Too many cooks in the kitchen? The contingent curvilinear effect of shared leadership on multidisciplinary healthcare team innovation

• Date: 01 January 2021
• Author: Brendan Boyle,Rebecca Mitchell
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12309
• Published date: 01 January 2021

Received: 5 June 2019

-

Revised: 12 April 2020

-

Accepted: 2 June 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12309

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Too many cooks in the kitchen? The contingent

curvilinear effect of shared leadership on

multidisciplinary healthcare team innovation

Rebecca Mitchell

1

|

Brendan Boyle

2

1

Macquarie Business School, Macquarie

University, Sydney, New South Wales,

Australia

2

University of Newcastle, Callaghan,

New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence

Rebecca Mitchell, Macquarie Business

School, Macquarie University, Sydney,

NSW 2109, Australia

Email: rebecca.mitchell@mq.edu.au

Abstract

Shared leadership and multidisciplinary teams are advocated

for their capacity to develop innovative solutions to impor-

tant organisational challenges. However, research suggests

that the impact of shared leadership is somewhat ambiguous,

leading us to propose a curvilinear inverted Ushaped effect

on multidisciplinary team innovation. Furthermore, we posit

that this curvilinearity is contingent on awareness of mem-

ber profession, specif‌ically the salience of professional

identity. Using a sample of 60 multidisciplinary healthcare

teams, we investigated a model in which shared leadership

has a curvilinear effect on innovation contingent on profes-

sional salience. Support for our hypotheses attempts to

account for ambiguities in the impact of shared leadership

and provides guidance for human resource management

strategies to enhance multidisciplinary team innovation.

KEYWORDS

diversity, healthcare, shared leadership, teams, teamwork

1

|

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary teams, composed of members from different disciplines with diverse expertise (Liao, O'Brien,

Jimmieson, & Restubog, 2015), are increasingly recognised and valued for their capacity to tackle complex prob-

lems that demand innovative solutions (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008; Hülsheger, Anderson, &

Salgado, 2009). Indeed, some suggest that innovation inherently happens in multidisciplinary teams because it

Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; CFI, comparative f‌it index; CI, conf‌idence interval; ICC, intraclass correlation coeff‌icient; IFI,

incremental f‌it index; M, mean; N, number; NHS, National Health Service; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SD, standard deviation;

SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TLI, Tucker Lewis index; UK, United Kingdom.

Hum Resour Manag J. 2021;31:357–373. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

-

357

358 © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Hum Resour Manag J. 2021;31:358–374.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

requires conversations between diverse and interdependent people (Edmondson, 2002), leading to the combi-

nation of different insights (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Following evidence of their capacity to develop innovative solutions to apparently intractable clinical and

service challenges, multidisciplinary teams are often advocated in healthcare policies (Borras et al., 2014; Costanza,

DiCowden, & Row, 2014; Tope & Thomas, 2007). As in other industry contexts, such teams are particularly well

suited to innovation as they facilitate interaction between members from different professions with diverse

expertise, potentially allowing the integration of different perspectives (Anderson & West, 1998; DrachZahavy &

Somech, 2001; Hülsheger et al., 2009; Sims, Hewitt, & Harris, 2015). However, despite some positive f‌indings, there

is also evidence that collaboration across professional boundaries can be impeded by the aforementioned differ-

ences in perspective, often exacerbated by the hierarchy in which healthcare professionals are deeply embedded

(Apker, Propp, & Zabava Ford, 2005; Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin, & Waring, 2012; Mitchell et al., 2015). Numerous

studies suggest that healthcare professionals may engage in conf‌lict, and interprofessional tensions may limit the

opportunity for innovative outcomes (e.g., Baldwin & Daugherty, 2008; Brown et al. 2011; Hall, 2005).

Fostering innovation is acknowledged as an important capability for effective leadezrs (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008;

Sims et al., 2015), with past studies suggesting that teams without effective leadership have reduced capacity to

innovate (West et al., 2003). Multidisciplinary teams provide a context that is likely to be especially wellsuited to a

specif‌ic type of leadership: shared leadership (Currie & Lockett, 2011; Currie & Spyridonidis, 2018), def‌ined as the

distribution of leadership, among and between members, with the aim of accomplishing shared team goals (Carson,

Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; D'Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2016). In particular, while past studies have

indicated that healthcare professionals do not respond well to authoritarian leadership (AlSawai, 2013) the efforts

towards reciprocal inf‌luence that characterise shared leadership potentially facilitate the sharing of diverse

expertise that is critical to multidisciplinary healthcare team innovation (Anderson & West, 1998; DrachZahavy &

Somech, 2001; Hülsheger et al., 2009).

Practitioner notes

What is currently known?

Multidisciplinary teams are not always successful in their efforts to innovate

Shared leadership potentially facilitates team innovation, but results are ambiguous

Practitioners are unclear how to best leverage shared leadership to enhance innovation

What this paper adds?

A new approach to understanding the impact of shared leadership through the development of a

curvilinear model

A moderating role for salience of professional identity such that, when team member profession is

salient, shared leadership enhances team innovation

Empirical data that support this contingent perspective

Implications for practitioners

A curvilinear perspective on shared leadership offers explanations for previous ambiguous effects and

ways to enhance team innovation

Practitioners can draw attention to profession in order to overcome negative shared leadership effects

Where profession is not salient, practitioners should be aware that, at high levels, shared leadership

may decrease innovation

358

-

MITCHELL

AND BOYLE

MITCHELL AND BOYLE 359