i.e., transition
or action; Marks et al. 2001). Morgeson et al. (2010) defined seven leadership functions that fall
within the transition phase: compose the team, define the mission, establish goals and expecta-
tions, structure and plan, train and develop, promote sense making, and provide feedback. Eight
leadership functions argued to facilitate team action phases are monitor the team, manage team
boundaries, challenge members, perform team task, solve problems, provide resources, encourage
team self-management, and support social climate. This list of FL frameworks is not exhaustive,
but reflects the diversity in taxonomies that have been proposed.
The diversity in proposed functions is reflected in the multitude of ways in which FL has been
operationalized and measured. For instance, Lord (1977) developed a measure of FL through a
coding procedure that classified leadership behavior into one of twelve functions. Focusing on
the functional role of coaching, Wageman et al. (2005) developed a measure that investigated
task-focused coaching, operant coaching, interpersonal coaching, and unhelpful directives. More
recently, Morgeson et al. (2010) developed a scale that assesses the 15 team leadership functions
identified in their comprehensive review. However, many of the team leadership studies that adopt
a functional approach do not draw on a particular FL theory. Rather, they tend to develop their
own measures to assess specific leadership functions that they propose are critical in their particular
context. Indeed, Burke et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of this work. They identified 231
potential studies for inclusion, but after applying inclusion criteria they were left with 50 studies
and 113 effect sizes for the meta-analysis. Moreover, because the functions are so diverse, Burke
et al. (2006) clustered them into task-focused and person-focused functions.
Primary research questions and research foci. As previously mentioned, FL adopts the per-
spective that the primary responsibility of team leaders is to identify what role functions are missing

or are not being handled adequately in the team and either do it or arrange for it to be done by
others. Therefore, we would expect researchers to delineate the functions that are necessary to
facilitate team effectiveness in various problem situations and specific ways in which leaders can
fulfill each of the functions. Additionally, given these functions are deemed to be critical, atten-
tion should be directed toward the connection between specific leader functions and the important
team processes and outcomes they should help facilitate. Alas, many of the frameworks are more
general taxonomies.
Additionally, several frameworks have explicated the idea of FL as a lens through which to
understand leader-team dynamics. For example, Zaccaro et al. (2001) place emphasis on the ex-
istence of reciprocal relationships whereby both leadership and team processes influence each
other. Similarly, building on prior work (Kozlowski et al. 1996, 1999), Kozlowski et al. (2009)
provide a prescriptive metatheory that argues that the functions that leaders exercise should be
sensitive to two dynamic dimensions: task cycle dynamics and developmental dynamics. They
posit that effective leaders build targeted skills within the different phases of the task, which fa-
cilitates the team’s development of progressively more advanced skills that emerge at different
levels—individual, dyad, and team network—and capabilities that are expected to yield flexible,
coordinated, and adaptive team behaviors. Therefore, research should be sensitive to temporal
dynamics with respect to task and developmental cycles, and feedback loops.
Mapping to the input-process-output framework. Fifteen FL empirical studies examined

process and emergent states as mediators between team inputs and team outcomes. For example,
Luciano et al. (2014) found that both relative and average external leadership related positively
to team empowerment which, in turn, related positively to team performance and member job
satisfaction.
However, there are also many FL studies that do not fit the IPO framework well. For instance,
six are input-output studies only. Typically, these studies examine how the enactment of FL
behaviors relates to a variety of team outcomes without examining any mediating team processes
(e.g., Morgeson 2005, Tschan et al. 2006). There are also four input-input-output studies (e.g.,
Künzle et al. 2010b, Benoliel & Somech 2015). These studies examine the mediating role of the
leader’s functional activities on the relationship between leader or structural characteristics and
team effectiveness.
Moderators. Several studies tested the moderating role of leader characteristics and behaviors,
such as team temporal leadership (Mohammed & Nakarni 2011), team leader experience (Sieweke
& Zhao 2015), leader charisma (DeRue et al. 2010), and leader consideration (Homan & Greer
2013). Moderators related to the environmental situation are also frequently studied and include
environmental novelty (e.g., Marks et al. 2000, Künzle et al. 2010b), disruptive events (Morgeson
2005), and task load (Künzle et al. 2010a). More structural, strategic, or organizational attributes
have also been studied, including task interdependence (Lord & Rowzee 1979) and goal structure
(Rico et al. 2012). Team characteristics and behaviors have also received some attention, including
team reflection (Buljac-Samardzic & van Woerkom 2015) and team member self-efficacy (DeRue
et al. 2010).
Units of theory and analysis. The majority of research in FL is primarily at the team level of
analysis. For instance, Marks & Panzer (2004) examined the impact of team monitoring on team
coordination and team effectiveness. Monitoring and coordination behaviors enacted by team
38 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
members were videotaped and rated by subject matter experts, and team effectiveness was assessed
through simulation performance. Because the FL perspective is focused on the fulfillment of team
needs, this indicates generally good alignment of levels of theory/hypotheses with measurement
and data analyses.
Research settings. FL research comprises a balanced mix of lab and field studies. There are 18
field studies, of which 17 are correlational in nature. Additionally, there was one field experi-
ment. Participants engaged in a 20-day training program designed to develop three leadership
functions—situation clarification, strategy clarification, and coordination (Santos et al. 2015).
Compared to untrained leaders, trained leaders improved their enactment of leadership functions
and team effectiveness.
There are 14 lab studies, 10 of which are experimental (e.g., Lord & Rowzee 1979, Randall et al.
2011, DeRue et al. 2010). For example, Randall et al. (2011) conducted a study in which participants
were randomly assigned to one of three team roles and teams were randomly assigned to the
external sensegiving experimental or control condition. Teams performed a strategic decision-
making task requiring the integration of distributed expertise from each member, and it was
found that external sensegiving promoted the development of strategy mental models. Four of
the lab studies are not experiments (Künzle et al. 2010a,b; Tschan et al. 2006; Marks & Panzer
2004); without experimental manipulation of key variables, these studies do not allow any firm
causal inference and therefore do not fully exploit the strengths of the lab setting.
Research design. In examining the time frame of FL research, 10 of the field studies are cross-
sectional and 5 field studies temporally separated the predictors, mediators, and outcomes. Ad-
ditionally, three field studies are longitudinal with repeated measures at three occasions or more
(Sieweke & Zhao 2015, Hirst & Mann 2004, Drescher et al. 2014). For instance, Hirst & Mann
(2004) found that different factors predicted different stakeholders’ ratings of project performance.
Communication safety was the strongest predictor of customer ratings of performance. Boundary
spanning was most effective when performed by the project leader, not the team. Sieweke & Zhou
(2015) found that there is a U-shaped relationship between team familiarity and team coordination
errors, moderated by leader team-specific experience.
Four of the lab studies are longitudinal (Marks et al. 2000, Lord & Rowzee 1979, Tschan et al.
2006, Bienefeld & Grote 2014). Across three performance episodes, Marks et al. (2000) found that
leader communication in the form of sensemaking helped teams develop shared mental models
which, in turn, enhanced team performance. Across three performance phases, Tschan et al. (2006)
found that leadership behavior of the first nurse enhanced performance in Phase 1, leadership of
the resident enhanced performance in Phase 2, and leadership and structuring questions of the
senior physician enhanced performance in Phase 3.
Self-report versus multisource data. Looking across the 32 studies, we see that 31 studies mea-
sured variables through multiple sources. In general, perceptions of FL behaviors are measured
by ratings from team members, whereas team effectiveness outcomes tend to be either measured
through objective indicators or team leader ratings. This suggests a strong effort to minimize
potential measurement and method biases.
Outcome criteria. Outcomes are almost solely at the team level (39 findings) as opposed to the
individual level (3 findings). At the individual level, studies have examined individual performance
(2 findings) and individual attitudes (1 finding). At the team level, team performance is the most
frequently studied outcome (30 findings), followed by leader performance (2 findings), attitudinal

outcomes (2 findings), and group processes and motivational states (2 findings). One study also
examined team learning as an outcome.
At the individual level, performance has been rated by peers and measured through objective
indicators. Individual attitudes are measured by self-ratings. At the team level, team performance
is mostly measured through objective indicators (14 findings), followed by team leader ratings (7
findings), ratings from external raters (7 findings), and team member ratings (2 findings). Leader
performance, attitudinal constructs, group processes and motivational states, and team learning
were solely measured through team member ratings. In general, these are exemplary efforts in
the rigor of design, measurement, and analyses.
Summary and high-level conclusions. Although much of the conceptual work on team-centric
leadership over the past 30 years has taken a functional perspective, there has been much less
empirical work examining tenets put forth by exemplars of this approach. It is ironic that FL is the
oldest approach to team leadership and has a substantial amount of theoretical diversity, but has
the least amount of empirical research in comparison to TFL, LMX, and SL. In some instances,
it is likely because the FL framework is little more than an organizing taxonomy (e.g., McGrath
1962) and there is not much substance to apply to research. In other instances, it is likely because
the frameworks are big, complex, and dynamic, making them difficult to study comprehensively
(e.g., Kozlowski et al. 2009). For the latter theories, researchers should focus on more constrained
models derived from the broader theoretical framework that evaluate a critical aspect of the theory.
There is also a need to develop measurement tools to assess these theories. Some FL frameworks
have developed corresponding measures. For example, the theoretically derived and comprehen-
sive scale developed by Morgeson et al. (2010) is more than half a decade old, but we found no
empirical studies that have used it. We strongly urge researchers to exploit these opportunities
to examine FL. Overall, it is time for the empirical work to catch up with the conceptual work;
otherwise, the FL approach will not remain viable and will be supplanted by the other perspectives
of team-centric leadership.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We began this review by highlighting the increasing amount of team-centric leadership research.
Although it originated historically within team effectiveness research, over the past two decades
there has been a consistent increase in the volume of theory and research that examines leadership
in teams (Day 2012). We reviewed the empirical research on team-centric leadership by situating
it with an IPO framework, applying the lens of multilevel theory, and examining the rigor of
its research design (i.e., alignment with levels, degree of rigor, and treatment of time). Four
theoretical approaches were examined: TFL, LMX, SL, and FL. This discussion summarizes key
findings, makes recommendations designed to advance each type of team-centric leadership, and
considers how these approaches might complement or inform one another in future research. All
recommendations for future research are presented in Table 3.
Transformational Leadership
Of the four theoretical approaches, team-centric research in TFL has grown the fastest, particularly
over the past 10 years. Research design is generally good. TFL is largely conceptualized at the
team level using multisource data. Meta-analytic findings indicate that TFL is positively related to
team performance (Wang et al. 2011). However, TFL research has been strongly criticized. Van
Knippenberg & Sitkin (2013) fault the general TFL literature for defining multidimensional facets
of TFL but failing to articulate how they link with distinct mediating processes and outcomes.
40 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Table 3 Recommendations for future research on team-centric leadership

Transformational leadership (TFL)
Recommendation 1: Team-centric TFL research should map more completely to a multilevel team input-process-output framework.
Recommendation 2: Future team-centric TFL research should draw from well-established team process-mediating mechanisms.
Recommendation 3: Future team-centric TFL research should use the team context to establish boundary conditions to guide
theoretically driven specification of moderators of TFL relationships.
Leader-member exchange (LMX)
Recommendation 4: Team-centric LMX research should examine relationships between different patterns of LMX on the mediating
link between relevant team processes and team outcomes.
Recommendation 5: Team-centric LMX research should continue to focus on task- and context-relevant moderators, but should do so
in conjunction with research on team process mediators.
Shared leadership (SL)

Recommendation 6: Researchers are advised to develop a coherent and consistent conceptualization of SL. Given its inherent
diversity, this might necessitate development of a taxonomy of types of SL to bring conceptual order to the literature.
Recommendation 7: Future research on SL should examine the processes of SL emergence and the dynamics of SL in operation.
Recommendation 8: Future SL research should draw from team process-mediating mechanisms and should focus on task- and
context-relevant moderators.
Functional leadership (FL)

Recommendation 9: Future research should evaluate core propositions of recent FL theories.
Recommendation 10: FL research should examine the multilevel and emergent nature of team processes and outcomes.
All team-centric leadership approaches
Recommendation 11: Future research on team leadership should examine synergies among the different approaches.
Research methods and design
Recommendation 12: Research on team leadership should strive to improve how leadership dimensions are measured so they (a) better
capture theoretical definitions, (b) better differentiate among leadership dimensions, and (c) better address the team context.
Recommendation 13: Future research can take advantage of recent developments in unobtrusive data collection as well as
computational modeling.
Recommendation 14: More longitudinal research is required to examine team leadership as it emerges and changes over time.
Researchers should embrace new methods to explore the temporal aspects of team-centric leadership theories.
Furthermore, the wide variety of moderators and mediators that have been examined in general
TFL research are asystematic and lack an overarching conceptual framework.
A big part of the problem is that much of the general TFL research has failed to situate TFL
in a context and has misspecified it at the individual level. That is, in much of the voluminous
research, TFL has been measured using individual perceptions and has been related to perceived
outcomes. Situating TFL in a team context sets useful constraints (e.g., task interdependence,
linkages to other teams, the nature of team effectiveness) that should bring order to the confusion.
Thus, although one can acknowledge that there are theoretical ambiguities and flawed research
in the vast TFL research foundation, we recommend capitalizing on the research findings in the
team-centric TFL literature, which is generally of higher quality.
With respect to mapping TFL research to the IPO framework and viewing its alignment
with multilevel theory, thus far there is limited use of a theoretically comprehensive multilevel
IPO framework. Much of the research assessed TFL and team processes at the individual level,
aggregated them to the team level, and analyzed relationships there. This situates TFL at the
appropriate level and generalizes findings across levels, but it does not fully exploit the potential
of a full multilevel conceptualization of TFL.
The multilevel nature of TFL can be explored in several ways. For example, TFL is an
emergent state (i.e., Marks et al. 2001). Theoretically, perceptions of TFL are initially variable

but should converge among followers over time. What factors might account for convergence or
divergence in TFL at the team level? Additionally, Kark & Shamir (2002) suggested that some
TFL dimensions have theoretical potential to be variable across followers within a unit (e.g.,
intellectual stimulation), whereas other dimensions may be more consistent across followers
(e.g., inspirational motivation). Thus, one can envision process-mediating mechanisms at both
the team and individual levels for those TFL dimensions that are convergent (team) and those
that are divergent (individual). This would provide an opportunity to elaborate the interplay
between person and group and capture leader collective processes and leader individuation
processes within the team. Similarly, individual- and team-level attitudes and performance allow
opportunities to examine multiple effects of these outcomes on subsequent leader behaviors for
individual members and the team as a whole.
Recommendation 1: Team-centric TFL research should map more completely to a multilevel

team IPO framework.
Our review notes that many studies of team-centric TFL do not examine process mediators.
Therefore, more studies that examine mediating mechanisms between TFL and team outcomes
are needed. However, in their critique of the general TFL literature, van Knippenberg & Sitkin
(2013) noted that more than 50 process mediators in TFL research have been studied, with
wide diversity and little understanding for how they may be related. In contrast, research on
team processes has matured to identify a more coherent set of mediating mechanisms with well-
established contributions to team effectiveness (see Kozlowski & Ilgen 2006). Thus, mediation
synthesis is better understood in a team context, and team process variables identified in the team
effectiveness literature can serve as primary pathways by which TFL influences team outcomes.
Recommendation 2: Future team-centric TFL research should draw from well-established

team process-mediating mechanisms.
Van Knippenberg & Sitkin (2013) likened the state of moderator variables in general TFL
research to be similar to the state of mediator variables. Too many moderator variables have been
studied with no overarching conceptual framework and little integration. However, situating TFL
in a team context has potential to bring theoretically driven order to moderation. In particular,
researchers can use the team context to establish boundary conditions, such as the team task, team
climate, and/or links among teams in a multiteam system. Therefore, moderators such as task
interdependence within/between teams and strategic imperatives (e.g., goals and climate) should
be primary moderators for team-centric TFL.
Recommendation 3: Future team-centric TFL research should use the team context to
establish boundary conditions to guide theoretically driven specification of moderators of TFL
relationships.
Leader-Member Exchange
As with the TFL literature, there is a large body of research on LMX that is not team centric
but focuses on an individual’s perceived relationship with a leader. However, more attention has
been given to a within-team focus and LMX has grown to be the second largest research area we
reviewed, following TFL. With respect to mapping LMX research to the IPO framework, LMX
does not map particularly well. Given its within-team focus, it has tended to examine individual-
level outcomes rather than focusing on mediating team processes and team outcomes. On the one
hand, this makes sense because the variance it seeks to explain differentiates individual processes
and outcomes. On the other hand, this sets a constraint on the extent to which team-centric LMX
42 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
research can be informative about team effectiveness. Nonetheless, we believe there is potential for
complementary contributions and for LMX research to be more informative about between-team
phenomena than it has been thus far.
The general LMX literature tends to position LMX as the mediator between antecedents
related to leader, follower, and relationship characteristics and outcomes related to performance
and attitudes (Dulebohn et al. 2012). Similarly, in team-centric LMX research, the few studies
that have team-level predictors and outcomes tend to lack mediating team processes. Although
it is conceptually meaningful to examine individual processes and outcomes, it provides very
little information regarding LMX and team effectiveness. Therefore, researchers should elaborate
the effects of different patterns of LMX expression on core processes that contribute to team
effectiveness. For example, high LMX differentiation may inhibit the emergence of a team mental
model because the varying relationships each team member has with the leader could interfere with
the team’s ability to form a convergent understanding of how the team should perform. Conversely,
high LMX differentiation may enhance the emergence of a team’s transactive memory because
the varying relationships may reflect different roles each team member is expected to play. Such
differentiation could support a common understanding of “who knows what” for the team. The
addition of team process mediators to future LMX studies would better align this research with
the IPO framework and stimulate LMX theoretical development in new directions.
Recommendation 4: Team-centric LMX research should examine relationships between differ-
ent patterns of LMX on the mediating link between team processes and team outcomes.
Finally, in terms of moderators, LMX research has been more systematic than TFL research
and has looked at more task/contextual differences. Nonetheless, it is the nature of LMX itself
that is often viewed as a context factor rather than as an input factor to team processes and
effectiveness. Additionally, the majority of studies have primarily focused on moderators that
influence individual-level outcomes. Therefore, future research should examine moderators in
conjunction with team processes and outcomes. For example, the relationship between team
climate and performance is likely to be stronger when the average team LMX is high. This
recommendation brings LMX research closer to the IPO framework and may shed new insights
on leadership between teams.
Recommendation 5: Team-centric LMX research should continue to focus on task and context-
relevant moderators but should do so in conjunction with team process mediators.
Shared Leadership
SL is a broad approach to leadership in teams rather than a unified theoretical perspective, and the
core concept is not well defined. When SL is conceptualized as the density of dyadic exchanges or as
the distribution of leader roles within a team, it has generally been more positively related to team
performance than when SL is conceptualized as an aggregation (i.e., the team, as a whole, is the
leader; D’Innocenzo et al. 2014). Most SL studies in OPB are team centric with good methods and
design,5 although in some studies SL is misspecified at the individual level of analysis. However,
beyond the core notion that leader roles can be assumed by more than one person, the content
and nature of SL is treated differently across the research space.
5
We excluded many shared leadership studies from the education literature because they were qualitative and/or case studies.

Recommendation 6: Researchers are advised to develop a coherent and consistent conceptual-

ization of SL. Given its inherent diversity, this might necessitate development of a taxonomy of
types of SL to bring conceptual order to the literature.
Similar to TFL (indeed, TFL often provides the content for SL research), SL maps to the IPO
heuristic reasonably well and easily incorporates a multilevel perspective. That is, SL can be viewed
as an emergent state (individual- to team-level convergence) that then shapes team processes and
outcomes. Indeed, most research examines some form of process mediator and relations to team
outcomes. However, the unique aspects of SL could be much better exploited.
In particular, the emergence of SL over time—which is at the conceptual core of this form of
leadership—should occupy much more attention in the research. Research has typically focused
on identifying antecedents that may impact SL emergence, without examining the process of
emergence itself (Kozlowski & Chao 2012). Emergence has four key features: It is multilevel
(e.g., individual and team), process oriented (process mechanisms drive convergence-divergence),
manifests over time (exactly how collective patterns emerge), and shaped by the context (places
attention on moderators of emergence patterns; Kozlowski et al. 2013, Kozlowski & Klein 2000).
Thus, research should pay attention to how SL at the team level emerges from the behaviors and
interactions among individuals and the dynamics of how SL itself shifts across team members as
the situation demands (Klein et al. 2006). This is very rich theoretical and empirical turf, but it is
not being exploited in the research.
Recommendation 7: Future research on SL should examine the processes of SL emergence and

the dynamics of SL in operation.
Although much SL research incorporates mediators, they are not always proximal to team
effectiveness. Indeed, in many cases SL is the mediator or moderator and many studies of SL do
not examine process mechanisms. Also, as with TFL research, a wide variety of moderators have
been examined in piecemeal fashion with little evidence of systematic development. Thus, there is
a need to better leverage the team context to bring theoretical order to the selection of mediators
(i.e., focusing on those that contribute to team effectiveness) and moderators (i.e., focusing on
those that structure the task and the team’s linkages with other units). With a focus on emergence,
there is also potential to look at time as a moderator or boundary condition.
Recommendation 8: Future SL research should draw from team process-mediating mechanisms,

and should focus on task- and context-relevant moderators.
Functional Leadership
Similar to the SL approach, FL has generated numerous theories, models, and frameworks. Early
on, the focus was on designing taxonomies to identify and classify the content of FL (e.g., Hackman
& Walton 1986, McGrath 1962). More recently, theory has asserted how functions need to be
flexibly applied to promote team development (shifting to fit different phases of team evolution)
and/or adapted to fit shifts in the team task environment (e.g., Kozlowski et al. 1996, 2009). The
taxonomy by Morgeson et al. (2010) distinguishes functions applicable to transition and action
phases of team activity. Most studies on FL are team centric with good methods and design.
Although there is evidence that FL behaviors are related to team performance and perceived team
effectiveness, the relatively small number of empirical studies suggests caution in confidence of
meta-analytic findings (Burke et al. 2006).
Theoretically, the taxonomies do not necessarily map to the IPO heuristic because they are
merely classification schemes. The more recent theories map very well, however. Moreover,
44 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
although there is relatively little empirical research, most of it maps to the IPO heuristic. One
challenge, however, is that the recent theories are complex, which makes it very difficult to conduct
a comprehensive evaluation. For example, the models by Kozlowski et al. (2009) specify leader
regulatory functions across four developmental phases, during which team processes progressively
emerge across the individual, dyadic, and team levels in response to dynamic shifts in leader behav-
ior. Such a model is difficult to evaluate in its entirety. However, the model can be decomposed into
propositions focused on core functions and evaluated in smaller segments. For example, Kozlowski
et al. (2009, p. 143) note, “[O]ne key aspect of the theory centers on the leader using the task cycle
to prompt a regulatory process to build targeted skills. This aspect of the theory can be examined by
fixing a developmental phase and by investigating whether leader functions that prompt the quality
of self-regulation yield better learning and skill development.” Moreover, Morgeson et al. (2010)
have provided a set of scales to assess the functions specified by their taxonomy. This is a measure
that is ready to go and would provide a way for researchers to assess the efficacy of their taxonomy
and the relative importance of the functions across the transition and action phases of team
activity.
Recommendation 9: Future research should evaluate core propositions of recent FL theories.
Research in FL has tended to focus on leadership processes at the team level, and has not
yet fully exploited the multilevel nature of team leadership. In particular, recent theories of FL
have emphasized leader functions that underlie team learning and development (e.g., Hackman &
Wageman 2005, Kozlowski et al. 2009). These theories posit the critical role of leadership in the
development of team mental models and team metacognitive processes. As noted by Kozlowski
et al. (2009), team learning and development is a multilevel emergent regulatory process; as
leaders prompt transitions to focus the team on acquiring progressively more advanced skills and
capabilities, this individual skill development process is intended to yield team-level regulation
and adaptive teams. Therefore, we urge researchers to add a focus to the multilevel and emergent
nature of the important team processes and outcomes that leadership functions are intended to
help facilitate.
Recommendation 10: FL research should examine the multilevel and emergent nature of team
processes and outcomes.
Synergies Among the Team-Centric Leadership Approaches

The next research recommendation applies to all four approaches to team leadership. Recent
research has already examined SL from an FL perspective. An understanding of who performs
which leadership roles, and how they might change, could be a way to add structure and coherence
to these approaches. Similarly, other combinations of the four approaches to team leadership can
be drawn. Brief examples are provided to illustrate how one approach may inform another. TFL
research is focused on between-team differences, whereas LMX theory is focused on within-team
differences. Together, they can help researchers understand how leaders may apply consistent
leadership functions to the team as a whole as well as individually tailored leadership functions to
specific team members. These approaches to leadership are complementary perspectives that can
take advantage of mixed-level modeling to identify where leadership behaviors are being targeted.
In another example, extensions of the LMX construct to relative LMX and LMX differentiation
have examined how one LMX relationship compares with others and how wide the variance is
for LMX relationships across a given team. Relative LMX varies at the individual level and can
be linked to individual outcomes. Similarly, LMX differentiation varies at the team level and can

be linked to between-team outcomes. The complementarity of these two methods offers a fuller
examination of team leadership and may also prove enlightening for other leadership approaches.
There is also potential to look at synergies among all four approaches. TFL and FL can be
integrated to define the content of leadership, LMX can define the quality of relationships, and the
social network approach to SL can inform what the actual connections look like. Moreover, FL,
LMX, and SL have temporal underpinnings and are thought to evolve over time. Such research
would be a game-changer. One empirical test of a unified theory would be impossible, but synergies
among the different approaches could advance understanding of team-centric leadership.
Recommendation 11: Future research on team leadership should examine synergies among the
different approaches.
Research Methods and Design

This section describes recommendations that may be applied to all four team leadership ap-
proaches. Across all four approaches, most of the research has been conducted in the field, almost
all of those studies were correlational, and most used multisource data rather than relying exclu-
sively on self-reports. With regard to current measures of leadership in teams, it may be time to
examine and perhaps revise these measures within a team context. The MLQ5X and LMX-7 item
scales are most frequently used; however, the items in these scales have been criticized for not
capturing the full meaning of the theoretical constructs (Dulebohn et al. 2012, van Knippenberg &
Sitkin 2013). Furthermore, improved measures should better differentiate the dimensions of lead-
ership to examine how these dimensions relate to particular team inputs, processes and outcomes.
Recommendation 12: Research on team leadership should strive to improve how leadership
dimensions are measured so they (a) better capture theoretical definitions, (b) better differentiate
among leadership dimensions, and (c) better address the team context.
Some studies used objective measures of individual and team performance and encourage
the use of these as well as additional measures to supplement subjective ratings. As the social
sciences move inexorably toward big data, there are many opportunities to apply new methods
to supplement conventional methods of data collection (Kozlowski et al. 2015). One example is
the use of sociometric badges (a small electronic device worn by subjects to measure biomarkers;
Pentland 2010) that can record who interacts with whom, without attentional demands from
participants. Sociometric data can be used to construct and track social networks over significant
time periods. Given the current call for more team leadership research to use social network
approaches (Carter et al. 2015), unobtrusive measures may yield rich longitudinal data that not
only describe a social network’s density and distribution, but may also identify what gets shared.
Another example involves subject matter experts coding team and leader behaviors from video.
Multiple coders can review videos to maximize coding accuracy and reliability. Development of
these measures may take time, but the results can provide more behaviorally based measures of
leadership, team processes, and team performance (Grand et al. 2013).
Finally, we suggest that team leadership processes may be researched using computational
models (CM) and agent-based simulation (ABS). A CM is a precise, theoretically based math-
ematical or logical representation of the core process mechanisms that drive the emergence of
phenomena in teams and other dynamic social systems (i.e., lower-level interactions manifest-
ing as higher-level, collective phenomena). An ABS instantiates the theoretically based CM in
software, thereby allowing computer-based agents to emulate the interaction processes of team
leaders and team members under a wide range of different conditions (Kozlowski et al. 2013). In
other words, one can simulate different forms of leadership, different types of teams, and different
46 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
contextual conditions and observe the effects on interaction processes and the emergence of team
phenomena (e.g., collaboration, cohesion, performance). CM and ABS can be used to conduct
virtual experiments using thousands of teams to explore a full theoretical space, thereby aiding
theory development and evaluation. Promising findings are then verified in human teams. Thus,
CM and ABS, in combination with traditional correlational and experimental research designs
commonly used in OPB, can provide unique insights to advance theory (Kozlowski et al. 2013).
Recommendation 13: Future research can take advantage of recent developments in unobtrusive
data collection as well as computational modeling.
Most of the research has been cross-sectional; few longitudinal studies were conducted and
they typically collected data only over two or three periods. Clearly, more longitudinal research
is needed that tracks emergent and dynamic leadership over significant time periods. Repeated
survey measures may confound results with fatigue effects. The identification of appropriate time
intervals will require theoretical justification; however, data from sociometric badges, objective
performance outcomes, or observer ratings from videotaped teams can provide repeated measures
for extended periods of time without fatigue effects for team members (Kozlowski et al. 2015). Park
et al. (2015) provide one innovative method to examine LMX relationships over time. They used
results from a meta-analysis on LMX relationships to build a computational model that generated
data for 1,000 subjects over a hypothetical seven-year period. Although the data were not related
to teams, results showed relationships between LMX and its antecedents or outcomes changed
over time.
Recommendation 14: More intensive longitudinal research is required to examine team leader-
ship as it emerges and changes over time. Researchers should embrace new methods to explore
the temporal aspects of team-centric leadership theories.
CONCLUSION
Team-centric leadership research has exploded in the past decade. We used a multilevel, IPO,
temporal framework to review four approaches to team leadership: TFL, LMX, SL, and FL.
Although much has been learned by contextualizing leadership in teams, we conclude that more can
be accomplished by (a) capitalizing on a full multilevel, IPO framework; (b) using the team context
to bring theoretical coherence to process mediation and contextual moderation; (c) incorporating
time in theory and research; and (d ) employing innovative research methods. We have provided
actionable recommendations to advance theory and research and are confident that the next decade
will advance team-centric leadership to the next level.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ;
1R18HS020295-01, R. Fernandez, Principal Investigator, S.W.J. Kozlowski, Co-Investigator
and HS022458-01A1, R. Fernandez, Principal Investigator, G.T. Chao, Co-Investigator), the
Army Research Institute (ARI; W911NF-14-1-0026, S.W.J. Kozlowski and G.T. Chao, Principal

Investigators), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA; NNX13AM77G,

S.W.J. Kozlowski, Principal Investigator), and the National Science Foundation (NSF; S.W.J.
Kozlowski and G.T. Chao, Principal Investigators) for support that, in part, assisted the compo-
sition of this review. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of AHRQ, ARI, NASA, or NSF.
LITERATURE CITED
Aarons GA, Summerfeld DH. 2012. Leadership, innovation climate, and attitudes toward evidence-based
practice during a statewide implementation. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 51:423–31
Acar FP. 2010. Analyzing the effects of diversity perceptions and shared leadership on emotional conflict: a
dynamic approach. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 21:1733–53

Avolio BJ, Howell JM, Sosik JJ. 1999. A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: humor as a
moderator of leadership style effects. Acad. Manag. J. 42:219–27
Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Murry W, Sivasubramaniam N. 1996. Building highly developed teams: focusing on
shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance. In Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of
Work Teams: Team Leadership, ed. M Beyerlein, D Johnson, pp. 173–209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Avolio B, Walumbwa F, Weber T. 2009. Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. Annu.
Rev. Psychol. 60:421–49
Balthazard PA, Waldman DA, Warren JE. 2009. Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership
in virtual decision teams. Leadersh. Q. 20:651–63
Bass BM. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press
Bass BM, Avolio BJ. 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage
Bass BM, Avolio BJ. 1997. Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden
Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Berson Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and
transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:207–18
Benoliel P, Somech A. 2015. The role of leader boundary activities in enhancing interdisciplinary team
effectiveness. Small Group Res. 46:83–124
Bienefeld N, Grote G. 2014. Shared leadership in multiteam systems: how cockpit and cabin crews lead each
other to safety. Hum. Factors 56:270–86
Blau JR, Alba RD. 1982. Empowering nets of participation. Adm. Sci. Q. 27:363–79
Boies K, Howell JM. 2006. Leader-member exchange in teams: an examination of the interaction between
relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 17:246–57
Bono J, Judge T. 2003. Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transfor-
mational leadership. Acad. Manag. J. 46:554–71
Brown FW, May DR. 2012. Organizational change and development: the efficacy of transformational leader-
ship training. J. Manag. Dev. 31:520–36
Buljac-Samardzic M, van Woerkom M. 2015. Can managers coach their teams too much? J. Manag. Psychol.
30:280–98
Burke CS, Stagl KC, Klein C, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Halpin SM. 2006. What type of leadership behaviors
are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadersh. Q. 17:288–307
Burns JM. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
Carson JB, Tesluk PE, Marrone JA. 2007. Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions
and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 50:1217–34
Carte TA, Chidambaram L, Becker A. 2006. Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams: a longitudinal
study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors. Group Decis. Negotiation 15:323–43
Carter DR, DeChurch LA, Braun MT, Contractor NS. 2015. Social network approaches to leadership: an
integrative conceptual review. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:597–622
Chan D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis:
a typology of composition models. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:234–46
48 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Charbonnier-Voirin A, El Ahnemi A, Vandenberghe C. 2010. A multilevel model of transformational leader-

ship and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation. Group Organ. Manag.
35:699–726
Chen G, Kirkman BL, Kanfer R, Allen D, Rosen B. 2007. A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment,
and performance in teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:331–46
Chi NW, Chung YY, Tsai WC. 2011. How do happy leaders enhance team success? The mediating roles of
transformational leadership, group affective tone and team processes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41:1421–54
Cho J, Dansereau F. 2010. Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study of transformational leadership,
justice perceptions, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 21:409–21
Cogliser CC, Schriesheim CA. 2000. Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: a multi-level
perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 21:487–511
Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1988. The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 13:639–52
Contractor N, DeChurch L, Carson J, Carter D, Keegan B. 2012. The topology of collective leadership.
Leadersh. Q. 23:994–1011
Cronin MA, Weingart LR, Todorova G. 2011. Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Acad. Manag. Ann.
5:571–612
Dansereau F, Graen GB, Haga W. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 13:46–78

Daspit J, Tillman CJ, Boyd NG, Mckee V. 2013. Cross-functional team effectiveness: an examination of
internal team environment, shared leadership, and cohesion influences. Team Perform. Manag. 19:34–56
Day DV. 2012. Leadership. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, ed. SWJ Kozlowski,
pp. 696–729. New York: Oxford Univ.
Day DV, Gronn P, Salas E. 2004. Leadership capacity in teams. Leadersh. Q. 15(6):857–80
DeRue DS, Barnes CM, Morgeson FP. 2010. Understanding the motivational contingencies of team leader-
ship. Small Group Res. 41:621–51
Diaz-Saenz HR. 2011. Transformational leadership. In The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, ed. A Bryman,
D Collinson, K Grint, B Jackson, M Uhl-Bien, pp. 299–310. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
D’Innocenzo L, Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR. 2014. A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership—
team performance relations. J. Manag. 2014:1–28
Dockery TM, Steiner DD. 1990. The role of the initial interaction in leader member exchange. Group Organ.
Stud. 15:395–413
Drescher M, Korsgaard M, Welpe I, Picot A, Wigand R. 2014. The dynamics of shared leadership: building
trust and enhancing performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:771–83
Dulebohn JH, Bommer WH, Liden RC, Brouer RL, Ferris GR. 2012. A meta-analysis of antecedents and
consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J. Manag.
38:715–59
Eisenbeiss SA, van Knippenberg D, Boerner S. 2008. Transformational leadership and team innovation:
integrating team climate principles. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1438–46
Ensley MD, Hmieleski KM, Pearce CL. 2006. The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new
venture top management teams: implications for the performance of startups. Leadersh. Q. 17:217–31
Epitropaki O. 2013. A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identifi-
cation through the lens of perceived organizational membership: testing a moderated-mediated model.
J. Organ. Behav. 34:65–86
Epitropaki O, Martin R. 2013. Transformational-transactional leadership and upward influence: the role of
relative leader-member exchanges (RLMX) and perceived organizational support (POS). Leadersh. Q.
24:299–315
Erdogan B, Bauer TN. 2010. Differentiated leader-member exchanges: the buffering role of justice climate.
J. Appl. Psychol. 95:1104–20
Erkutlu H. 2012. The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadership and
team proactivity. Team Perform. Manag. 18:102–19
Fausing MS, Jeppesen HJ, Jonsson TS, Lewandowski J, Bligh MC. 2013. Moderators of shared leadership:
work function and team autonomy. Team Perform. Manag. 19:244–62

Festinger L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7:117–40

Fleishman EA, Mumford MD, Zaccaro SJ, Levin KY, Korotkin AL, Hein MB. 1991. Taxonomic efforts in
the description of leader behavior: a synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadersh. Q. 2:245–87
Ford LR, Seers A. 2006. Relational and team climates: pitting differentiation versus agreement. Leadersh. Q.
17:258–70
Gajendran R, Joshi A. 2012. Innovation in globally distributed teams: the role of LMX, communication
frequency, and member influence on team decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:1252–61
Graen GB, Scandura TA. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 9, ed. LL Cummings, BM Staw, pp. 175–208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. 1995. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 6:219–47
Grand JA, Pearce M, Rench TA, Chao GT, Fernandez R, Kozlowski SWJ. 2013. Going DEEP: guidelines
for building simulation-based team assessments. BMJ Qual. Saf. 22:436–48

Gupta VK, Huang R, Niranjan S. 2010. A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership
and performance. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 17:335–50
Hackman JR, Wageman R. 2005. A theory of team coaching. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30:269–87
Hackman JR, Walton RE. 1986. Leading groups in organizations. In Designing Effective Work Groups, ed. PS
Goodman & Associates, pp. 72–119. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Hallinger P, Heck RH. 2010. Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference? Educ.
Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 38:654–78
Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB. 2007. Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and
communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
103:1–20
Hannah ST, Walumbwa FO, Fry J. 2011. Leadership in action teams: team leader and members’ authenticity,
authenticity strength, and performance outcomes. Pers. Psychol. 64:771–801
Harris T, Li N, Kirkman BL. 2014. Leader-member exchange (LMX) in context: how LMX differentiation
and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX’s influence on OCB and turnover intention. Leadersh. Q.
25:314–28
Hiller NJ, Day DV, Vance RJ. 2006. Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: a field
study. Leadersh. Q. 17:387–97
Hirst G, Mann L. 2004. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project
performance. R&D Manag. 34:147–60
Hoch JE. 2013. Shared leadership and innovation: the role of vertical leadership and employee integrity.
J. Bus. Psychol. 28:159–74
Hoch JE. 2014. Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams. J. Manag. Psychol. 29:541–64
Hoch JE, Kozlowski SW. 2014. Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared
team leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:390–403
Homan AC, Greer LL. 2013. Considering diversity: the positive effects of considerate leadership in diverse
teams. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 16:105–25
Howell JM, Neufeld DJ, Avolio BJ. 2005. Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with
business unit performance. Leadersh. Q. 16:273–85
Hsiung H-H. 2012. Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: a multi-level psychological process.
J. Bus. Ethics 107:349–61
Hu JIA, Liden RC. 2013. Relative leader-member exchange within team contexts: how and when social
comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Pers. Psychol. 66:127–72
Hur Y, van den Berg P, Wilderom C. 2011. Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional
intelligence and team outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 22:501–603
Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D. 2005. Teams in organizations: from I-P-O models to IMOI
models. Annu. Rev. Psychology 56:517–43
Jaussi KS, Dionne SD. 2003. Leading for creativity: the role of unconventional leader behavior. Leadersh. Q.
14:475–98
Jung DI. 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups.
Creativity Res. J. 13:185–95
50 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Jung DD, Sosik JJ. 2002. Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of empowerment, cohesiveness,
and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Res. 33:313–36
Kahai S, Sosik J, Avolio B. 2003. Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant
processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadersh. Q. 14:499–524
Kark R, Shamir B. 2002. The dual effect of transformational leadership: priming relational and collective selves
and further effects on followers. In Transformational Leadership: The Road Ahead, Vol. 2, ed. BJ Avolio,
FJ Yammarino, pp. 67–91. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Sci.
Kearney E, Gebert D. 2009. Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of transforma-
tional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:77–89
Kirkman BL, Chen G, Farh JL, Chen ZX, Lowe KB. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower
reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Acad. Manag. J. 52:744–64
Klein KJ, Ziegert JC, Knight A, Xiao Y. 2006. Dynamic delegation: shared, hierarchical and deindividualized
leadership in extreme action teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 51:590–621

Kotlyar I, Karakowsky L, Ng P. 2011. Leader behaviors, conflict and member commitment to team-generated
decisions. Leadersh. Q. 22:666–79
Kozlowski SWJ, Chao GT. 2012. The dynamics of emergence: cognition and cohesion in work teams.
Managerial Decis. Econ. 33:335–54
Kozlowski SWJ, Chao GT, Chang C-H, Fernandez R. 2015. Team dynamics: using “big data” to advance
the science of team effectiveness. In Big Data at Work: The Data Science Revolution and Organizational
Psychology, ed. S Tonidandel, E King, J Cortina, pp. 272–309. New York: Routledge Acad.
Kozlowski SWJ, Chao GT, Grand JA, Braun MT, Kuljanin G. 2013. Advancing multilevel research design:
capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organ. Res. Methods 16(4):581–615
Kozlowski SWJ, Gully SM, McHugh PP, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. 1996. A dynamic theory of leadership
and team effectiveness: developmental and task contingent leader roles. In Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, Vol. 14, ed. GR Ferris, pp. 253–305. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Kozlowski SWJ, Gully SM, Nason ER, Smith EM. 1999. Developing adaptive teams: a theory of compilation
and performance across levels and time. In The Changing Nature of Work Performance: Implications for
Staffing, Personnel Actions, and Development, ed. DR Ilgen, ED Pulakos, pp. 240–92. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass
Kozlowski SWJ, Ilgen DR. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Public
Interest 7(3):77–124
Kozlowski SWJ, Klein JK. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual,
temporal and emergent processes. In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, ed. KJ
Klein, SWJ Kozlowski, pp. 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kozlowski SWJ, Watola DJ, Jensen JM, Kim BH, Botero IC. 2009. Developing adaptive teams: a theory of
dynamic team leadership. In Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and
Approaches, ed. E Salas, Goodwin GF, Burke CS, pp. 113–55. New York: Routledge
Künzle B, Zala-Mezö E, Kolbe M, Wacker J, Grote G. 2010a. Leadership in anaesthesia teams: The most
effective leadership is shared. Qual. Saf. Health Care 19:e46
Künzle B, Zala-Mezö E, Kolbe M, Wacker J, Grote G. 2010b. Substitutes for leadership in anaesthesia teams
and their impact on leadership effectiveness. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 19:505–31
Le Blanc PM, González-Romá V. 2012. A team level investigation of the relationship between leader-member
exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. Leadersh. Q. 23:534–44
Li A, Liao H. 2014. How do leader-member exchange quality and differentiation affect performance in teams?
An integrated multilevel dual process model. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:847–66
Liao H, Chuang A. 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: a multilevel, multisource examination
of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1006–19
Liao H, Liu D, Loi R. 2010. Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social cognitive perspective
on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 53:1090–109
Liden RC, Erdogan B, Wayne SJ, Sparrowe RT. 2006. Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task
interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. J. Organ. Behav. 27:723–46
Liden RC, Graen GB. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical linkage model of leadership. Acad. Manag. J.
23:451–65

Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Stilwell D. 1993. A longitudinal study on the early development of leader member
exchanges. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:662–74
Lim BC, Ployhart RE. 2004. Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team per-
formance in typical and maximal contexts. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:610–21
Liu S, Hu J, Li Y, Wang Z, Lin X. 2014. Examining the cross-level relationship between shared leadership
and learning in teams: evidence from China. Leadersh. Q. 25:282–95
Liu Y, DeFrank RS. 2013. Self-interest and knowledge-sharing intentions: the impacts of transformational
leadership climate and HR practices. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 24:1151–64
Lord RG. 1977. Functional leadership behavior: measurement and relation to social power and leadership
perceptions. Adm. Sci. Q. 22:114–33
Lord RG, Rowzee M. 1979. Task interdependence, temporal phase, and cognitive heterogeneity as determi-
nants of leadership behavior and behavior-performance relations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23:182–
200
Luciano MM, Mathieu JE, Ruddy TM. 2014. Leading multiple teams: average and relative external leadership
influences on team empowerment and effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:322–31
Ma L, Qu Q. 2010. Differentiation in leader-member exchange: a hierarchical linear model. Leadersh. Q.
21:733–44
Mannheim B, Halamish H. 2008. Transformational leadership as related to team outcomes and contextual
moderation. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 29:617–30

Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:356–76
Marks MA, Zaccaro SJ, Mathieu JE. 2000. Performance implications of leader briefings and team interaction
training for team adaptation to novel environments. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:971–86
Marks MA, Panzer FJ. 2004. The influence of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Hum.
Perform. 17:25–41
Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR, D’Innocenzo L, Reilly G. 2015. Modeling reciprocal team cohesion-
performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence. J. Appl. Psychol.
100:713–34
Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advance-
ments and a glimpse into the future. J. Manag. 34:410–76
Mayo MC, Meindl JR, Pastor JC. 2003. Shared leadership in work teams: a social network approach. See
Pearce & Conger 2003b, pp. 193–214
McClane WE. 1991a. Implications of member role differentiation: analysis of a key concept in the LMX model
of leadership. Group Organ. Stud. 16:102–13
McClane WE. 1991b. The interaction of leader and member characteristics in the leader-member exchange
(LMX) model of leadership. Small Group Res. 22:283–300
McGrath JE. 1962. Leadership Behavior: Some Requirements for Leadership Training. Washington, DC: US Civil
Service Comm., Off. Career Dev.
McGrath JE. 1964. Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
McGrath JE, Arrow H, Berdahl JL. 2000. The study of groups: past, present and future. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.
4:95–105
Mohammed S, Nadkarni S. 2011. Temporal diversity and team performance: the moderating role of team
temporal leadership. Acad. Manag. J. 54:489–508
Morgeson FP. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and
disruptive events. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:497–508
Morgeson FP, DeRue DS, Karam EP. 2010. Leadership in teams: a functional approach to understanding
leadership structures and processes. J. Manag. 36:5–39
Muethel M, Gehrlein S, Hoegl M. 2012. Socio-demographic factors and shared leadership behaviors in
dispersed teams: implications for human resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. 51:525–48
Naidoo LJ, Scherbaum CA, Goldstein HW, Graen GB. 2011. A longitudinal examination of the effects of
LMX, ability, and differentiation on team performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 26:347–57
Nemanich LA, Vera D. 2009. Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition.
Leadersh. Q. 20:19–33
52 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
Nicolaides VC, LaPort KA, Chen TR, Tomassetti AJ, Weis EJ, et al. 2014. The shared leadership of teams:
a meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. Leadersh. Q. 25:923–42
Olsson L, Hemlin S, Pousette A. 2012. A multi-level analysis of leader-member exchange and creative per-
formance in research groups. Leadersh. Q. 23:604–19
Pan W, Sun L, Chow IHS. 2012. Leader-member exchange and employee creativity: test of a multilevel
moderated mediation model. Hum. Perform. 25:432–51
Park S, Sturman MC, Vanderpool C, Chan E. 2015. Only time will tell: the changing relationships between
LMX, job performance, and justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:660–80
Pearce CL, Ensley MD. 2004. A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: the central
role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). J. Organ. Behav. 25:259–78
Pearce CL, Sims HP. 2002. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change man-
agement teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering
leader behaviors. Group Dyn.: Theory, Res. Pract. 6:172–97

Pearce CL, Conger JA. 2003a. All those years ago: the historical underpinnings of shared leadership. See
Pearce & Conger 2003b, pp. 1–18
Pearce CL, Conger JA, eds. 2003b. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. London:
Sage
Pentland AS. 2010. To signal is human: real-time data mining unmasks the power of imitation, kith and
charisma in our face-to-face social networks. Am. Sci. 98:203–11

Perry ML, Pearce CL, Sims HP. 1999. Empowered selling teams: how shared leadership can contribute to
selling team outcomes. J. Pers. Selling Sales Manag. 19:35–52
Purvanova RK, Bono JE. 2009. Transformational leadership in context: face-to-face and virtual teams. Leadersh.
Q. 20:343–57
Randall KR, Resick CJ, DeChurch LA. 2011. Building team adaptive capacity: the roles of sensegiving and
team composition. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:525–40
Resick CJ, Murase T, Randall KR, DeChurch LA. 2014. Information elaboration and team performance:
examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
124:165–76
Rico R, Sanchez-Manzanares M, Antino M, Lau D. 2012. Bridging team faultlines by combining task role
assignment and goal structure strategies. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:407–20
Rogosa DR. 1995. Myths and methods: “myths about longitudinal research” plus supplemental questions. In
The Analysis of Change, ed. JM Gottman, pp. 3–66. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Rosenbaum LL, Rosenbaum WB. 1971. Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style,
stress, and type of task. J. Appl. Psychol. 55:343–48
Ruggieri S. 2009. Leadership in virtual teams: a comparison of transformational and transactional leaders. Soc.
Behav. Pers. 37:1017–22
Santos JP, Caetano A, Tavares SM. 2015. Is training leaders in functional leadership a useful tool for improving
the performance of leadership functions. Leadersh. Q. 26:470–84
Schaubroeck J, Lam SS, Cha SE. 2007. Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact
of leader behavior on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1020–30
Schriesheim CA, Castro SL, Cogliser CC. 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensive
review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadersh. Q. 10:63–113
Schriesheim CA, Castro SL, Zhou X, Yammarino FJ. 2001. The folly of theorizing ‘A’ but testing ‘B’: a
selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed leader-member exchange illustration. Leadersh.
Q. 12:515–51
Seers A. 1996. Better leadership through chemistry: toward a model of shared team leadership. In Advances in
Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, ed. M Beyerlein, pp. 145–72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Shin S, Kim T, Lee J, Bian L. 2012. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: a
cross-level interaction. Acad. Manag. J. 55:197–212
Sieweke J, Zhao B. 2015. The impact of team familiarity and team leader experience on team coordination
errors: a panel analysis of professional basketball teams. J. Organ. Behav. 36:382–402
Sivasubramaniam N, Murry WD, Avolio BJ, Jung DI. 2002. A longitudinal model of the effects of team
leadership and group potency on group performance. Group Organ. Manag. 27:66–96

Solansky ST. 2008. Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud.
14:332–41
Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ, Kahai SS. 1997. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness
in a group decision support system environment. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:89–103
Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ, Kahai SS. 1998. Inspiring group creativity: comparing anonymous and identified electronic
brainstorming. Small Group Res. 29:3–31
Stewart N, Johnson O. 2009. Leader-member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work
group diversity and team performance. Group Organ. Manag. 34:507–35
Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gautschi D, Hunziker P, Spychiger M, Marsch SU. 2006. Leading to recovery: group
performance and coordinative activities in medical emergency driven groups. Hum. Perform. 19:277–304
van Knippenberg D, Sitkin SB. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research:
Back to the drawing board? Acad. Manag. Ann. 7:1–60
Vidyarthi PR, Liden RC, Anand S, Erdogan B, Ghosh S. 2010. Where do I stand? Examining the effects of
leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:849–61
Vroom VH, Yetton PW. 1973. Leadership and Decision-Making. New York: Wiley
Wageman R, Hackman JR, Lehman E. 2005. Team diagnostic survey: development of an instrument. J. Appl.
Behav. Sci. 41:373–98
Wang G, Oh S, Courtright SH, Colbert AE. 2011. Transformational leadership and performance across
criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group Organ. Manag. 36:223–70
Wang D, Waldman DA, Zhang Z. 2014. A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. J. Appl.
Psychol. 99:181–98
Wang P, Walumbwa FO. 2007. Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal:
the moderating role of transformational leadership. Pers. Psychol. 60:397–427
Wang X-H, Howell JM. 2012. A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower
outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 23:775–90
Wang X-H, Howell JM. 2010. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers.
J. Appl. Psychol. 95:1134–44
Wood MS, Fields D. 2007. Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team member job
outcomes. Baltic J. Manag. 2:251–72
Wu JB, Tsui AS, Kinicki AJ. 2010. Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Acad. Manag. J.
53:90–106
Zaccaro SJ, Rittman AL, Marks MA. 2001. Team leadership. Leadersh. Q. 12:451–83
Zhang XA, Li N, Ullrich J, van Dick R. 2015. Getting everyone on board: the effect of differentiated transfor-
mational leadership by CEOs on top management team effectiveness and leader-rated firm performance.
J. Manag. 41:1898–33
Zhou L, Wang M, Chen G, Shi J. 2012. Supervisors’ upward exchange relationships and subordinate outcomes:
testing the multilevel mediation role of empowerment. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:668–80
54 Kozlowski · ·
Mak Chao
OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Annual Review
of Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational
Behavior
Contents Volume 3, 2016

Stumbling Toward a Social Psychology of Organizations: An

Autobiographical Look at the Direction of Organizational Research
Barry M. Staw p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Team-Centric Leadership: An Integrative Review

Steve W.J. Kozlowski, Stanton Mak, and Georgia T. Chao p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
Mindfulness in Organizations: A Cross-Level Review
Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, Timothy J. Vogus, and Erik Dane p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Themes in Expatriate and Repatriate Research over Four Decades:
What Do We Know and What Do We Still Need to Learn?
Maria Kraimer, Mark Bolino, and Brandon Mead p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p83
Identity Under Construction: How Individuals Come to Define
Themselves in Organizations
Blake E. Ashforth and Beth S. Schinoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 111
Dyadic Relationships
Robert C. Liden, Smriti Anand, and Prajya Vidyarthi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Genetics and Organizational Behavior
Richard D. Arvey, Wen-Dong Li, and Nan Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Safety Climate in Organizations
Mark A. Griffin and Matteo Curcuruto p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
To Seek or Not to Seek: Is That the Only Question? Recent
Developments in Feedback-Seeking Literature
Susan J. Ashford, Katleen De Stobbeleir, and Mrudula Nujella p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Dynamic Modeling
Mo Wang, Le Zhou, and Zhen Zhang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Learner Control and e-Learning: Taking Stock and Moving Forward
Kenneth G. Brown, Garett Howardson, and Sandra L. Fisher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 267
vii
OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Charisma: An Ill-Defined and Ill-Measured Gift

John Antonakis, Nicolas Bastardoz, Philippe Jacquart, and Boas Shamir p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
The Nonconscious at Work
Michael G. Pratt and Eliana Crosina p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 321
How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations
Wayne F. Cascio and Ramiro Montealegre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 349
Impression Management in Organizations: Critical Questions,
Answers, and Areas for Future Research
Mark Bolino, David Long, and William Turnley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 377
Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and What

We Need to Know
Filip Lievens and Jerel E. Slaughter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407
The Social Context of Decisions
Richard P. Larrick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 441

Adaptive Measurement and Assessment
Matt Barney and William P. Fisher Jr. p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/
errata/orgpsych
viii Contents

Annurev Orgpsych 041015 062429

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Annurev Orgpsych 041015 062429

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

OP03CH02-Kozlowski ARI 18 February 2016 21:24

Steve W.J. Kozlowski,1 Stanton Mak,1

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016. Keywords

CONTEXTUALIZING “MAINSTREAM” LEADERSHIP IN TEAMS

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 23

Table 1 Mapping team-centric leadership to the input-process-output framework

Kozlowski 2014, 2006) 8 with team I and individual O (e.g., Erdogan

et al. 2002) Sims 2002) 2010)

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 25

bounded and systematic.

Methods and research design.

Table 2 A breakdown of team-centric leadership research by setting

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 27

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 29

Methods and research design.

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 31

(1 of 14 findings), and objective measure (1 of 14 findings). Attitudinal constructs are solely

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 33

of inquiry. By the mid-1990s, several scholars independently proposed frameworks or constructs

used to measure transformational, transactional, aversive, directive, and empowering leadership

Mapping to the input-process-output framework. We found 23 SL studies that examined

to the broader organizational system.

Methods and research design.

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 35

through self-report, whereas individual performance outcomes are measured by self-report or

omy of leadership functions—plan/organize and monitor/act—that are applied to distinct team

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 37

Mapping to the input-process-output framework. Fifteen FL empirical studies examined

Methods and research design.

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 39

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 3 Recommendations for future research on team-centric leadership

Shared leadership (SL)

Functional leadership (FL)

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 41

Recommendation 1: Team-centric TFL research should map more completely to a multilevel

Recommendation 2: Future team-centric TFL research should draw from well-established

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 43

Recommendation 6: Researchers are advised to develop a coherent and consistent conceptual-

Recommendation 7: Future research on SL should examine the processes of SL emergence and

Recommendation 8: Future SL research should draw from team process-mediating mechanisms,

Synergies Among the Team-Centric Leadership Approaches

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 45

Research Methods and Design

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 47

Investigators), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA; NNX13AM77G,

dynamic approach. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 21:1733–53

Charbonnier-Voirin A, El Ahnemi A, Vandenberghe C. 2010. A multilevel model of transformational leader-

Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 13:46–78

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 49

Festinger L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7:117–40

for building simulation-based team assessments. BMJ Qual. Saf. 22:436–48

leadership in extreme action teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 51:590–621

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 51

moderation. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 29:617–30

leader behaviors. Group Dyn.: Theory, Res. Pract. 6:172–97

charisma in our face-to-face social networks. Am. Sci. 98:203–11

www.annualreviews.org • Team-Centric Leadership 53

Contents Volume 3, 2016

Stumbling Toward a Social Psychology of Organizations: An

Team-Centric Leadership: An Integrative Review

Charisma: An Ill-Defined and Ill-Measured Gift

Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and What