Organizational Dynamics (2014) 43, 9—16

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/orgdyn

Leadership is like fine wine:

It is meant to be shared, globally
Craig L. Pearce, Christina L. Wassenaar

If you want to go somewhere fast, go alone, identify a few caveats about shared leadership, specify the
If you want to go somewhere far, go together. challenges of implementing shared leadership in the global
— Nigerian Proverb context, and wrap up with some concrete advice for global
leaders. First, let us come to a common understanding of
THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF GLOBAL what we are discussing: Shared leadership is a dynamic,
LEADERSHIP interactive influence process among individuals where the
objective is to lead one another to the achievement of
The overwhelming majority of leadership theory and research collective goals. This process often involves peer influence
has been developed in North America. Having said that, it and engagement from group member to group member and
cannot be overstated that we are living in an ever more tightly can shift based on the situation, status of the project or task
connected global economy. Appropriately, scholars have been or the expertise of one person or another.
giving more attention to the global context of leadership, Shared leadership can also involve upward or downward
particularly focusing on the rise of team-based structures, hierarchical influence. This movement up or down from
the need for intra-organizational cooperation across distance, leader to follower is typically initiated by the hierarchical
a widening scope of competition, and managing diversity and leader empowering an individual or group, but once the
cultural perspectives. Still, most of the theory and research on notion of dynamic leadership shift has settled in, it can flow
leadership to date has been hierarchical in nature, i.e., how organically in multiple directions. The fundamental distinc-
hierarchical leaders can influence those below them. Because tion between shared leadership and traditional notions of
of this, we believe it is timely to broaden the dialog to include leadership is that the influence process involves more than
the ever increasing phenomenon of peer-based influence, or just downward authority over subordinates/followers by an
what has come to be known as shared leadership. We caught up appointed or elected leader. Shared leadership involves
with Bruce Barkus, senior advisor for LEADFIRST and Angelo, broadly sharing power and influence among a set of indivi-
Gordon & Co., and former CEO (chief executive officer) of duals rather than centralizing it in the hands of a single
RGIS, which is a massive company of more than 40,000 employ- individual who acts in the clear role of a dominant superior.
ees in 40 nations. Here is what he had to say: This perspective on leadership flies in the face of tradi-
tional views of leadership. Historically, leadership has been
The entire reason for our success is that we unleash human conceived and centered on a single individual–—the leader–—
potential, no matter where it is in the world, through and how that person cajoles, influences, controls and governs
shared leadership: Shared leadership has been the key to followers. In many societies, leaders inherit their roles, and
our success and it is difficult for our competitors to copy, in many others, leadership is an earned status that can be
especially in cultures that overemphasize the importance difficult to relinquish, once attained. This has been the
of hierarchy. predominant paradigm of leadership for many millennia,
and this slanted view has been reinforced by popular media
WHAT IS SHARED LEADERSHIP? throughout history in their coverage of prominent leaders,
either good or bad.
In this article we will define and describe shared leadership In recent years, however, a few scholars and some practi-
theory, report some research evidence on shared leadership, tioners have challenged this conception that leadership is or

0090-2616/$ — see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.10.002
10 C.L. Pearce, C.L. Wassenaar

should be centered exclusively on just one person, arguing Many companies, for example, have incorporated speed as one
instead that leadership involves roles and activities that can be of their core values, i.e., speed to market, speed of delivery,
shared among members of a team or organization. For exam- speed for service, just to name a few. This requirement for
ple, depending upon the demands of the moment, individuals speed dictates that often organizations cannot wait for leader-
who are not formally appointed leaders can rise to the occasion ship decisions to be pushed up to the top for action. Instead,
to exhibit leadership and then step back at other times to allow senior leadership has to purposefully design an environment
others to lead. This line of thinking is gaining increasing where latitude for decision-making is more evenly shared
traction in both the academic and practitioner communities. across the organization to ensure faster response times to
According to Charles C. Manz, noted thought leader on orga- environmental demands. This requires each person, both at
nizational leadership, and endowed chair of leadership at the the top and in the lower echelons of the organization, to
University of Massachusetts-Amherst: clearly understand the ramifications of his or her decisions.
It requires a sense of ownership and responsibility to be
The research on shared leadership is clear. It is the key to
present, since it is much more difficult to point a finger at
success in the age of knowledge work. Knowledge workers
the senior leadership and say, ‘‘Who knows why they wanted it
want and need to be part of the leadership equation, no
that way. . . I was just following orders.’’
matter where they exist on the world stage.
Another truly crucial factor driving the need for shared
This perspective was echoed by Juergen Wegge, the for- leadership has to do with the sheer complexity of the job held
mer president of the German Psychological Association, and a by the senior-most leader in an organization–—the managing
thought leader on the topic of employee engagement: director or chief executive officer. Increasingly, this indivi-
dual is hard-pressed to possess all the leadership skills and
In Germany we have typically had a command-and-control knowledge necessary to solely guide complex organizations in
system of management. Having said that, we have been a dynamic and global marketplace. They are called upon to
consistently finding, through both experimental research be experts in all aspects of the business, and while it is true
and field studies, that employees truly want to be fully that they should have a good understanding of their organi-
engaged in their work, and shared leadership is the key to zation, it also means that they are not spending as much time
that engagement. as they should looking out to the future, learning about their
competition or focusing on more strategic aspects of their
WHY SHARED LEADERSHIP? business.
In response to this dilemma, there have been a growing
Why has the interest in shared leadership suddenly increased? number of experiments where leadership is being shared at
Competition, be it domestic or global, is inexorably driving the very top. For example, the leadership team of Southwest
firms into new forms and new modes of organizing–—and Airlines openly discusses how they practice shared leader-
teams are central to this perspective. For example, we ship, in all aspects of their airline, and it has long been
recently completed a study of Inc. 500 companies that was considered one of the primary driving forces of their compe-
designed to measure various predictors of growth and per- titive edge. They refer to their employees as coworkers,
formance, particularly at the start-up phase. While we found which in most cases, they are. They openly discuss how they
the leadership of the CEO to be an important predictor of garner some of their best ideas for efficiency and manage-
financial outcomes, we found that the truly high performing ment from their front line employees, even going so far as to
companies were the ones who organized in top management chronicle their employees’ interactions with the public in
teams (TMTs) and practiced effective shared leadership. two different cable television shows.
Tom Davin, CEO of 5.11 Tactical explains his view on In South Korea, under the guidance of former CEO H.K.
shared leadership this way: Moon, Yuhan-Kimberly, a paper-products manufacturer,
‘‘If we are going to address the opportunities we face now vaulted into the No. 1 industry position through the purpose-
and will face in the future, it is by leveraging our individ- ful application of shared leadership, both at the top eche-
ual talent through disciplined teamwork and shared lead- lons, but also throughout the hierarchy in the organization.
ership. . . . We are very focused on the leading indicators of Another successful Korean business leader is Sung Won Hong,
success–—things like customer satisfaction and associate head of a division of the Hyundai Chaebol, Hyundai H&S.
development–—and are confident the lagging indicators–— According to Mr. Hong:
the financials–—will follow. Our strategy of focusing on Everything depends on innovation; we are constantly
people has worked brilliantly so far. trying new things [through] grassroots leadership [and]
Such insights from people like Davin are inspiring, and Leadership by Asking Around (LBAA). . . Middle manage-
thought provoking. His goal of developing people is admir- ment can sometimes act like a filter. . .I want to hear from
able, but what he did not mention is his own role in this those on the front line. They are the first ones to hear
process–—the fact that he must also be willing and able to what our customers want.
empower those around him. This requires him to understand In summary, a powerful set of dynamics within organiza-
how to share responsibility for decision-making and that his tions across the globe is fostering the demand for shared
modeling of shared leadership will, in turn, create an envir- leadership across all levels.
onment where collaboration in leadership becomes the Given the strong historical emphasis on a definition of
norm, not the exception. leadership that stresses one person projecting downward
Speed of response to environments that are today more influence on followers, a natural question is, ‘‘can leadership
turbulent than in the past is now an organizational imperative. be shared effectively?’’ We would argue that yes, it can
Leadership is like fine wine 11

indeed be shared effectively. However, the sharing of leader- the study of change management teams. There are two
ship is something that should not be uniformly applied across interesting differences that they found in the leadership
all situations–—it is only appropriate for certain circum- profiles of the low versus high performing teams. First, high
stances. That said, there are some strong historical roots performing teams exhibit more overall leadership than low
of the hierarchical perspective and we explore these in the performing teams. Of the eight measures of leadership,
next section. seven are higher in high performing teams. Second, the
relative mix of vertical (hierarchical) versus shared leader-
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF HIERARCHICAL ship is different. High performing teams exhibited more
LEADERSHIP shared leadership than vertical leadership, while low per-
forming teams were dominated by the team leader. Inter-
Let us go back in time a bit to understand how we have arrived estingly, the leaders of the high performing teams viewed
at this point. The beginnings of the formal study of organiza- their roles from a variety of perspectives. One stated ‘‘my
tional leadership date to the Industrial Revolution. French most important role is for building the team–—getting them to
economist Jean Baptiste Say noted the importance of leader- interact without being directed,’’ while another team leader
ship to economic enterprise, proclaiming that entrepreneurs claimed, ‘‘you have to play cheerleader sometimes [and] you
‘‘must possess the art of supervision and administration.’’ The have to be careful not to be a dictator.’’ One team leader,
first large scale American enterprise–—the railroads–—necessi- however, summed up his role best, stating: ‘‘I have told them
tated systematic approaches for coordinating and controlling their goal is to replace me.’’
large workforces and geographically dispersed operations In summary, the early evidence on shared leadership
requiring significant investments of capital. Daniel C. McCal- demonstrates that it can have a powerful performance
lum, a leading thinker at that time, introduced six principles of impact. Nonetheless, shared leadership, we must emphasize,
management. One of the principles stated that leadership is not a replacement for leadership from above. It should only
should flow from the top to bottom and rely upon unity of be considered for situations where the tasks of the people
command. These early beginnings paved the way for the involved share a certain degree of interdependence. For
centralized top-heavy model of leadership. Later, in the early example, it seems unlikely that teams and shared leadership
1900s, scientific management further reinforced dominant would improve the performance of billing clerks entering
views on management and leadership, suggesting it flows in data or certain aspects of research and development (R&D),
one direction from the top down. In particular, it fostered such as quality assurance. Having said that, there are some
separation of responsibilities of managers and workers. Man- instances where one might want it in these circumstances as
agers were responsible for prescribing precise work protocols well, such as when one wants to redesign the workflow.
and workers were to follow the dictates of management. The Shared leadership can generally work in conjunction with
idea that subordinates could have a role in the process of more traditional, hierarchical leadership, thus giving an
leadership was largely unthinkable at the time. Today, the organization a more flexible, dynamic, robust and responsive
leadership lexicon includes transactional, visionary, and trans- leadership infrastructure.
formational leadership as seeming alternatives to replace the
more autocratic leadership dictators of early organizations. SOME CAVEATS ABOUT SHARED LEADERSHIP
Nevertheless, the notion that leadership is something that
primarily resides in a person or a relatively small set of people, All the compelling evidence aside, we do not advocate shared
and that leadership tends to flow downward remains firmly leadership as the new panacea for all organizational woes.
ensconced in the vast majority of leadership training and Clearly, there are limitations regarding the implementation
development. Frankly, this viewpoint is reinforced by media of shared leadership. There are, without a doubt, certain
that look for a simplistic story of which CEO to glorify or vilify, conditions where leadership should be centralized. More
as the case may be. directly, we believe there are situations in which shared
leadership could be harmful and should be discouraged.
SOME EVIDENCE ON SHARED LEADERSHIP Limitations to shared leadership include: (1) insufficient time
to develop shared leadership, (2) lack of openness to shared
While few teams/organizations achieve a high level of shared leadership, (3) insufficient knowledge, skills and abilities
leadership, the early evidence demonstrates that shared necessary for shared leadership, (4) goal misalignment
leadership can yield an even greater impact on team and between members of the group, (5) goal misalignment
organizational effectiveness than does the more traditional between the sub-unit and the organization.
model of hierarchical leadership alone. The research evi- For example, if members of a group do not possess the
dence comes from a wide variety of contexts, including necessary knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) required to
teams responsible for managing change in organizations lead one another effectively, it seems unlikely that shared
(e.g., implementing new protocols, procedures and work leadership would flourish. Let’s take an example from the
systems), virtual teams (e.g., geographically dispersed teams first author’s experience as a consultant. Early on in his
that primarily interact via communication technology) and career he was on a consulting team that was involved in
top management teams. In every case, the teams that the turnaround of an auto industry company in the United
demonstrated higher levels of effectiveness were those that Kingdom. When the team arrived, the organization where
engaged in higher levels of shared leadership. they were consulting was highly ‘‘siloed’’ and sequenced.
Craig L. Pearce and Henry P. Sims, Jr. examined the R&D did their thing, turned it over to manufacturing to do
leadership profiles of low and high performing teams from their thing, and marketing simply got the end product and
12 C.L. Pearce, C.L. Wassenaar

was expected to sell it. It did not work. Quality was poor and to try to refocus our volunteers on our mission. . .we lost at
the products did not match or meet customer expectations. least one volunteer over that issue.
By introducing a shared leadership, cross-functional, pro-
duct-based design the organization witnessed an eight-fold
increase in quality, soaring customer satisfaction and rising HOW SHARED LEADERSHIP FITS IN A GLOBAL
sales. It just took getting the right people in the room so that CONTEXT
they could share leadership for the appropriate goal (not
elegant design, not manufacturing efficiency, not flashy Geert Hofstede conducted a global study of national cultural
marketing programs–—not that all don’t matter–—but happy attributes and later conducted a qualitative analysis to group
customers who want to return). countries according to similarities and differences in national
One implicit assumption so far in what we have said is attributes, which he published in Organizational Dynamics in
that people tend to work together toward common goals. 1980. Pearce and Osmond reanalyzed Hofstede’s data using a
We know this is not always accurate, to say the least. For more technically sophisticated technique called Latent Class
example, temporary cross-functional task forces are often Modeling (LCM) and found significantly different groupings of
plagued with problems of members bringing ongoing inter- nations. More recently, the GLOBE study by Robert J. House
departmental feuds that are frequently operating at cross- and colleagues has provided even keener insight into the
purposes into the team. What if, for instance, you repre- roles of values and leadership in a global context. Here we
sent the vice president of marketing on the task force and use the GLOBE study as a foundation to examine how shared
he/she has given you specific ‘‘marching orders’’ regarding leadership might (or might not) work in a global context.
the desired outcome of the task force, while another There are three primary aspects of cultural values that are
person from accounting has been given similarly specific particularly relevant to the ability to implement and develop
but quite contrary ‘‘orders’’? At best, this would be unfor- shared leadership: (1) power distance orientation; (2) in-
tunate and simply delay the resolution of problems due to group collectivism orientation; and (3) assertiveness orienta-
lengthy wrangling or discussions. But the reality is that tion. Other values are clearly important but we focus on
often, even after these discussions, no resolution really these three here. To identify countries that are high versus
gets made, or a compromise is taken, sometimes out of low on each dimension we first calculated the average score
simple exhaustion of dealing with the same problem, over across all nations/groupings, then calculated the standard
and over. We all know that this is the type of scenario that deviation for each dimension and subsequently categorized a
derails teamwork efforts in all types of organizations. nation/grouping as high or low if they were one standard
According to Ahmed Joda, former Permanent Secretary deviation above/below the average. Table 1 summarizes
of Nigeria: these dimensions.
The problem with Nigeria is top-down leadership. We have
the necessary talent. We have the necessary resources. Power Distance Orientation
Yet our country has gone backward, not forward. To move
forward we desperately need to implement shared lead- The first dimension, power distance orientation, describes
ership processes right across the society. That will both the extent to which members of a culture value unequal
give us checks and balances, which we need, as well as distribution of power in their institutions and organizations.
bring our untapped talent to the fore. Countries with a high power-distance score are noted for
authoritarianism, strict order and having centralized deci-
Another implicit assumption of the thinking presented
sion-making in organizations. Countries with a low power-
thus far is that the goals of sub-units are aligned with the
distance score are noted for participative work environ-
overarching goals of the organization. Obviously, this is not
ments, egalitarianism and decentralized decision-making
always the truth. Thus, while shared leadership may make a
in organizations.
group effective in the pursuit of its own goals, this is no
Argentina, Columbia, Ecuador, Indonesia, South Korea,
guarantee that those benefits will accrue to the organization.
Spain, and Zambia scored low on power distance, while
This can even be the case for teams at the top. For example,
Albania, Bolivia, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Morocco, New Zealand,
one only need look at the increased prominence of share-
Poland, Qatar, South Africa (black sample), scored high on
holder activism in response to top management groups driv-
power distance. All others scored average on this dimension.
ing their organizations toward the pursuit of their self-serving
Clearly, implementing shared leadership in high power
enrichment (e.g., backdating options). In addition, maverick
distance contexts is more challenging than in those charac-
teams might arise whose activities undermine the overall
terized by low power distance. These challenges include: (1)
organization’s goals. Thus, the positive contribution of
Those who occupy leadership positions are less likely to want
shared leadership is limited by the extent to which the goals
to share their power, since they likely believe it is something
of any given sub-unit are aligned with the overarching orga-
they have earned and that it is their right to be the unmistak-
nizational goals. For example, Les Stocker, president of the
able leader, (2) Followers may be reluctant to engage in
Braille Institute of America indicated,
shared leadership in high power-distance contexts because
Encouraging leadership from below does have some risk. they view leadership as the sole prerogative of the appointed
For example, I recall a situation where some volunteers leader, and (3) Followers may judge a leader to be weak if he
wanted us to become involved in a new initiative, and they or she attempts to create a shared leadership approach to
secured the external funding to make it happen. However, organization. Obviously, these issues must be addressed if
to me the initiative represented ‘mission drift’ and I had shared leadership is to be effective in cultures that value high
Leadership is like fine wine 13

Table 1 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS, DEFINITIONS, AND SHARED LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS.

CULTURAL DIMENSION DEFINITION SHARED LEADERSHIP ORIENTATION

High power distance cultures are:

Authoritarian
Ordered, and Impediment
Power is centralized
Power distance Low power distance cultures are:
Participative,
Egalitarian, and Facilitator
Power is dispersed
Low collectivism cultures are:
Self-reliant,
Achievement oriented, and Impediment
Independence oriented
In-group collectivism High collectivism cultures are:
Group dependent,
Relationship oriented, and Facilitator
Loyal to in-groups
Assertive cultures are:
Aggressive
Materialistic Impediment
Competitive
Assertiveness Nonassertive cultures are:
Developmental
Facilitator
Encouragement oriented
Cooperative

power distance. Having said that, shared leadership pro- predisposed to work in teams, which are the basic organiza-
cesses can succeed in high power distance contexts. Take tional building blocks of shared leadership. People in in-group
the case of South Africa, whose transformation was based on collectivistic cultures, on the other hand, are oriented
power sharing and rallying around a common purpose. Fred around groups and predisposed to help the team/organiza-
Luthans, world-renowned expert on positivity, recently gave tion, no matter the personal cost.
an interview on the cultural dynamics of South Africa and Nonetheless, two recent studies in Switzerland–—one in
pointed to the tremendous amount of positive psychological the medical field and one in the airline industry–—demon-
capital of the country as the leverage point that saw them strate that it is possible to implement shared leadership in
through this transition. While a particular cultural dimension cultures that are not oriented toward in-group collectivism.
may be at odds with shared leadership, one needs to take into In the medical study, the researchers found that ER teams
account the totality of the culture, when considering the that shared leadership were more likely to save lives of
implementation and development of shared leadership. patients than those that did not, while in the airline study
the researchers found that flight crews that shared leader-
In-group Collectivism Orientation ship were more capable of handling emergency situations
than their more hierarchically oriented counterparts. So
The second cultural dimension we consider is in-group col- what is one to do to implement shared leadership in a culture
lectivism orientation. Cultures that have an in-group collec- that is not oriented toward in-group collectivism? The key in
tivism are noted for distinctions between in-groups and out- these situations is to only attempt to implement shared
groups where members of in-groups expect the group to take leadership when there are clear reasons for doing so. In
care of them in exchange for absolute loyalty. other words, people in such contexts will accept shared
Austria, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Kuwait, Nigeria, leadership when there are clear task-related reasons–—com-
South Africa (black sample), Switzerland, Taiwan scored low plex tasks, creative tasks, critical tasks and interconnected
on in-group collectivism, while Argentina, Colombia, El Sal- tasks, but not straightforward tasks, routine tasks, unimpor-
vador, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden tant tasks or independent tasks.
scored high on in-group collectivism. All others scored aver-
age on this dimension. Assertiveness Orientation
While in-group collectivism can facilitate the implemen-
tation of shared leadership, a lack of in-group collectivism is The third cultural dimension is assertiveness orientation.
essentially at odds with the concept of shared leadership. Assertive cultures have people who are aggressive, materi-
People in such cultures are independent and self-reliant; alistic and competitive. These groups are oriented toward
they enjoy personal freedom. Accordingly, they are not achievement of goals, at the expense of others.
14 C.L. Pearce, C.L. Wassenaar

China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, teamwork poses many challenges. It is precisely because of
Philippines, Slovenia, Zimbabwe scored high on the asser- the challenges of working in a team-based environment that
tiveness dimension, while Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Greece, we must question if our traditional models of leadership are
Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Taiwan, Turkey scored low on still appropriate. In this manuscript, we have attempted to
assertiveness. All others scored average on this dimension. clarify an alternate form of leadership–—shared leadership–—
Generally, assertive societies are at a disadvantage when that may provide insight into leadership in the age of knowl-
it comes to the development and implementation of shared edge work. Will the implementation of shared leadership be
leadership in organizations. Research has shown that teams painful? For many organizations the unfortunate answer is
that are staffed by highly assertive people tend to be dys- yes. The alternative, however, of suboptimal utilization of
functional, while teams staffed by agreeable people tend to talent and overburdened leaders is ultimately even more
come together and perform at higher levels. Assertiveness painful.
may cause individuals to vie for the position of leadership and So what advice do we have for global leaders? We have one
to be unwilling to relinquish it once they have it, which has simple piece of advice for global leaders. Practice saying the
been shown consistently in emergent leadership research. four most important words in leadership: What do you think?
While the challenge of implementing shared leadership in You will be surprised how empowering and validating these
assertive cultures is considerable, it is surmountable. Take, words are and you will be on the road to creating shared
for instance, the case of China. Recent research shows that leadership, no matter what the context. Having said that, it
even though Chinese tend to be rather assertive they can is generally not as easy as it sounds. As a smart person, you
come together and share the lead when necessary. We are used to people coming to you for answers–—and it is very
recently spoke with Zac Henson, CEO of Beijing Construction gratifying to be the fountain of knowledge. In the long run,
and Engineering Group, USA. He spends about one third of his however, this stunts the growth of others and sub-optimizes
time in China and is responsible for implementing their knowledge utilization. Thus, in order for this to work, you, as
projects in North America. Says Henson, a leader, need to realize that you need to see your role in a
somewhat new and innovative way–—you need to be a coach,
The Chinese are very assertive. That is true. However,
a listener (but not a therapist), and that you need to see
when it comes to implementing projects it is an ‘‘all hands
yourself as an environmental manager.
on deck’’ type of scenario. Individual egos are set aside to
It is your responsibility to create the environment, or
ensure that the end objective is met. Shared leadership is,
organizational context, where leadership can be shared.
in fact, the reason that we outcompete our competitors–—
Group members must trust you–—that you really mean it when
it is not an easy thing to copy. Our key to success is bringing
you say you want their ideas, insights and creativity. There-
out the leader in everyone.
fore, it is imperative that as a formal hierarchical leader you
Accordingly, it appears that the key for implementing keep your ego in check. If you remember this one simple
shared leadership in assertive societies is to focus the natural piece of advice, you might just be shocked at the outpouring
assertion onto an external target, such as competitors or of information, insight and knowledge that you glean from
market performance benchmarks and thereby facilitate the those around you.
free flow of ideas and influence internally. Are we approaching the end of the hierarchical leader-
ship? Clearly the answer is no. We do not need to choose
between hierarchical leadership and shared leadership. They
Integrating the Cultural Dimensions
are complimentary and go hand-in-hand.
Lord Acton, so long ago, advised us that power corrupts
Only one of the countries/groups examined here could be
and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are sympathetic
characterized as having an ideal environment for the imple-
with this viewpoint. We have elaborated why shared leader-
mentation of shared leadership–—low power distance, high in-
ship is critical to today’s modern global organizations. With
group collectivism orientation and a low assertiveness orien-
that said, perhaps we have gone too far. Perhaps there is a
tation (Argentina). Most countries fall in the middle on all of
role for strong centralized leadership, if it is effectively
these dimensions or had at least one of the three cultural
blended with shared leadership. Let us examine one case
factors working against it. This is not to say that shared
where strong centralized leadership has worked exceedingly
leadership should be avoided. On the contrary, it is because
well–—at Panda Restaurant Group, owner of the famous Panda
of these challenges that the organizations that effectively
Express restaurant chain, which is the largest Asian restau-
implement shared leadership, in organizationally appropri-
rant chain in the world. The organization is headed by co-
ate circumstances, will have developed a source of long term
CEOs Andrew and Peggy Cherng. They are known well for
competitive advantage. In other words, shared leadership, as
being very demanding of very high achievement, and they
Zac Henson indicated, is a source of competitive advantage
obtain it as evidenced by their financial performance. We
that is difficult for competitors to copy.
work for the Cherngs in developing their new corporate
university–—University of Panda–—so we know the organiza-
ADVICE FOR GLOBAL LEADERS tion very well.
The Cherngs are, however, a little bit different from the
We have witnessed a substantial increase in the utilization of ordinary demanding executives. Panda has many of the
teams in organizations in recent years. In large part, this typical values that one sees in many organizations. They
change is a response to an increasingly challenging business have performance goals that range from financial, to growth,
environment that requires enhanced organizational flexibil- to people development. However, what sets them apart is
ity. However, as many global leaders are quite aware, true that they model the value of ‘‘Giving.’’ The founders of Panda
Leadership is like fine wine 15

have created a culture that is a place where people are we originate, do tend to romanticize leaders. Why would we
inspired to better their lives and where they are given the not? But what we as leaders must remember is that we cannot
latitude to develop unique methods to achieve that goal. do everything that is required alone, particularly now in our
Associates at Panda are constantly encouraged to think of the increasingly complicated world. We must remember to find
communities in which they operate as a larger extension of talent, insight and skills all around us, and to learn to
their families, and to encourage any and every employee to empower, to share. . .and in so doing, succeed. According
think of how they can better their lives through learning, to Husnu Ozyegin, the self-made, and wealthiest man in
development, community involvement, and other socially Turkey, and founder of FIBA group, a company involved in
focused activities. They are motivated to discover how to many industries across Europe and the Middle East, ‘‘My
create meaning at work, both for themselves and for others. leadership philosophy is simply to hire very talented people,
It is through this meaning that Panda believes they will create and stay out of their way.’’ We think his philosophy captures
a more committed workforce, and, in turn, a more com- the essence of what it takes to implement shared leadership
mitted customer base, a necessary component to meeting successfully, no matter what the global/cultural context.
their long-term goals.
A leader is best
It is true that the Cherngs exhibit a very strong centralized
When people barely know he exists,
leadership style. However, they have chosen to use this style
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him,
to provide an actionable example that balances centraliza-
Worse when they despise him.
tion with a clear and articulated understanding that Panda
But of a good leader, who talks little,
will not achieve its lofty organizational and people develop-
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
ment goals without an extreme and completely intentional
They will say:
emphasis on shared leadership. They are unique and they are
We did it ourselves
an exemplar for organizations of the future.
— Lao-tzu, a sixth-century B.C. Chinese philosopher
The reality is that shared leadership, in almost any orga-
nizational context, is a choice. It is easy for a leader to use his
or her positional power, expertise or title to simply govern an
organization or a group. It can be truly intoxicating to be the
one to whom people look up, and we, no matter from where
16 C.L. Pearce, C.L. Wassenaar

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
For further reading on culture, please see the seminal work future research directions.’’ Journal of World Business, 47
by Geert Hofstede, Culture’s consequences: international (2012), 571—580; Carolyn M. Youssef and Fred Luthans,
differences in work-related values (Beverly Hills: Sage, ‘‘Positive Global Leadership,’’ Journal of World Business,
1980); and Geert Hofstede, ‘‘Motivation, Leadership, and 2012, 47, 539—547; David A. Waldman, Mary Sully de Luque,
Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad,’’ Organi- Nathan Washburn, Robert J. House, Bolanle Adetoun, Angel
zational Dynamics, 1980, 9 (1), 42—63. Craig L. Pearce and Barrasa, et al., ‘‘Cultural and Leadership Predictors of Cor-
Charles O. Osmond reanalyzed Hofstede’s data and published porate Social Responsibility Values of Top Management: a
the article ‘‘From Workplace Attitudes and Values to a Global GLOBE Study of 15 Countries’’, Journal of International
Pattern of Nations,’’ Journal of Management, 1999, 25 (5), Business Studies, 2006, 37, 823—837.
759—778. More recently, Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, For more reading on the concept of building high perfor-
Mansoor Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vijay Gupta wrote a mance teams and shared leadership, see Charles C. Manz,
book entitled Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The Craig L. Pearce & Henry P. Sims, Jr., ‘‘The Ins and Outs of
GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub- Leading Teams: An Overview,’’ Organizational Dynamics,
lications, 2004), which provides considerable insight into the 2009, 38 (3), 179; John Cordery, Charles Soo, Bradley Kirk-
dynamic between culture and leadership. man, Ben Rosen, & John Mathieu, ‘‘Lessons from Alcoa,’’
For more information on international perspectives on Organizational Dynamics, 2009, 38, 204—216; Deborah
leadership see: Richard M. Steers, Carlos J. Sanchez-Runde, Ancona, Hendrik Bresman, and David Caldwell, ‘‘Six Steps
and Luciara Nardon, ‘‘Leadership in a Global Context: New to Leading High-Performing X-teams. Organizational
Directions in Research and Theory Development,’’ Journal of Dynamics, 2009, 38(3), 217—224; Jean Lipman-Blumen and
World Business, 2012, 47, 479—482; Marcus W. Dickson, Hal J. Leavitt, ‘‘Beyond Typical Teams: Hot Groups and
Nathalie Castano, Asiyat Magomaeva, & Deanne N. Den Connective Leaders,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2009,
Hartog, ‘‘Conceptualizing Leadership Across Cultures,’’ Jour- 38(3), 225—233; C. L. Pearce, C. C. Manz, and H. P. Sims,
nal of World Business, 2012, 47, 483—492; Peter Dorfman, ‘‘Is Shared Leadership the Key to Team Success?’’ Organiza-
Mansoor Javidan, Paul Hanges, Dastmalchian, and Robert J. tional Dynamics, 2009, 38(3), 234—238. Finally, Craig L.
House. ‘‘GLOBE: A Twenty Year Journey Into the World of Pearce, Charles C. Manz, and Henry P. Sims, Jr. have a
Culture and Leadership,’’ Journal of World Business 2012, 47, new book entitled Share, Don’t Take the Lead (Charlotte,
504—518; Hui Wang, David A. Waldman, and Hui Zhang, NC: Information Age Publishing), from which many of the
‘‘Strategic leadership across cultures: Current findings and examples in this article were drawn.

Craig L. Pearce, Ph.D., is the director of the Deloitte Leadership Institute at Ozyegin University in Istanbul,
Turkey. His book Shared Leadership is published by Sage. His most recent book, The Drucker Difference, is
published by McGraw-Hill and has been reprinted in nine languages. His new book, Share, Don’t Take the Lead,
published by Information Age Publishing (Deloitte Leadership Institute, Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey;
e-mail: [email protected]).

Christina L. Wassenaar, is a Ph.D. candidate at the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of
Management and is the managing director of Silver Wave, LLC, a management consulting company specializing in
leadership and organizational development. Her most important current project is helping a major organization
create its own corporate university (Silver Wave, LLC, Ontario, CA, United States).