Nicolaides et al. (2014) looked at vertical leadership and shared leadership independently and found that their influence on team performance was similar; however, they found that when they are combined, shared leadership supports an incremental increase of performance outcomes in addition to the effects of vertical leadership. This finding provides promising insight into informal dispersed teams, whose members are in most cases exposed to both vertical and horizontal forms of leadership influence that come from a formally assigned hierarchical leader that is often located close to the team members, as well as a non-formal leader of the informal dispersed team.

Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2019) studied the effects of common goal orientation on teams where there is low authority differentiation and found that it is necessary for these teams to have a common goal orientation. These findings are based on the view that if members have different perspectives as to what the goal is, their efforts and strategies will not be aligned, leading to wasted energy that could be applied towards sharing and discussing information, perspectives and ideas that support task execution (Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2019; Nordbäck & Espinosa, 2019). In internationally dispersed non-formal teams, the authority that rests with the leader differs between teams based on the specific context and based on the perception of hierarchy that the team members are the non-formal leader. It can, however, be argued that there is lower authority differentiation between the members of the non-formal teams and the non-formal leader compared to teams where there are formal reporting structures in place.

In a recent study conducted in the context of globally dispersed virtual teams, Nordbäck and Espinosa (2019) found that for shared leadership to be effective in this context, there must be explicit coordination of the shared leadership behaviours and activities that are undertaken in the team. Their findings indicate that if the shared leadership activities are not formally coordinated in this context, it could lead to shared leadership having a detrimental impact on team performance as members are potentially being ‘led’ away from overarching team objectives (Nordbäck & Espinosa, 2019).

The ability to harness the collective knowledge of team members with diverse perspectives is one of the main reasons driving the establishment of internationally dispersed teams (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). Vandavasi, McConville, Uen and Yepuru (2020) found that when members of a team engage in acts of knowledge sharing, team innovation is likely to increase. They further identified that shared leadership mediates the positive impact of knowledge sharing on innovation behaviour (Vandavasi et al., 2020), providing support for the positive effects and importance of shared leadership on team and individual-level innovation.

The results from a study conducted recently by Klasmeier and Rowold (2020) showed that through building trust, and by applying transformational leadership, organisations could increase shared leadership emergence. In another study conducted by Lyndon, Pande and Navare (2020), cognitive trust was found to support the emergence of shared leadership in teams. Seshadri and Elangovan (2019) emphasise the importance of building trust in globally dispersed teams to support sharing of information between members and to achieve increased performance. The importance of trust between members of dispersed (virtual) teams is emphasised by Breuer, Hüffmeier and Hertel (2016), who found that trust has a positive influence on team performance, with this positive influence being more pronounced in virtual teams than in physical teams.

Virtuality and high dispersion are defined in terms of the extent to which members are located in different geographic locations, interactions that are primarily facilitated through electronic (virtual) means, culture and nationalities are different and time zones are different (Eisenberg et al., 2019; Hoch & Dulebohn, 2017). Zhu et al. (2018) explain that team virtuality and team connectedness positively moderate the outcomes of shared leadership. Furthermore, elements like shared mental models, team trust, team cohesion, team consensus, information sharing and coordination of roles serve as mediators between shared leadership and performance, creative and attitudinal outcomes (Zhu et al., 2018). For geographically dispersed teams, the predominantly digital interactions between team members suggest a high level of virtuality, which supports the use of shared leadership in this context. Members of dispersed teams often experience different environmental contexts such as different societal cultures and norms, which creates barriers to understanding and trusting each other, resulting in ineffective communication and collaboration (Eisenberg et al., 2019).

Individual team member characteristics that support shared leadership emergence include integrity, commitment, conscientiousness and an eagerness to learn and gain new experiences (Sweeney et al., 2019). In terms of dispersed non-formal teams, the influence of the non-formal leaders on individual characteristics is limited in the short-to-medium-term. In the medium-to-long-term, this potentially could be influenced through development programmes, sourcing and selection processes.

Team composition factors that support shared leadership emergence include higher numbers of female team members, lower average age of the team members and increased national diversity (Sweeney et al., 2019). Hoch and Dulebohn (2017) reviewed the literature on team personality composition and shared leadership in virtual teams and propose that the top five personality traits (emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness) at the team level (team personality) are positively related to shared leadership emergence.

Drescher and Garbers (2016) indicate that shared leadership emergence and its outcomes are supported by the commonality of team members, as commonality encourages ongoing interactions and communication between team members where knowledge is shared and where leadership can be exchanged. Highly diverse internationally dispersed teams could have challenges with developing a feeling of commonality.

The functional diversity (such as differences in perspectives or experiences) that was found to support shared leadership emergence (Kukenberger & D’Innocenzo, 2020) could reduce the perception of a collective identity for teams in this context, who might feel that their context is so different from the rest of the team that they cannot relate. A collective identity shared between the members of the team enables collective leadership to emerge, whilst incongruence of the values of different team members reduces team members’ participation in team activity (Drescher & Garbers, 2016).

Even in a formal leadership context, conventional leadership approaches that aim to exert direct influence over team members towards outcomes are less ineffective when members become dispersed (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016). Chiu et al. (2016) and Zhu et al. (2018) found that, in the context of a formally assigned leader, high leader humility positively influences shared leadership within a team, whilst this relationship is strengthened by the proactive personality of team members.

Sweeney et al. (2019) identified participative leadership behaviour, which is associated with empowerment, as an antecedent of shared leadership. Nicolaides et al. (2014) explained that if team members engage in shared leadership, information is shared more freely and member participation increases, which improves team effectiveness and commitment. As dispersed informal team members also have other responsibilities towards their formal co-located teams, their participation in informal team activities could be limited, depriving the team of possible valuable information and contributions. This supports the view that shared leadership could be a feasible alternative leadership approach in this context.

Empowering formal leader behaviour, such as providing members autonomy and authority to act and take decisions, encouraging within-team information exchange and providing freedom of expression, would encourage more team members to exert influence over team outcomes (Oedzes, Rink, Walter, & Van Der Vegt, 2019), and support shared leadership. Several authors who found that vertical empowering leadership (Fausing, Joensson, Lewandowski, & Bligh, 2015; Sweeney et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2018) and psychological empowerment (Grille, Schulte, & Kauffeld, 2015) increase the probability of shared leadership emergence support this notion.

What non-formal leader behaviours support increased connectedness between dispersed non-formal team members?

To answer this question, the researchers explored what team members perceive as non-formal leader behaviours that facilitate; ‘the creation of connections between team members; improved team trust; a feeling of being a collective; increased team voice; and the willingness to influence team decisions’ (Sweeney et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2018). Answering this question provides guidance to leaders on how to narrow the ‘perceived distance’ between dispersed non-formal team members to facilitate the emergence of shared leadership.

How do team members of dispersed non-formal teams perceive and react to non-formal leader humility, empowering behaviour and participative leadership by the non-formal leader?

The researchers explored how team members’ perception of non-formal leader humility influences their willingness to share in the leadership of the team (Chiu et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2018). The role that empowering behaviour and participative leadership play in influencing the team members towards shared leadership was also explored (Fausing et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2018). Each construct was studied individually in this research, as the literature suggests that these leadership approaches individually support shared leadership emergence in other contexts. Answering this question provides practical guidance to leaders about what appropriate leadership styles are to deploy in this leadership context.

What type of exchange behaviour will facilitate shared leadership emergence in dispersed non-formal teams?

To answer this question, the researchers explored the nature of leader-member-exchanges between team members and the non-formal leader that supports the propensity of team members to exert leadership and to identify what the most appropriate and effective means of exchange for shared leadership is to be achieved (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Zhu et al., 2018). Answering this question provides practical guidance to leaders on how to manage exchanges with non-formal dispersed team members to facilitate shared leadership.

By answering the research question of ‘how connectedness can be increased between internationally dispersed non-formal team members’, this study helps us gain understanding of how to facilitate shared leadership emergence in this specific context. Connectedness directly influences network density as it increases the number of influence interactions between the members of the team. This question builds on Zhu et al. (2018), who identified that team connectedness moderates the effects of shared leadership on team performance outcomes, team cohesion moderates the effects of shared leadership on team performance outcomes and team collectivism is an antecedent of shared leadership.

Considering the contextual specificity of the study, it was expected that contextual influences would emerge. The study found that the context of the formal and non-formal team, as well as the commonalities between team members, influence the connectedness of the team.

The significant contextual differences that exist ‘between co-located formal teams and internationally dispersed non-formal teams’ raise the question of whether leadership approaches that are effective in the one context have the same impact in the other. As leader humility (Chiu et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2018), empowering leadership and participative leadership (Fausing et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2018) have already been identified as antecedents of shared leadership, research question two explored how the members of non-formal dispersed teams perceive humility, empowering behaviour and participative leadership by the non-formal leader. In so doing, this question provides an understanding of possible effective leadership approaches that can be applied in this context to facilitate shared leadership emergence.

Members of non-formal dispersed teams consistently described non-formal leader humility as a highly appreciated leadership trait for a non-formal leader in this context.

As previously discussed, vertical empowering leadership has been identified as an antecedent of shared leadership in formal and co-located teams (Fausing et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2018). The results discussed in this section extend the construct of practicing empowering leadership to the context of internationally dispersed non-formal teams to support shared leadership emergence.

It was identified during the analysis of the interviews that there are specific non-formal leader behaviours that are perceived as empowering, by internationally dispersed non-formal teams.

Participative leadership is an antecedent of shared leadership (Sweeney et al., 2019). The interviews probed how to approach participative leadership in internationally dispersed non-formal teams and the elements that influence team participation in this context.

Members of internationally dispersed teams face obvious practical challenges when attempting to engage in quality exchanges with their fellow-team members. The literature supports the view that high-quality leader-member exchanges become more difficult to facilitate as dispersion increases (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Seshadri & Elangovan, 2019). The discussion of the findings of the third research question builds on the premise that high-quality exchanges between the leader and the team members increase members’ inclination to engage in leadership behaviour (Zhu et al., 2018). It also supports the idea that the number and quality of leadership exchanges between individuals define shared leadership strength (Wu & Cormican, 2016). It does this by providing a rich account of how the non-formal leader can facilitate high quality exchanges with team members in this dispersed context.

When participants were asked about what they experience as a quality leader-member exchange, the majority referred to the distinction that needs to be made between ‘formal and informal exchanges’. Most participants felt that their non-formal dispersed teams predominantly engage in formal exchanges done within a fixed schedule and with set agendas where ‘general best practice’ for running meetings should apply. Participants added that quality can be increased by introducing a balance between formal and informal exchanges.

The interviews revealed that members of non-formal dispersed teams feel that less formal exchanges are generally of higher quality, and that formal exchanges should have elements of informality to increase the quality. This can be linked to the findings of Eisenberg et al. (2019).

Participants shared how they see less formal exchanges as a means of strengthening relationships. Less formal exchanges create opportunities for team members to get to know each other to understand how individuals in the team are feeling, to support openness and to create a feeling of belonging.

The participants repeatedly made the link between the concept of informal exchange and high frequency and defined how this combination increases exchange quality. The results suggest that less formal and frequent exchanges increase pragmatism by encouraging ongoing conversation and increase connectedness by building relationships and reducing perceived distance. Members did highlight that in the specific context, frequent exchanges need to be relevant and efficient for them to maintain their value. Eisenberg et al. (2019) explain that informal unprompted communication supports team effectiveness, which supports these findings.

It is clear from the results that there is consensus that ‘physical exchanges are preferred over virtual’, and that there is a strong expectation for the leader to arrange physical engagements for non-formal dispersed teams. Physical exchanges emerged as a key element for building relationships and for reducing formality. Seshadri and Elangovan (2019), who found that a lack of physicality increases the time it takes to create trust in dispersed teams, support these findings. Virtual exchanges are perceived as risky, reducing information exchange and constructive engagement (Breuer et al., 2016).

Certain boundary conditions that need to be met for quality exchanges could be identified from the responses from the interviewed teams. A positive and solutions-oriented mind set and a friendly atmosphere are described as pre-requisites for having quality exchanges with the non-formal leader. The leader must show personal interest in how the person feels, what their strengths and weakness are and what their development goals and ambitions are. The findings emphasise that team members want to be prepared for exchanges, underpinning the importance of making sure that team members know what the expectations and objectives of a particular exchange are.

The concept of trust emerged repeatedly in all three research questions, accentuating its importance in non-formal dispersed team leadership. Within the context of exchange, trust was found to be a key enabler for high-quality engagements.

From the findings, trust and respect support team authenticity as team members are more inclined to be transparent and display their authentic selves. Achieving this trust is supported by leader humility that was discussed under research question two. Trust was further found to increase openness in the team, which in turn strengthens relationships. It was mentioned that a leader who displays openness to feedback from team members encourages openness in the team. Participants further pointed out that members will not show vulnerability if the non-formal leader is not trusted to challenge the team internally whilst defending the team in the broader organisation. The view that trust is needed for members to show vulnerability is supported by De Jong et al. (2016), who highlighted that the willingness to be vulnerable helps to use energy exerted by individuals to protect themselves against harm, more constructively to reach team objectives.

Interviewees noted that the means of exchange should be aligned with whether the exchange is seen as formal or informal. For quality formal exchanges, the findings suggest that participants cite ‘general known best practice’ for conducting meetings such as fixed time, a set agenda, clear objectives and efficient execution.

Most of the interviewees referred to elements related to the process of shaping outcomes that influence the quality of exchange. The analysis of the findings proposes that quality increases when outcomes are shaped through personalised engagements where parties collaborate (including within-team exchanges without the non-formal leader), towards inclusive outcomes. Interviewees proposed that exchanges should be personalised by adapting to the cultural differences and the individual needs of team members, as well as providing personal feedback or coaching. Eisenberg et al. (2019) also emphasise the barriers to communication and collaboration that are created by different cultures and norms, supporting the concept of personalised exchanges.

A key element of the process of shaping outcomes in internationally dispersed teams identified from the findings is within-team exchanges. Within the context described, the leader cannot effectively play the ‘middle person’ between all the exchanges of the team. The results show that the leader should create smaller teams to collaborate on specific tasks. This further indicates that members should individually engage with one another on topics of mutual interest, which will help members build on one another’s perspectives. The concept of creating smaller teams is associated with task leadership distribution, which supports shared leadership emergence (Hoegl & Muethel, 2016).

The first type of outcome that was unanimously associated with a quality exchange is definitive outcomes. These include an agreement between parties, decisions made, actions taken and the impact of outcome. The second type of outcome identified from the results is relevant knowledge sharing. These outcomes include the sharing of ideas, experience and knowledge that can be used to address the reality experienced by the team members in the day-to-day context of their work. The importance of knowledge sharing is supported by Kukenberger & D’Innocenzo (2020), Sweeney et al. (2019) and Wu & Cormican (2016). The final type of outcome that emerged from the responses is intangible outcomes. Participants noted that not all outcomes of exchanges need to be tangible, and that intangible outcomes such as getting to know each other, building stronger relationships and increasing trust could also be an outcome of a quality exchange.