娀 The Academy of Management Perspectives

2014, Vol. 28, No. 3, 275–288.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0017

S Y M P O S I U M
IS SHARED LEADERSHIP THE KEY TO RESPONSIBLE
LEADERSHIP?
CRAIG L. PEARCE
Creative Learning Partners, LLC

CHRISTINA L. WASSENAAR
Claremont Graduate University

CHARLES C. MANZ
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

This article is about responsible leadership and how shared leadership processes can
potentially support it. In particular, an emerging literature on the topic of responsible
leadership offers promise to refine and move our thinking forward in an integrative
way that bridges what we know about corporate social responsibility and leadership.
In this article we first define shared leadership and how it is linked to the notion of
responsible leadership. We elaborate on the risk of irresponsibility in leadership,
which can result from a purely hierarchically based and centrally concentrated influ-
ence that does not allow for the natural balance fostered by shared leadership pro-
cesses, and illustrate this risk through a brief description of irresponsible leadership
practices observed in Nigeria by the first two authors. Subsequently, we clarify specific
actions that hierarchical leaders can take to facilitate the ongoing development of
shared responsible leadership and avoid irresponsible leadership, provide multiple
examples of shared responsible leadership based on recent ethnographic research on
shared leadership, and offer some concluding thoughts to shape future research and
practice regarding responsible leadership.

Organizational leadership has come under fire role that shared leadership can play in fostering
across the globe in recent years because of severe responsible leadership and its impact throughout
ethical lapses in some of our most significant or- organizations. In doing so, we explore both the “do
ganizations (see Manz, Anand, Joshi, & Manz, 2008; no harm” perspective and the “do good” perspec-
Stahl and de Luque, this issue). As a natural re- tive, consistent with Doh and Quigley (this issue).
sponse to these ethical lapses, both academics and Our viewpoints are compatible with both the stake-
practitioners have increased their focus on leader- holder view of responsible leadership (Maak &
ship and the inherent obligations in leadership po- Pless, 2006; Pless, Maak, & Waldman, 2012; Wald-
sitions (e.g., Maak & Waldman, 2012; Waldman & man, 2014) and the strategic/economic view (Mc-
Siegel, 2008). In particular, an emerging literature Williams & Siegel, 2001; Siegel, 2009). We see both
on the topic of responsible leadership (Waldman, viewpoints as integral to sustainable corporate so-
2014) offers promise to refine and move our think- cial responsibility. That is, we argue that socially
ing forward in an integrative way that bridges what responsible leadership in organizations can be
we know about corporate social responsibility viewed in terms of a more balanced consideration
(CSR) (see McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Siegel, 2009; of the needs of the various employees and other
Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006) and leadership. stakeholders of a firm (Donaldson & Preston, 1995;
In this article, we contribute to this literature by Garriga & Melé, 2004), but without fulfilling an
more deeply exploring the potentially important economically sustainable role (Siegel, 2009) the
275
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
276 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

point is simply moot. For example, in the short to plant the seeds for sustainable responsible
term, especially during a financial crisis, an eco- leadership.
nomic/strategic perspective on responsibility may In this article we first carefully define shared
be best simply to keep the organization afloat, save leadership and how it is linked to the notion of
jobs, and so on. However, for the longer term, the responsible leadership. We next elaborate on the
stakeholder perspective can likely create more sus- risk of irresponsibility in leadership that can result
tainable results as the organization builds a more from a purely hierarchically based and centrally
robust group of stakeholders to help it thrive by concentrated influence, which does not allow for
fostering a focus on long-term mutual interest. the natural balance fostered by shared leadership
Thus, responsible leadership is about balancing the processes. We illustrate this risk through a brief
need for immediate economic viability with the description of irresponsible leadership practices
long-term benefits that can accrue through a more observed in Nigeria by the first two authors, who
balanced stakeholder perspective. lived there for more than a year. Subsequently, we
While the call for ethical and responsible leader- clarify specific actions that hierarchical leaders can
ship from organizational leaders has been loud take to facilitate the ongoing development of shared
(e.g., Waldman & Siegel, 2008), there has been little responsible leadership and avoid irresponsible
attention to and understanding of exactly how re- leadership. Then we provide multiple examples of
sponsible leadership becomes part of an organiza- shared responsible leadership based on recent eth-
tional ethos. In that regard, Filatotchev and Naka- nographic research on shared leadership (Pearce,
jima (this issue) provide an insightful discussion Manz, & Sims, 2014). Finally, we offer some con-
on the importance of the broad notion of corporate cluding thoughts to shape future research and prac-
tice regarding responsible leadership.
governance at the senior levels of a firm. In con-
From the outset, we want to be clear that, consis-
trast, we focus at a more meso-level by examining
tent with both upper echelons theory (Hambrick &
how shared leadership provides a potential source
Mason, 1984) and stakeholder theory (Donaldson &
of leadership checks and balances, facilitates
Preston, 1995), we see responsible leadership as
greater transparency, and taps a wider array of cog-
something that starts at the top, guided by the words
nitive resources throughout the organization,
and actions of the chief executive officer/managing
which fosters a continuous consideration of the
director and, if they are present, the board. Shared
needs of a broader set of stakeholders, extending
responsible leadership is unlikely to exist in a vac-
beyond a small number of power holders.
uum. It is through the purposeful institution and
Indeed, recent research encompassing several maintenance of shared leadership processes that cas-
conceptually related concepts, such as co-leader- cade from the CEO to the top management team to the
ship (e.g., Sally, 2002), collective leadership (e.g., rest of the organization, and through role modeling
Mumford, Friedrich, Vessey, & Ruark, 2102), dis- and cultural dynamics, that shared leadership en-
tributed leadership (e.g., Day, Gronn, & Salas, ables the robust potential for responsible leadership,
2004), pluralistic leadership (e.g., Denis, Langley, in line with the theoretical model proposed by Wald-
& Sergi, 2012), and shared leadership (e.g., man (2014).
D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2014;
Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014), suggests that
leadership processes that move beyond just top- TOWARD A FOUNDATION FOR RESPONSIBLE
down leadership show considerable promise to LEADERSHIP: WHAT SHARED LEADERSHIP
help promote healthy organizational practices that MIGHT CONTRIBUTE
are consistent with the general notion of responsi- According to Yukl (2010), shared leadership en-
ble leadership and organizational effectiveness. In tails the serial emergence of both official and unof-
fact, Waldman (2014, p. 545) specifically stated, ficial leaders as part of a simultaneous, ongoing,
“The overall achievement of responsible leadership mutual influence process. Shared leadership is a
in organizations may hinge on a perspective that meta-theory of leadership (Pearce et al., 2014).
centers on shared . . . leadership.” In summary, we Hence, all leadership is shared leadership; it is
believe that shared leadership perspectives, and simply a matter of degree—sometimes it is shared
the inherent transparency that naturally results completely while at other times it is not shared at
from an environment in which leadership is more all. But when it is truly shared across behavioral
broadly shared, can provide a fertile field in which influence approaches, across structural boundaries,
2014 Pearce, Wassenaar, and Manz 277

and across organizational forms, the results—from Some of the terms mentioned above refer to the
dozens of research studies (D’Innocenzo et al., context within which leadership is exerted (e.g., stra-
2014; Wang et al., 2014)— demonstrate profoundly tegic leadership, team leadership). Others refer to
positive organizational outcomes. how leadership influence is exerted (e.g., transforma-
At its most extreme, shared leadership is just tional leadership, empowering leadership), while
what it sounds like: All the social actors in an still others refer to the structural form of leadership
organization or group are involved in the process of (e.g., distributed leadership, rotated leadership). Of
leading one another toward productive ends (De- these three ways of thinking about leadership— con-
Rue & Ashford, 2010). At the opposite end of the text, influence, and form— context is the most simple.
continuum is the traditional pattern where direc- Context is simply where leadership takes place (see
tives and information are passed from the top to Yukl, 2010, for a comprehensive review of the various
bottom in a unidirectional stream. And, while we forms of leadership influence). In the following sec-
do not question the fact that societies and organi- tions we review four types of influence that form the
zations have thrived with singular leaders at their foundation for shared responsible leadership, exam-
helm, we wonder: Did those leaders do it by them- ine a brief case of extreme irresponsible hierarchical
selves, with only their own intellect? Obviously the leadership, and finally cover four fundamental struc-
answer is no (e.g., Sally, 2002). Thus shared lead- tural forms of shared leadership that can facilitate
ership moves beyond the moribund myth of lead- responsible leadership.
ership being a solely top-down hierarchical affair
into the idea that leadership can be systemically THE KEY TYPES OF INFLUENCE FOR SHARED
fluid and simultaneously multi-versional based on RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP
a dynamic give-and-take relationship.
A useful dichotomy for examining leadership in-
Many terms are used to describe types of leader-
fluence concerns whether it is grounded in a role-
ship— charismatic, conventional, collective, dis-
based perspective focusing on formally designated
tributed, empowering, rotated, strategic, servant,
leaders or in a more process-based perspective fo-
team, and visionary, to name just a few—and a
cusing on a fluid transfer of interactive influence.
cynical view of all of these labels is that they are
The latter case is consistent with the purview of
simply the proverbial old wine in new skins.
shared leadership theory. Either perspective allows
Shared leadership, however, is a little bit different
a variety of leadership behavioral approaches for
(see Denis et al., 2012; Pearce et al., 2014; Wald-
exercising influence. However, as we will address
man, 2014; Yukl, 2010). Shared leadership encom- more directly later in this article, shared leadership
passes these other terms and provides a way of offers opportunities for greater transparency and
organizing and making sense of them. balancing concern for various stakeholders. It can
Shared leadership rests on the notion that nearly also foster more fully tapping into the knowledge,
every human is capable of sharing the burden and experience, and capacities of organization mem-
responsibility of leading, at least to some extent, in bers, which is consistent with the economic/strate-
nearly all types of organizational circumstances gic view of responsible leadership. In general, con-
(Pearce & Conger, 2003). Naturally, this is in con- siderable scientific research indicates that shared
trast to the traditional paradigm of top-down lead- leadership positively affects organizational out-
ership that dominates the leadership literature (see comes (D’Innocenzo et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014),
Yukl, 2010). It has become increasingly clear, how- and these outcomes can support responsible lead-
ever, that simple solutions that focus only on the ership practices.
role and influence structures surrounding the CEO The practice of shared responsible leadership in-
or other senior leaders are not sufficient (e.g., volves several specific behavioral approaches that
D’Innocenzo et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). People are relied upon by various organization members
and organizations are complex and rely on ongoing who exercise leadership when their distinct skills
social processes. And moving from thinking about or knowledge are needed at various points in the
leadership as a hierarchical role to thinking about work process. Four specific leadership types have
leadership as a social process is merely the starting been identified and studied as part of the effective
point for addressing how one should consider the practice of shared leadership (Wassenaar & Pearce,
development of shared responsible leadership 2012). It should be noted that the agents and targets
throughout an organization. of influence are often peers.
278 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

1. Directive: provide task-focused directions, in- For this article we will focus more specifically on
structions, or recommendations that help struc- the notion of irresponsible leadership (IL), which
ture effort toward a responsible goal (Leavitt, we define in a manner that is highly consistent
2005) with the definition of CSIR: leader behavior that
2. Transactional: strategically provide valued re- shows disregard for the welfare of others, that at its
wards—praise, compensation, or other desirable extreme is manifested when leaders seek personal
outcomes— contingent on responsible behavior gain at the expense of employees, shareholders,
or performance (Bass, 1985) other organizational stakeholders, and even society
3. Transformational: foster inspiration and commit- at large. Some treatments of irresponsible behavior,
ment to an overarching responsible vision or and the related concept of corruption, take a more
mission (Bass, 1985) philosophical perspective centered on the impor-
4. Empowering: emphasize how people can engage tance of standards for moral behavior, while other
in responsible self-influence rather than simply views are more psychological in nature, paying
relying on influence from others (Manz & Sims, greater attention to individual differences and tak-
2001). Empowering leadership can be a pillar of ing an agent’s perspective (Rus, van Knippenberg,
a responsible shared leadership process in which & Wisse, 2010).
members foster each other’s initiative, capaci- Of particular interest to this symposium on re-
ties, and mutual accountability. sponsible leadership, Ashforth and Anand (2003)
claimed that hierarchical leaders in particular sig-
While focusing on responsible leadership and how
nificantly affect the institutionalization of behav-
to encourage it, it is worthwhile to derive lessons
ior, be it positive or negative. These leaders serve as
for responsible leadership from irresponsible lead-
role models for their followers, and as such they
ership. This is the focus of the next section.
can condone, ignore, and even reward irresponsi-
bility and corruption. Leaders, especially those at
the upper echelons, act as legitimized organiza-
THE RISK OF IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP
tional agents who are in a position to essentially
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is well es- authorize irresponsibility. To illustrate, we now
tablished in the academic literature (Matten & turn to the case of Nigeria and the negative pres-
Moon, 2005; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Pava & sures and practices that have all too often charac-
Krausz, 1996; Siegel, 2009). More recently some terized leadership in that country.
literature has emerged in response to a very differ-
ent trend in organizations (Herzig & Moon, 2013;
Ormiston & Wong, 2013) that has been labeled cor-
THE PROBLEM WITH LEADERSHIP
porate social irresponsibility (CSIR)—although, as
IN NIGERIA
Ormiston and Wong demonstrated, these are not
opposite ends of the continuum, and organizations Nigeria is blessed with tremendous physical and
can display both characteristics simultaneously. human resources (Central Intelligence Agency,
Pearce and Manz (2011) defined CSIR as “unethical 2014). For example, it has major reserves of light
executive behavior that shows disregard for the sweet crude oil and has large amounts of arable
welfare of others, that at its extreme is manifested land. The country has a democratic government
when executives seek personal gain at the expense and an educational infrastructure for all citizens,
of employees, shareholders, and other organization and is the most populous nation in Africa. On the
stakeholders, and even society at large” (p. 563). other hand, it is a country on the brink of civil war
CSIR has been all too often illustrated by scandals (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014). In fact, Nigeria
featuring top executives who pursued personal is already in a form of undeclared civil war, as Boko
gain at the expense of their employees and other Haram, a violent terrorist group, holds the north of
organizational stakeholders. Indeed, CSIR has Nigeria virtually hostage in its bid to create a sep-
quickly established itself as a major contempo- arate, radical Islamist country. The group has been
rary challenge for management thought and prac- in the headlines since mid-April after kidnapping
tice and the many factors that have been identi- more than 300 schoolgirls. It took weeks for the
fied that appear to promote such degenerative president of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan, to even
tendencies (Anand et al., 2004; Ashforth & release an accurate count of the victims, much less
Anand, 2003; Trevino & Brown, 2004). provide any concrete detail on the efforts to bring
2014 Pearce, Wassenaar, and Manz 279

them back to their families (Kawu, 2014; New York by a factor of four, as the location where the most
Times, 2014). crime has been prosecuted under the Foreign Cor-
How can a country of such bounty be on the edge rupt Practices Act of the USA (James Mintz
of complete chaos? As noted Nigerian author Chi- Group, 2013).
nua Achebe wrote in 1984, “The trouble with Ni-
geria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership”
The Endemic Irresponsible Leadership That
(p. 1). We would take this slightly further, and say
Defines Nigeria
that it is not just a failure of leadership, but a crisis
of irresponsible leadership. Irresponsible leadership pervades every aspect of
Nigeria is a society of power—who has power life in Nigeria (see Transparency International,
and who does not (cf. House, Javidan, Hanges, & 2013). When you arrive in Nigeria do not be sur-
Dorfman, 2002). This dynamic is built into the sys- prised if a customs officer asks “Did you bring
tem of nearly every interaction in such a way that it anything for me?” That is a polite way of asking for
is almost impossible to avoid situations that do not a bribe, or what Nigerians call “dash.” This is the
involve advantage or decisions determined by age, modus operandi of the society, and it starts at the
religion, gender, tribe, birth order, personal or top (Joda, 2012). Nigerian government officials
group networks, and of course financial wealth. have systematically stolen a phenomenal amount
What makes this so interesting is that when you ask of the tremendous oil wealth generated over the
Nigerians about the problems in their country, they decades since the discovery of oil (Wallis, 2012).
will invariably point their finger at their leaders— But pointing the finger at just that aspect of Nigeria
primarily the politicians— but they avoid admitting is woefully simplistic and, frankly, naive (Achebe,
that this type of behavior pervades the culture as 1984; Central Intelligence Agency, 2014).
people endeavor to navigate the basically survival- In many ways, the discovery in 1956 of large
ist society that is Nigeria. According to Ahmed deposits of oil set Nigeria on a backward trajectory.
Joda, the former minister of education and commu- But we could also point out the far older example of
nication and former permanent secretary of Nige- slavery (Inikori, 1982; Nunn, 2008). Blame is typi-
ria, and Commander of the Federal Republic (CFR) cally assigned—rightfully—to the transporters and
of Nigeria, almost everyone calls publicly for in- the buyers in the various markets who used these
creased levels of responsible behaviors from their people. However, that is not the full story. The
leaders (Joda, 2012). Those leaders also talk about people who were transported were captured from
how they are battling corruption and other “bad” various parts of Africa by neighboring tribes and
facets of the Nigerian society over which they hold brought to the slave ships on the coast to begin a
some degree of influence, yet their actions are often sickening journey of uncertainty, fear, and loneli-
the opposite of their words (Joda, 2012). This di- ness. They were put in that position for two rea-
chotomy and the psychological tension it engen- sons: First, there was a market overseas that con-
ders fundamentally destroy society’s trust in lead- doned cheap and unethically sourced labor, and
ers to act responsibly (Zak, 2001). second, they were betrayed by the people who
Power is extremely centralized in Nigeria, and caught and sold them. This second aspect of slav-
power distance (Hofstede, 1980; Javidan, House, ery is rarely discussed because it would require
Dorfman, Hanges, & de Luque, 2006)— deference to what could easily be called a paradigm shift where
those in power—is very high. Thus, irresponsible leaders and tribes in Nigeria (and elsewhere) would
leaders take advantage of people’s proclivity to acknowledge the irresponsible behavior their an-
obey those in power. And based on our observa- cestors exhibited to their neighbors and cousins.
tions while in the country, Nigerians, like their The reason we spent time learning more about
leaders, also tend to take advantage of situations this history stems from a comment made by our
where they can—which is understandable, for if driver as we were walking through an ancient vil-
they do not someone else will. Surprisingly, many lage on our way to visit a tailor. Five or six little
expatriates also succumb to this alluring seduction boys were following us, smiling and clearly hoping
of power. Some expat executives become focused for candy or some other kind of treat. They were
on developing wealth and security for themselves sweet and silly, clearly all good friends, and it was
and a select few, almost as if they don’t realize that a pleasure to see how they were playing with each
they are part of destroying the society they osten- other as they followed our little group. All of a
sibly came to build (Klitgaard, 1991). Nigeria ranks, sudden, our driver spoke to them. They shrieked
280 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

and ran away. When we asked the driver what he Ibori, was taken to court for scamming the state out
had said, he explained that in Nigeria, when chil- of approximately US$250 million. His cousin, the
dren are bad, they are often told that if they do not judge, found him not guilty of all 170 counts
shape up “the white people will come to take them brought against him (Reuters, 2102). However,
away” (Buba, 2012). years later he was finally brought to justice, along
We were stunned by our driver’s comment, but with his wife, mistress, and lawyer—not by Nige-
also had to pause to think about how that kind of ria, but by the United Kingdom, where he pleaded
statement could even gain traction as a truth that guilty to embezzling nearly US$80 million (Reu-
could scare little children. Clearly, there is respon- ters, 2012).
sibility on the part of the traders and transporters More recently, another former governor, this time
for slavery. People would not be trafficked if there of Bayelsa State, Diepreye Alameiyeseigha, was
were not a market. And sadly, there is still a market, convicted of money laundering (BBC, 2013). This
and there is still trafficking to this day; it is just not looked like another hopeful turning point for Nige-
legally sanctioned (Adepoju, 2005; Agbu, 2003). But ria. President Goodluck Jonathan, however, de-
there is also culpability on the suppliers—those who cided to recommend a pardon for him, and he was
disrespected their fellows so deeply that they felt it released from prison just two days after his convic-
acceptable to steal their very bodies. The fact that tion (BBC, 2013). How is it possible for anyone to
this is not acknowledged and understood as part have a sense of personal responsibility when the
of a nation’s or tribe’s history is truly the height right connection will exonerate one from any per-
of both social irresponsibility and irresponsible sonal consequence of irresponsibility?
leadership.

Are There Consequences of Irresponsible What Might Save Nigeria?

Leadership in Nigeria?
We offer two potential solutions to the Nigerian
Naturally, there are both direct and indirect con- leadership crisis. The first leadership imperative
sequences of the irresponsible behavior of Nigeria’s is that the country must develop far more trans-
leaders (Achebe, 1984). The main consequence is parency in all of its operations. Transparency In-
the fact that one of the biggest insults to a Nigerian ternational ranks Nigeria as one of the most irre-
is to call him a “Nigerian politician.” Essentially, if sponsible and corrupt countries in the world
someone calls you that, he is saying you are un- (Transparency International, 2013). According to
trustworthy and only out for yourself and your Robert Pastor, an international relations expert
cronies. However, to illustrate just how destructive with intimate knowledge of the Nigerian political
irresponsible leadership is for Nigeria, ordinary system, the estimates of the cost of the last Nigerian
people, while they rail against the government, presidential election hover around US$80 billion
hope to land a job where they can siphon off some (Pastor, 2011). That is not a typographical error—
wealth for themselves (Buba, 2012). In fact, they that is the estimated cost of all the bribes and pay-
have a term they use for people who are in a posi- offs, in addition to the advertisements, polling sta-
tion to personally benefit from corruption but do tions, printing of ballots, and so on.
the right thing: They call them mugus or other Transparency must become part of Nigeria’s cul-
defamatory words that essentially mean “stupid ture. This is where we believe shared leadership
idiot” (Adejunmobi, 2014). With this type of cul- can help, and the former permanent secretary of
tural dynamic the future of Nigeria is most defi- Nigeria agrees (Joda, 2012). In groups where shared
nitely in question. leadership is present, it is harder to hide irrespon-
To the Nigerian government’s credit, it formed sible or even corrupt behavior. These are actions
the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, that happen in secret, and shedding light on those
made up of 21 government agency heads and busi- activities must result in tangible and actionable
ness leaders from the financial sector charged with consequences. Sharing leadership enables input
trying to curb irresponsibility and corruption by and discussion and forces some level of personal
investigating and prosecuting cases of money laun- responsibility, particularly as there are typically
dering and terrorist financing. They have even goals within the group where the results are di-
taken some high-ranking politicians to task. For rectly visible to both the group and outsiders. This
example, the former governor of Delta State, James leads us to our second leadership imperative.
2014 Pearce, Wassenaar, and Manz 281

It is imperative for Nigeria to develop and impar- tributed, and comprehensive—which we review in
tially enforce checks and balances on power— the following sections.
which are embedded in the philosophy of shared
leadership theory—thus also forcing the issue of
Rotated Shared Responsible Leadership
responsibility. As it currently stands, only certain
people in Nigeria are held responsible for their Rotated shared responsible leadership, as the
actions. These people include homosexuals; people term suggests, involves conscious strategies to have
of the wrong gender, tribe, or religion; and people different people in a group clearly assuming the
who are not from the right family or village. Law- role of leader at different points. This might be as
yers can be bought, police can be bribed, and it is simple as someone agreeing to be designated leader
very helpful to have a politician in the family. The for a certain term with the understanding that the
law is fluidly applied based on where the bigger role will rotate to different members of the group at
bribe originates (we personally witnessed this). different points. As an alternative example, follow-
ing something like Robert’s Rules of Order for meet-
ings involves quicker leadership transitions where
Some Final Thoughts on Nigeria specific rules determine when and how a person
gets to “take the floor” as a leader. The examples in
Is it possible for responsible leadership to de-
the Pearce and colleagues (2014) study, however,
velop in an extreme situation like Nigeria? Possi-
are a bit more dramatic. One example is drawn
bly, but it takes conscious decisions and choices.
from Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).1 AA is a com-
Some of those choices are painful, even life-threat-
pletely volunteer organization with a fundamen-
ening. In general, in many of our lives it is possible
tally altruistic mission. It is focused on helping
to move through life in a state of moral stasis, but in
people who have been unable to heal develop and
Nigeria, true morality or responsibility is definitive
ultimately claim true personal responsibility for
and often quite difficult. When Nigerians see some-
their past and future decisions and actions. The
one take a responsible stand on a topic, they ap-
fundamental structure of AA is designed to offer
plaud, yet when it comes to aligning themselves
participants a personalized interpretation of a
with that stance, most fade into the horizon. We
structured process (the 12 steps), where people can
witnessed this firsthand when we reported corrup-
and do shift between the steps of that process as
tion at a Nigerian university where the first two
dictated by their personal situation. However, they
authors were employed. At the end of a week of
are also unilaterally told that their outcomes are the
threats and intimidation, lawyers being bribed, and
sole function of their personal responsibility. AA is
other situations fraught with real danger, we were
clearly an example of the stakeholder model of
thankful to the U.S. State Department and the U.S.
responsibility, and there are some unique respon-
embassy for their help in getting us to safety. We
sible leadership lessons to be learned from their
now turn our attention to more positive ideas re-
example.
garding the forms of shared responsible leadership.

Integrated Shared Responsible Leadership

FORMS OF SHARED RESPONSIBLE
Integrated shared responsible leadership is a bit
LEADERSHIP
more advanced than rotated shared responsible
Turning from the extreme irresponsibility repre- leadership, in that leadership transitions are more
sented by the centralized hierarchical leadership of dynamically and seamlessly deployed. Southwest
Nigeria, we now examine the forms of shared re- Airlines illustrates an excellent example of inte-
sponsible leadership. Shared responsible leader- grated shared responsible leadership. Consistent
ship is not a simple concept with one form that with Siegel’s (2009) view of responsibility, South-
suits all environments or organizations. Each situ- west has shown a remarkable financial track re-
ation has different needs and constraints that de- cord: If you had invested $10,000 in Southwest
termine the most effective type of shared responsi- Airlines in 1972 your investment would be worth
ble leadership that should be used for the best well over $10 million today. Southwest, nonethe-
effect. Pearce and colleagues (2014) identified four
distinct manners in which shared leadership can
1
manifest in organizations—rotated, integrated, dis- www.aa.org
282 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

less, attributes its success to taking a more balanced leaders’ charisma is often so strong that they are
stakeholder perspective. For example, it is one of accused of being “cults of personality”—and there
the most admired companies in the United States, is some real truth to this, particularly in some of the
number seven according to the 2012 Fortune mag- newer megachurches (Thumma & Travis, 2007)—
azine rating (Fortune, 2012). Fortune also rated there is a distinct link between sustainability and
Southwest as one of the five best companies to growth of these churches where these factors rest
work for. Southwest is regularly at the top of both squarely in their leader’s use and level of shared
categories. leadership (Wood & Fields, 2007). Several promi-
Ironically, however, it does not achieve this by nent megachurch pastors—such as Rick Warren of
focusing on the financials or the customers. Rather, Saddleback Church in California, Joel Osteen
Southwest achieves this by responsibly focusing on of Lakewood Church in Texas, and Bill Hybels of
its employees. According to Jim Parker, former CEO Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois—
of Southwest, “Many people think that the source have attributed the successes of their ministries to
of our success is our pay structure—that we pay our the distribution and sharing of leadership respon-
people less than our competitors— but that simply sibilities. A closer look at the style of leadership
isn’t true. The real source of our competitive ad- practiced in many megachurches that have sustain-
vantage is our culture, which is based firmly on the able growth, effective outreach ministries, and
principles of . . . shared leadership” (Parker, 2008). fewer scandals reveals at least some level of shared
Southwest shows how it is possible to achieve eco- leadership as part of their management foundation
nomic/strategic performance of sustainable growth (Wood, 2005; Wood & Fields, 2007). Many of these
through the stakeholder approach to responsible institutions embody distributed shared responsible
leadership. It is a contrast with the much more leadership (Wood, 2005) that is focused on the
economically oriented approaches of many of its stakeholder model.
peers in an industry that has been characterized by
boom and bust and many large bankruptcies (For-
Comprehensive Shared Responsible Leadership
tune, 2012).
Comprehensive shared responsible leadership is
present when the organization has shared respon-
Distributed Shared Responsible Leadership
sible leadership inculcated throughout many or all
Distributed shared responsible leadership, in of its operations. Panda Restaurant Group, the par-
contrast, is focused on how to disperse leadership ent company of Panda Express and other restaurant
roles and accountability more broadly in an organ- chains, is an exemplar of comprehensive shared
ization. Intentionally developing an environment responsible leadership.
of distributed shared leadership has enabled dra- Panda Restaurant Group’s stated mission is to
matic responsible leadership change in a variety of “deliver exceptional Asian dining experiences by
places around the globe. For instance, the School building an organization where people are inspired
Management Committees (SMCs) in Afghanistan to better their lives.”2 While many organizations
have encouraged shared responsible leadership to have grandiose mission statements, Panda is very
flourish for a radical shift in the leadership and purposeful about developing shared responsible
governance of the country’s education system—an leadership. The company has quadrupled in size in
example of shared responsible leadership in one the past decade and currently has more than 1,700
of the most demanding environments one can locations, demonstrating the economic importance
imagine— giving the youth of a war-torn country of responsibility (e.g., Siegel, 2009). One mecha-
the opportunity to develop as the future responsi- nism the company uses to intentionally build
ble leaders of their country. That said, recent shared responsible leadership into its DNA in-
changes in Afghanistan demonstrate how fragile volves creating temporary cross-functional teams to
the shift to shared responsible leadership can be to tackle important organizational issues as part of its
domineering forces trying to reinstate their central- custom executive education program for rising
ized power. stars. Panda focuses on how to infuse shared re-
Megachurches and their high-profile, charis- sponsible leadership throughout an entire culture,
matic founding leaders offer another ethnographic
glimpse into the potential for distributed shared
2
responsible leadership. While the image of these http://www.pandarg.com/About/
2014 Pearce, Wassenaar, and Manz 283

and the side benefit is high growth. This is one sponsible leadership (Siegel, 2009), research also
organization that is a true role model of the corpo- suggests that shared leadership works in conjunc-
rate American dream (Forbes, 2013). tion with leadership from above (e.g., Ensley et al.,
Panda perhaps best represents the paradox of how 2006). However, beyond the four behavioral ap-
to integrate the economic/strategic perspective with proaches to leadership discussed above, there are
the stakeholder perspective. Every manager at Panda other steps hierarchical leaders can take to help
understands that he is held responsible for achieving promote shared responsible leadership.
an economic target in same-store sales (SSS). How- Periodic hierarchical leader intervention is re-
ever, coupled with the expectation of SSS growth, quired to keep an organization headed on the right
Panda associates are also measured on their commu- course. Accordingly, an important role for the hi-
nity outreach, particularly through the internal giving erarchical leader is stepping in and clarifying the
program, Panda Cares. At Panda, it is not enough to overarching vision and values to enable the organ-
be a good store manager or regional director. To be ization to effectively engage in responsible action,
considered successful at Panda, associates need to be it economic/strategic or stakeholder oriented. It
hit both economic/strategic and stakeholder targets. is also important for hierarchical leaders to ensure
Panda truly illustrates how to integrate both perspec- that expectations are clear and that performance is
tives on responsibility, which is why people are so evaluated accordingly. It is difficult to hold organ-
committed to the mission of being a place where izational members accountable for responsible per-
people are “inspired to better their lives.” The finan- formance if expectations are not clear. Of course,
cial results simply follow. hierarchical leaders also need to ensure that appro-
priate training in leadership skills is provided. Re-
sponsibility does not occur in a vacuum, and pro-
THE ROLE OF HIERARCHICAL LEADERS IN
viding the tools for responsible shared leadership is
THE ONGOING DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED
the responsibility of hierarchical leaders.
RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP
Shared leadership is not an alternative to hierar-
OVERARCHING LESSONS FOR DEVELOPING
chical leadership (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). With-
SHARED RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP
out ongoing encouragement from hierarchical lead-
ers, shared responsible leadership is unlikely to So what overarching lessons for creating more
develop (see Waldman, 2014). Hierarchical leaders responsible leadership can we take from the extant
can encourage (or discourage) the ongoing develop- empirical literature on shared leadership (e.g.,
ment of shared responsible leadership in organiza- D’Innocenzo et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014), the
tions. First and foremost, it is critical to recognize Pearce and colleagues (2014) ethnographic studies,
that the hierarchical leader is a role model (Wald- and the counter-case of Nigeria presented in this
man et al., 1987), whether he or she wants to be or paper? The lessons span four major categories: (1)
not. For example, similar to Waldman and col- individual-level lessons, (2) group/team-level les-
leagues (1987); Pearce and Sims (2002) found that sons, (3) organization-level lessons, and (4) human
the best predictor of how subordinates engage in resources–practices lessons. Below we detail these,
shared leadership is how their immediate supervi- providing a comprehensive guide to action for the
sors engage in hierarchical leadership. According development of shared responsible leadership.
to Dave Berkus of Tech Coast Angels, for instance,
“You have to constantly demonstrate trust and con-
Individual-Level Lessons
fidence in people if you want to unleash their lead-
ership potential” (Berkus, 2003). As such, one If shared responsible leadership is to succeed,
might ask for, rather than propose, solutions; en- the individuals involved first need to keep their
courage initiative, goal setting, and problem solv- egos in check (Kumar, 2009; Longenecker & Neu-
ing; model productive conflict management; and bert, 2000). This is not an easy task, especially for
demonstrate application of strategies for both en- smart people. Yet setting egos aside allows for the
gaging in influence and being a willing recipient of focus to change from the “I” to the “we,” and in
influence. today’s complex world the overwhelming majority
Although shared leadership has been strongly of work produced requires that people collaborate
linked to many positive organizational outcomes, (D’Innocenzo et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). As
consistent with the economic/strategic view of re- such, the individuals involved in sharing responsi-
284 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

bility and leadership also must have the knowl- nate goals (Pearce & Ensley, 2004). Having said
edge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) for their tasks. that, most organizational leaders overestimate the
Beyond task-related KSAs, however, individuals degree to which vision and purpose are truly
must have keen listening skills if they are to re- shared. Engaging others in creating the vision is
sponsibly share the lead with others. Additionally, one way to help ensure that the vision is actually
they also must show respect for others’ ideas and shared, but ongoing testing, prodding, and assess-
perspectives. Finally, they must be proactive lead- ment of shared vision should be part of the organ-
ers and be prepared to engage in active influence of izational toolkit to facilitate shared responsible
others. No matter how smart a person is, without leadership, as should a focus on creating shared
the gumption to stand up and lead well when the values (House et al., 2002).
group needs the knowledge of the individual at Nearly every person is capable of taking on some
hand, shared responsible leadership is unlikely to leadership responsibility and positively contribut-
flourish. ing to organizational success. In this regard, knowl-
edge should always trump status (Follett, 1924).
However, it is often simple things that prevent peo-
Group/Team-Level Lessons
ple from actually exercising their leadership poten-
Trust is the bedrock of the development of shared tial. It is important for the organization to create an
responsible leadership in groups and teams. Emerg- environment where every employee is encouraged
ing research from neuroeconomics has even dem- to provide leadership, not simply those with the
onstrated that trust can be traced to the economic highest status or title. This means looking beyond
success of societies (Zak, 2005). As groups and artificial borders to tap broad sources of inputs.
teams are the basic building blocks of larger social This could even involve looking outside the organ-
entities they are the place where trust must be built. ization to include customers, suppliers, and other
And part of building trust is having open commu- important stakeholders in the leadership of the or-
nication, which helps to facilitate the ebb and flow ganization, and soliciting their input on key proj-
of knowledge within the group and keeps people ects, new products, process innovation, market ex-
from second-guessing one another when it comes to pansion, or other goals. This kind of leadership
the important decisions that inevitably arise. process will best survive and thrive when there is
Another important aspect of shared responsible organizational support from the top (Leavitt, 2005).
leadership in groups is the phenomenon of trans-
active memory (Lewis, 2003)—that is, being aware
Human Resources–Practices Lessons
of who in the group has the most relevant knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities for the various topics that Selection is perhaps the single most important
make up the work in which the group participates. action that can foster responsibility (Hogan, Barrett,
It is sometimes tempting for people to sideline or & Hogan, 2007; Waldman & Balven, this issue).
pass over people in groups, often for personal gain. While different organizational circumstances call
However, when group members are focused on for different individual attributes, most organiza-
sharing leadership responsibly, they are also likely tions do a pitiful job of selecting people (Hogan et
to assign specific tasks to the people who are most al., 2007). Southwest Airlines, however, as de-
qualified to complete them. In an ideal situation, scribed above, is one of the very best at this task.
group members use these opportunities as develop- Most organizations can learn from its example. AA
mental experiences, partnering an expert with stands out as another exemplar. At AA there is only
someone who is less so to develop that person. This one criterion for membership: the desire to gain
is also where cognitive conflict becomes important control over abuse of alcohol. They practice inclu-
(e.g., Amason, 1996). Research clearly demon- sion and the impact of AA is rather impressive:
strates that group and team norms that stress the Inclusion and empathy are key lessons of AA.
constructive challenge of each other’s ideas drive Beyond selection, one needs to engage strongly
creativity and innovation. in ongoing education, training, and development
for all organizational members, not just those in
formal leadership positions. Similarly, evaluation
Organization-Level Lessons
needs to be used as a tool for development and
A common vision and purpose help to unify the intervention; 360-degree feedback is one potential
organization and direct energy toward superordi- mechanism to employ (Waldman & Atwater, 1998).
2014 Pearce, Wassenaar, and Manz 285

Compensation is another often-overlooked mecha- to glean some lessons for developing more respon-
nism for leveraging leadership talent. Here the is- sible leadership in organizations. Of course, imple-
sue involves the appropriate use of group-based mentation of shared leadership is not easy, nor is it
compensation—such as gainsharing, which Pearce a panacea for creating more responsible leadership.
and colleagues (2014) explored at Behlen Manufac- There are clearly cases where responsible leader-
turing—which encourages the responsible sharing ship will most likely need to come from strong
of leadership across organizational lines. centralized leadership.
We do not advocate choosing between hierarchi-
cal leadership and shared leadership. On the con-
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
trary, the two concepts work in tandem (Waldman,
Increasing responsible leadership in organiza- 2014). Nonetheless, it appears time to move beyond
tions requires combining an emphasis on CSR with the top-down perspective on leadership in the age
responsible leadership practice (Waldman, 2014). of knowledge work (Day et al., 2004; Yukl, 2010).
To accomplish this, two key challenges need to be A number of papers in this symposium address
met. First, the recent insidious spread of irrespon- a range of factors related to organizations and
sibility in business must be overcome. Irresponsi- responsible leadership. In this article we espe-
ble leadership, consistent with the notion of corpo- cially address responsible leadership in terms of
rate social irresponsibility, can be addressed to a the individual organization members and other
significant degree by creating the ongoing set of stakeholders through the process of sharing lead-
checks and balances (different organization mem- ership (Waldman, 2014). While our views are
bers holding each other accountable) inherent in generally aligned with a stakeholder view (Maak
shared leadership (Waldman, 2014). Further, & Pless, 2006; Pless et al., 2012; Waldman, 2014)
shared leadership offers the potential to encourage of responsible leadership, they are also extremely
responsibility at the core of the influence process aligned with an economic/strategic perspective
through the naturally occurring balance that is (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Siegel, 2009). With-
fostered by spreading leadership throughout a out sustainable economic viability there can be
workforce rather than centralizing it the hands of little debate about stakeholders. While sharing
a few formally designated leaders. In addition, leadership can foster a broader, more balanced
shared leadership complements and helps enable attention to the needs of various stakeholders,
the performance advantages of effective team- both quantitative and qualitative studies indicate
work (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995), that shared leadership also results in a variety
which is consistent with the economic/strategic of performance-related outcomes aligned with
view of responsibility. achieving greater financial results over the long
We have witnessed a substantial increase in the run (Wassenaar & Pearce, 2012).
utilization of employee empowerment and team- Thus, at first blush it may appear that there is a
based structures in organizations in recent years trade-off when considering shared leadership
(Mohrman et al., 1995; Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, from a stakeholder perspective as opposed to an
2011). In large part, this change is a response to an economic/strategic perspective. Yet it seems that
increasingly challenging knowledge work environ- the involvement of a wider range of employees
ment that requires enhanced organizational flexi- (and other stakeholders) in sharing the overall
bility. Knowledge work and the teamwork it gener- leadership process facilitates economic perfor-
ally requires, however, pose many challenges. It is mance. In summary, shared leadership can foster
precisely because of these challenges that we must mutual accountability and more balanced attention to
question whether our traditional models of leader- the needs of various stakeholders while unleashing
ship are still appropriate. Here we have attempted long-term performance potential, thereby promoting
to clarify an alternate form of leadership—shared CSR-type ends consistent with both stakeholder and
leadership—that helps to provide insight into cre- economic/strategic views of responsible leadership.
ating more responsible leadership in the age of Taken together, the organizations reported in the
knowledge work. Drawing on the extant empirical extant empirical literature (e.g., D’Innocenzo, 2014;
research on shared leadership (e.g., D’Innocenzo et Wang et al., 2014), the Pearce and colleagues (2014)
al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014), the recent ethno- ethnographic studies, and the counter-example of
graphic results of Pearce and colleagues (2014), and leadership in Nigeria reported here represent a
the counter-example of IL in Nigeria, we attempted wide variety of contexts ranging from the not-for-
286 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

profit world to high-growth entrepreneurial firms the plural. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1),
to well-established global organizations. What the 211–283.
responsible organizations have in common is that DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and
they have all developed their own unique approach who will follow? A social process of leadership iden-
to sharing responsibility and leadership. tity construction in organizations. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 35(4), 627– 647.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R.
REFERENCES (2014). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared
leadership–team performance relations. Journal of
Achebe, C. (1984). The trouble with Nigeria. Portsmouth,
Management.
NH: Heinemann.
Doh, J. P., & Quigley, N. (this issue). Responsible leader-
Adejunmobi, M. (2014). Stand up comedy and the ethics
ship and stakeholder management: Influence path-
of popular performance in Nigeria. In S. Newell & O.
ways and organizational outcomes. Academy of
Okome (Eds.), Popular culture in Africa: The Epis-
Management Perspectives.
teme of the everyday (pp. 175–195). New York: Rout-
ledge. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder the-
ory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and im-
Adepoju, A. (2005). Review of research and data on hu-
man trafficking in sub-Saharan Africa. International plications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–
Migration, 43(1–2), 75–98. 91.

Agbu, O. (2003). Corruption and human trafficking: The Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006).
Nigerian case. West Africa Review, 4(1), 1–13. The importance of vertical and shared leadership
within new venture top management teams: Impli-
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of func- cations for the performance of startups. Leadership
tional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic deci- Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231.
sion making: Resolving a paradox for top manage-
ment teams. Academy of Management Journal, Filatotchev, I., & Nakajima, C. (this issue). Corporate
39(1), 123–148. governance, responsible managerial behavior, and
CSR: Organizational efficiency versus organizational
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as legitimacy? Academy of Management Perspectives.
usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corrup-
tion in organizations. Academy of Management Ex- Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York:
ecutive, 18(2), 39 –53. Longmans, Green.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of Forbes. (2013). American dreams: Foreign-born members
corruption in organizations. Research in Organiza- of the Forbes 400. Available at http://www.forbes.
tional Behavior, 25, 1–52. com/sites/andreanavarro/2013/09/18/american-
dreams-foreign-born-members-of-the-forbes-400
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsi-
bility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of
Baumhart, R. C. (1961). How ethical are businessmen?
Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.
Harvard Business Review, 39(4), 6 – 8.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons:
BBC. (2013, March 13). Nigeria pardons Goodluck Jona-
The organization as a reflection of its top managers.
than ally, Alameiyeseigha. Available at http://www.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21769047
Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2013). Discourses on corporate
Berkus, D. (2003). Personal communication.
social ir/responsibility in the financial sector. Jour-
Buba, B. (2012). Personal communication. nal of Business Research, 66(10), 1870 –1880.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2014). World Fact Book. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Interna-
Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ tional differences in work-related values. Beverly
the-world-factbook/geos/ni.html Hills, CA: Sage.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empower- Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality
ment process: Integrating theory and practice. Acad- measurement, faking, and employment selection.
emy of Management Review, 13(3), 471– 482. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270 –1285.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002).
capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857– Understanding cultures and implicit leadership the-
880. ories across the globe: An introduction to Project
Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leadership in GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10.
2014 Pearce, Wassenaar, and Manz 287

Inikori, J. E. (Ed.). (1982). Forced migration: The impact responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective.
of the export slave trade on African societies. Lon- Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
don: Hutchinson. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New
Sully de Luque, M. F. (2006). Conceptualizing and forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-
measuring cultures and their consequences: A com- Bass.
parative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s ap- Mumford, M. D., Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., & Ruark,
proaches. Journal of International Business Studies, G. A. (2012). Collective leadership: Thinking about
37(6), 897–914. issues vis-à-vis others. Industrial and Organizational
Joda, A. (2012, May 7). Personal communication. Psychology, 5(4), 408 – 411.
Kawu, I. M. (2014, May 15). President Goodluck Jona- New York Times. (2014, May 6). Nigeria’s stolen girls.
than’s fallouts from Chibok. Vanguard. Available at Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/05/president- opinion/nigerias-stolen-girls.html
goodluck-jonathans-fallouts-chibok Nunn, N. (2008). The long-term effects of Africa’s slave
Klitgaard, R. E. (1991). Tropical gangsters. London: I. B. trades. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(1), 139 –
Tauris. 176.

Kumar, R. K. (2009). Teamwork in pediatric heart care. Ojewale, O. (2013, September 2). Odds against Atiku
Annals of Pediatric Cardiology, 2(2), 140 –145. Abubakar in 2015. Real News. Available at http://
realnewsmagazine.net/featured/odds-against-atiku-
Leavitt, H. J. (2005). Top down: Why hierarchies are here abubakar-in-2015/
to stay and how to manage them more effectively.
Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. (2013). License to ill: The
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
effects of corporate social responsibility and CEO
Levin, C., & Coburn, T. (2010, February 4). Keeping for- moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility.
eign corruption out of the United States: Four case Personnel Psychology, 66, 861– 893.
histories. Presented to U.S. Senate Permanent Sub-
Pastor, R. (2011, October 10). Personal communication.
committee on Investigations. Available at http://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investiga- Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between
tions/hearings/-keeping-foreign-corruption-out-of- corporate social responsibility and financial perfor-
the-united-states-four-case-histories mance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 15(3), 321–357.
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems
in the field: Scale development and validation. Jour- Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership:
nal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587– 604. Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Longenecker, C. O., & Neubert, M. (2000). Barriers and
gateways to management cooperation and teamwork. Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and
Business Horizons, 43(5), 37– 44. longitudinal investigation of the innovation process:
The central role of shared vision in product and
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Orga-
in a stakeholder society—a relational perspective. nizational Behavior, 25(2), 259 –278.
Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99 –115.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Leadership centrality
Manz, C. C., Anand, V., Joshi, M., & Manz, K. P. (2008). and corporate social ir-responsibility (CSIR): The po-
Emerging paradoxes in executive leadership: A the- tential ameliorating effects of self and shared leader-
oretical interpretation of the tensions between cor- ship on CSIR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 563–
ruption and virtuous values. Leadership Quarterly, 579.
19, 385–392.
Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2014). Share,
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new superleader- don’t take the lead. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
ship: Leading others to lead themselves. San Fran-
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus
cisco: Berrett-Koehler.
shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2005). Pan-European approach: A of change management teams: An examination of
conceptual framework for understanding CSR. In A. aversive, directive, transactional, transformational,
Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner, & R. Schmidpeter and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
(Eds.), Corporate social responsibility across Europe Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.
(pp. 335–356). Berlin: Springer. Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Waldman, D. A. (2012). Differ-
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social ent approaches toward doing the right thing: Map-
288 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

ping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Acad- Wallis, W. (2012, June 26). Nigeria losing $1 billion
emy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 51– 65. a month to oil theft. Available at http://www.
Reuters. (2012, April 17). Corrupt Nigerian governor gets ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/61fb070e-bf90-11e1-a476-
13-year UK jail term. Available at http://www. 00144feabdc0.html#axzz2b2q4ht5W
reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/britain-nigeria- Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-
ibori-idUSL6E8FH3J820120417 analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness.
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198.
art of followership: How great followers create great Wassenaar, C. L., & Pearce, C. L. (2012). The nature of
leaders and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. shared leadership. In J. Antonakis & D. Day (Eds.),
Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader The nature of leadership (pp. 363–389). Upper Sad-
self-definition and leader self-serving behavior. dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 509 –529. Wood, M. S. (2005). Determinants of shared leadership in
Sally, D. (2002, July 1). Co-leadership: Lessons from re- management teams. International Journal of Leader-
publican Rome. California Management Review, ship Studies, 1(1), 64 – 85.
44(4), 84 –99. Wood, M. S., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of
Siegel, D. S. (2009). Green management matters only if it shared leadership on management team member job
yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(3), 251–
Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 5–18. 272.
Stahl, G. K., & Sully de Luque, M. F. (this issue). Anteced- Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.).
ents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthe- Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
sis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future re- Zak, P. J. (2005). The neuroeconomics of trust. In R.
search. Academy of Management Perspectives. Frantz (Ed.), Renaissance in behavioral economics:
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Essays in honour of Harvey Leibenstein. London:
Self-leadership: A multilevel review. Journal of Routledge.
Management, 37, 185–222. Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. Eco-
Stocker, L. (2003). Personal communication. nomic Journal, 111(470), 295–321.
Thumma, S., & Travis, D. (2007). Beyond megachurch
myths: What we can learn from America’s largest
churches, vol. 21. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Transparency International. (2013). Corruption percep-
tions index. Available at http://cpi.transparency.org/ Craig L. Pearce ([email protected]) is the man-
cpi2013 aging director of Creative Learning Partners, LLC. His
research interests are focused on shared leadership and
Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be
corporate social responsibility. He received his PhD from
ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. Acad-
the University of Maryland at College Park.
emy of Management Executive, 18(2), 69 – 81.
Waldman, D. A. (2014). Bridging the domains for leader- Christina L. Wassenaar (Christina.L.Wassenaar@
ship and corporate social responsibility. In D. Day gmail.com) is a doctoral student in management at
(Ed.), Handbook of leadership and organizations Claremont Graduate University. She is also the man-
(pp. 541–557). New York: Oxford University Press. aging director of Silver Wave, LLC, an educational
consulting company based in California. Her research
Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of interests are focused on leadership and the history of
360-degree feedback. London: Routledge. managerial thought. She received her EMBA from Cla-
Waldman, D. A., & Balven, R. (this issue). Responsible remont Graduate University.
leadership research: Current controversies and pro-
Charles C. Manz ([email protected]) is the
spective directions. Academy of Management Per-
spectives. Nirenberg Chaired Professor of Leadership in the Isen-
berg School of Management at the University of Mas-
Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially sachusetts at Amherst. Formerly a Marvin Bower Fel-
responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117–131. low at the Harvard Business School, his recent
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). research focuses on self and shared leadership, teams,
Components of transformational leadership and cor- and social entrepreneurship.
porate social responsibility. Journal of Management
Studies, 43, 1703–1725.
Copyright of Academy of Management Perspectives is the property of Academy of
Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.